Life as a Reader

Read It First

2012-02-23T10:16:00.001-08:00

I really do always try to read the book before seeing the movie adaptation, but I don't always manage it. When I heard of Hank Green's website, Readti1st.com, I was definitely intrigued.

However, I also love to read the books on which my favorite movies are based as well. For example, The Princess Bride is both an excellent book and incredible movie. The Incredible Journey gave me a new perspective on the story of Homeward Bound, a movie I adored when I was younger.

I had read Pride and Prejudice twice before I saw any film adaptation for it, and I was surprised at how nicely the story (which covers a year's worth of time in the books) flowed in the version starring Keira Knightley and Matthew Macfadyen. That wasn't something I'd come to expect from similar books turned into movies - the Harry Potter series of course being my prime example from my childhood. Harry Potter similarly covers a year in each film, but I don't think their coverage of time is very well-done. They tried to do too much, I think. Important scenes ended up rushed (with the exception of the last 3 movies, in my opinion).

Anyway, while a lot of people don't like the idea of books being turned into movies, I think it's a great thing. We have these two wonderful media for storytelling, along with TV, in our culture. Why not explore what happens when you tell the same story in different ways? I think that most people are disappointed with B2M's is that they don't get that what works for a book isn't necessarily what works to make a great movie. An author might go into intense detail describing scenery or the look in someone's eye, but a film maker can't do the same thing with actors and cameras, unless they've got a narrator talking non-stop over the action. Changes have to be made, because someone else is telling the story now, and a new storyteller always makes it into a new story.

That brings me to the other great thing about B2M's, that is, it's essentially an extension of a long-standing fact about storytelling: every story has already been told before. The story of the hero who discovers he is destined to save the world for a great force of evil is nothing new, nor is the story of a long journey home, or a love story in which one partner is utterly mistaken in the character of the other. In taking up the task of retelling a story one has already heard, one must take ownership of that story. It is the storyteller who gives the story life, and if one doesn't claim the story one is telling, the story is dead, simply a photocopy lacking in depth and color.

When I hear that a book I love is being turned into a movie, a part of me does take on the character of the cynical critic, saying, "well let's see what you've made of your pathetic little attempt at telling this great story," but it's not the dominant voice anymore. Now, I look at it as a chance to connect with another fan, to see how they've envisioned this story in their minds. It's like getting to experience all the excitement of the first time reading that book all over again, thinking, "oh, what's going to happen next?!" because, you know, I can't be sure. Someone else is telling the story now, and maybe they imagined some wonderful new thing happening in the background of the story this whole time, or some fascinating back story for a character, or something else tacked onto the original ending. Maybe I'll find out more about what happens to my favorite character. Or maybe I'll hate the whole thing, because you know, just loving the story doesn't make them a great filmmaker. But that's okay too. I can handle being disappointed. That is, after all, the risk we always take when we let ourselves be taken into another person's story. Of course there is always risk when it comes to other people, but other people are also the best reason to take those risks.

peace.

Lent Challenge: Forty Positive Posts

2012-02-22T11:57:00.000-08:00

I'm sure many of you noticed that a lot of my posts tend to be ... not so nice. Snarky, angry, sarcastic, etc. Mostly, it's because positive things are easy to say in real life, but when something really gets me angry, it's difficult, and not always appropriate, to get my feelings and my opinions out in person. That's why I post here most of the time. However, I've been dissatisfied with the constant negative tone of my blog for a while, so this will be my Lent challenge. I am going to post at least once a day, and each post has to be POSITIVE. No angry rants, no argumentative essays (unless they're in defense of the awesomeness of someone I like or something), no snark. Oh god, no snark? This is going to be a challenge.

I've been inspired a lot by the Vlogbrothers, whose mission is to decrease worldsuck and increase the awesome. I've always sort of been a "fight the bad stuff" kind of person - trying to decrease worldsuck, which is a great goal. However, I realized through my introduction to Nerdfighteria that really getting excited about the awesome and focusing on the awesome is just as good of a thing to do as is fighting worldsuck. So here comes the AWESOME!

To do this, I think I'm going to need your help. Everyone, please post some topic ideas in the comments. They can be broad (family, love, books) or specific (favorite holiday, something great about Husband, great desserts). The topics can be serious (freedom, democracy, education) or fluffy (babies are cute, chocolate makes the world a better place). Just please give me ideas! Several topics apiece would be fantastic!

Thanks in advance for your help!

peace.

The Nice White Lady

2012-02-18T20:34:00.000-08:00

It's such a completely played-out movie trope, I can hardly believe people still make them, but not only is it still happening, this shit is actually winning a lot of awards. Freedom Writers, The Blind Side, The Help, etc. Essentially, in order to get white people to care about a story about minorities' history or race relations, you have to make it about the white person in the story. And, as it turns out, the production of works like The Help can often result from white people taking advantage of minorities in the first place.

This is one reason why, when I learned of the premise of The Help, I wasn't much interested in reading it. Because yet again, it's about how heroic and awesome that nice white lady is to reach out to those poor downtrodden minorities, and not about how it really shouldn't be such a huge freaking deal for people of different races to hang out together. It's not heroic or brave; it's just being a decent human being. When we characterize it as awesome and brave and heroic, it's really just an excuse to pat ourselves on the back while not actually doing anything about the real race issues still facing our culture today. Like if a man thinks he's a feminist hero because he doesn't demand an accounting of all his wife's purchases every week. So not only is this making heroes out of people behaving somewhat decently, it leaves you with the feeling that we've conquered all race problems in this country and it really isn't an issue anymore. Look at almost any important political issue today, whether it's immigration or terrorism or health care reform, and you can bet that there is an aspect of it that connects to racial prejudice. We're not done yet.

These Nice White Lady films are not improving race relations in this country; they're making white people believe that race isn't an issue anymore, which means that they don't think they need to do anything about racism or race relations, and that is a big problem.

peace.

Politicians Eating Hotdogs

2012-02-17T12:47:00.000-08:00

This was originally supposed to be a discussion of whether straight guys sometimes tried to eat hotdogs a certain way so as to not look like they were performing fellatio on the hotdog, but it turned into this, because it's just funny. So much for my insightful social commentary. Oh well.

peace.

NOM: Five Victories That Aren't Really Victories!

2012-02-16T15:38:00.000-08:00

I got an email from NOM today, and it told me that the mainstream media is apparently hiding some very serious anti-gay victories, but don't worry, Brian Brown is here to make sure I know about it! Then I read the email. Brian apparently doesn't know that you can't just put numbers in front of words and call that a list of victories; you actually have to be victorious in some concrete way in order for it to be called a victory. Let me share with you what Brian thinks are 5 victories, but which is actually 1 victory and 4 things that probably sounded way better in Brian's head.

Click to Enlarge

1. Somebody filed some paperwork in Washington for a ballot initiative against marriage equality. That paperwork hasn't been approved, so they don't even have any signatures yet. What he is calling a victory is the equivalent of a race car driver picking up his keys, the significant part of that analogy being that he hasn't won anything or even participated in the race yet. This is not an accomplishment.

2. Pro-equality NJ politicians apparently don't have enough votes to override the governor's promised veto. This, I will concede, can be called an accomplishment, but it's still sort of similar to #1, in that neither the veto nor the override vote have actually taken place yet. This is just lead-up.

3. 1 person in Maryland has said that he'll vote no on marriage equality, and one gay person in Maryland says marriage is between a man and a woman. Way to go Brian, two whole people agree with you! VICTORY!! [While the heading says "The black church in Maryland stands up for marriage!," neither of the stories in the details of #3 mention the black church, probably because a heading that says "Two people in Maryland agree with us!" isn't as encouraging.]

4. "Will the New Hampshire legislature repeal gay marriage?" No joke. Victory #4 is a question, not an announcement of any sort of accomplishment. Brian also thinks it's awesome that what he says himself is "not a scientific poll" appears to show support for the repeal of marriage equality in New Hampshire. Win?

5. "A new marriage amendment in May for North Carolina?" Not only is it a question and not a statement of a concrete accomplishment, it's also not even a sentence. Bravo Brian, bravo.

I also want to point out that Brian keeps implying that the only reason marriage equality legislation happens at all anywhere in the United States is because a small number of really rich people put pressure on politicians to do it. I find this ironic, considering the fact that the majority of NOM's funding comes from like five really rich people.

There you go people, 1 kind of victory and 4 things that convince no one but Brian Brown that marriage equality is going away any time soon.

peace.

You Have Not Been "Friendzoned;" You Have A Friend Who Doesn't Want to Date You

2012-02-16T14:49:00.000-08:00

Use of the term "friend zone" as either a noun or verb is offensive and stupid. First, it's stupid, because it seems to be saying that if a man is nice to a woman it automatically should result in a romantic relationship, as if a male person being nice and friendly toward a female person somehow means she *owes* him romantic involvement, or as if being nice and friendly is the one universal thing that makes a man attractive to all women, and if she doesn't show romantic interest in him, she's doing it on purpose, just because.

Yes, that's right, this is literally the stigmatization of a woman choosing not to have a relationship with a man, whether she's attracted to him or not, whether she actually perceives him to be nice or not (by that I mean, it says that if the man in this situation thinks he's being nice, that's all that matters, regardless of the woman's opinion). It makes it a malicious and cruel act on her part to either not be attracted to a man or to not act on those feelings, that is, exercising her right as a human being to determine for herself what she will do with her own life and her own time and her own body.

"Friend zone" makes it a crime for a woman to simply want a friendship with another human being, for whatever reason, whether she has been hurt by men in the past and has difficulty putting herself out there again, or because she doesn't have time for a relationship right now, or because she doesn't feel that she personally is emotionally mature enough for a relationship, or that she isn't attracted to this guy, or any of a million other personal and private factors that contribute to the way a person navigates the world of human relationships.

Now, if a man sincerely believes that he's being taken advantage of, strung along, used, etc. then by all means he should stop letting that person do that to him. No one is under any obligation to allow other people to use or hurt them. If a man really wants a relationship with a woman, because he enjoys being with her and finds her attractive and thinks that this friendship would be even better if kissing and dates were involved, then he should freaking say something about it. If she says, "yes," then cool. If she says, "no," she has a right to do that, and he can either choose to remain friends or he can stop being friends, and that is his choice.

What's really disturbing about the idea of the "friend zone" is that it minimizes and even maligns the value of non-romantic love and friendship, as if being someone's friend is a terrible thing, and being someone's "boyfriend" is the only way for a woman to show she values you. I know that it's hard when you want a romantic relationship with someone very badly, and they don't feel the same way, but you can't stand the idea of not having a relationship with them at all, and you really don't want to give up hope that maybe some day she'll change her mind. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that essentially calling her a soul-sucking harpy who doesn't appreciate you (by saying you've been "friendzoned") will not greatly improve your chances at winning her heart.

peace.

The Valentine's Day Post

2012-02-14T09:41:00.000-08:00

Today's Valentine's Day post comes to you in three parts.

Part I - Google does not get love.

If you haven't watched Google's Valentine's Day short, well, you can if you want to get when I'm saying here, but on the other hand it got me a little upset. It features a little boy trying to win over a little girl. The little girl is perpetually skipping rope, as the boy brings her a flower, chocolates, etc. She ignores him and continues skipping rope. Finally, the boy walks up with his own jump rope and starts skipping rope himself. The little girl is apparently deeply moved, stops skipping rope in order to embrace him, and then they skip rope together with the same rope.

What did I get out of this? Google posits that love is not about material gifts (good!), but about ... changing your lifestyle/interests/who you are to fit into the life of your beloved? No Google, just -- no.

Secondly, the its whole premise is that it's the woo-er's job to just guess what his crush wants, and if he (yes indeed, stereotypical gender roles/norms are reinforced, i.e. "man chases woman") shows some sign of just intuitively knowing what she really wants, that means it must be true love!

Part II - St. Valentine

Did you know that the development of the custom of using Valentine's Day to send love letters or make love matches had nothing to do with the legend that St. Valentine was arrested for marrying people illegally? One of the earliest references to the lovey-dovey customs is in Chaucer's Parliament of Foules, and we are basically told that people in the Middle Ages thought that the pursuit of love was appropriate on February 14th, because (they thought) that's when all the birds started pairing up with mates.

St. Valentine's biography of being persecuted for marrying Christians illegally was most likely invented to fit into previously-existing customs of sending love notes, etc. This legend appeared late in the 15th century, well after people had started celebrating St. Valentine's Day with expressions of love, marriage proposals, etc.

While St. Valentine's Day does coincide with the pagan festival of Lupercalia, it is unlikely that the holiday fell victim to the machinations of the Christian church in the way that other pagan holidays usually did. As suggested above, the hubbub of lovey customs developed without any connection to the Christian Saint's day; it was simply coincidence.

Part III - Black History Month

I apologize for doing nothing so far in the way of celebrating Black History Month, but today at least I want to mention that February 14th is not just a day about love, but other important things have happened on this day relevant to all Americans, not just African-Americans.

February 14th, 1867, just two years after the end of the Civil War, the Augusta Institute (now Morehouse College) was established by a Baptist minister (William Jefferson White) with the support of a former slave (Rev. Richard C. Coulter) and the head of an organization dedicated to educating freed (male) slaves (Rev. Edmund Turney). Its first president was the guy who gave us Robert's Rules of Order, which has little to do with civil rights, but a lot to do with why meetings take an awful long time. Anyway, this is mostly important because a lot of famous and influential people attended Augusta/Morehouse, including Martin Luther King, Jr., Samuel L. Jackson, Spike Lee, Walter E. Massey, and many others.

While Frederick Douglass's actual birthday is unknown (the best guess is that he was born in February of 1818), his birthday is usually celebrated around this time of the month (this year, it was on the 11th). Douglass was an effective proponent of the abolitionist movement, mostly because of his great skills as an orator and writer, and because of his intimate knowledge of slavery, having himself escaped from slavery. Douglass was an advocate for, among other things, suffrage for freed slaves and women, the education of freed slaves and the desegregation of schools, and women's equality. Douglass is quoted as saying, "A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. Let no man be kept from the ballot box because of his color. Let no woman be kept from the ballot box because of her sex."

In addition, on February 14th, 1965, Malcom X's house was bombed, a week before he was assassinated. On February 14th, 1957, The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which would be headed by Martin Luther King, Jr. was established.

Happy Valentine's Day everyone! If you aren't celebrating anything today, I still hope you have a wonderful day!!

peace.

Check Your Breasts for Gummy Worms and Other Things

2012-02-13T23:54:00.000-08:00

This past October, I was in the shower (yeah, feel free to fantasize about that) and I felt something in my left breast. Because I live in this country and this culture, the vernacular told me it was a "lump." It was different from the surrounding tissue and it hurt. I'm a little embarrassed to say that I didn't find it during a regular self breast exam, just while I was washing up and noticed a lot of pain when I ran the soap over my side-boob. Anyway, after a night of sobbing and terror, the next morning I immediately scheduled my overdue yearly checkup with my midwife, at which I pointed out the "lump," and she immediately wanted me scheduled for a mammogram and an ultrasound. The ultrasound was first, and the tech actually called them (it wasn't just one mass of stuff, contrary to my initial not-at-all-expert opinion) cysts, which was incredibly comforting. After that was the mammogram, in which I lost count of the number of times I was told, "okay, now I'm going to collect the tissue" (which translates to, "I'm going to grab your boob and hold it against this machine now").

The results? Harmless cysts! Epic w00t!

Anyway, after the pain in my side-boob subsided I can now more clearly feel the shape and consistency of the cyst, and it feels exactly like there's a gummy worm in my left boob. I'm not joking.

So friends, I cannot more adamantly encourage you (all of you, men too!) to check your breasts for gummy worms and other delicious candies! Need help? PinkBraApp has a great playlist of how-to videos (cartoon boobs, in case you were wondering).

Also, there's this:

Finally, here are a few ways to prevent breast cancer:

1. As much as humanly possible, take off your bra!
2. Breastfeeding: not everyone can (especially because not everyone is going to give birth at all), but if you can, do it.
3. Don't smoke.
4. If you can, spend a few hours in the sun a day.
5. Limit alcohol consumption.
6. If you can't eat a super-nutritional diet, take a food-source vitamin.

peace.

Marriage Equality in the USA

2012-02-13T11:43:00.000-08:00

Washington State recently passed a Marriage Equality bill, and New Jersey is well on its way too, with its own equality bill recently passing the State Senate. Illinois and Maryland have both introduced marriage equality legislation, and Prop 8 (California) has been struck down as unconstitutional for a second time. There is also a ballot initiative for marriage equality in Maine. I'm not a fan of ballot initiatives on marriage either way - I don't think it's constitutional or right to vote on people's rights, and I'm not sure a ballot initiative would stand up as well as a bill in the legislature. But that's just me.

States/areas with equal marriage (7 states and 1 district):

Connecticut
Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, Washington, Washington, D.C. (I know it's not a state, but it's important)

Where we can hope for equal marriage soon (5 states):

California, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey

Where we have a lot of work to do (30 states):

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina
South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virgina, Wisconsin, Wyoming

peace.

Book Review: The Fault in Our Stars

2012-02-11T20:37:00.000-08:00

I'm sorry I'm probably going to disappoint you here, but I don't think I can do a serious review of The Fault in Our Stars, because I am now entirely too biased to look at it literarily (maybe I'll update it some time).

I do have to say that I read most of it in John Green's voice, because why wouldn't you?

I thought his way of writing dialogue, as if it were an IM conversation, helps drive the dialogue at a natural pace, because it's not cluttered up with a lot of "she said" and "he said" descriptive dialogue tags. Nothing against dialogue tags, but Green's method is also appealing.

The book obviously was compelling to me, because I finished it in about a day. I also found it to be very real, though not necessarily realistic.

Yes, it's one of those books. I feel the need to post an amazon link to the book on all my friends' facebook pages because you just have to read it! Uuugh this is so unscholarly of me! Please don't judge.

I'm in a glass case of emotion!

peace.

Surprising Information about Trauma in Very Young Children

2012-02-11T10:25:00.000-08:00

I will never, never, never sit by and allow my children to experience this if I can help it.

I am so happy I learned to express my anger and sadness and other negative emotions without violence or aggression.

I am so relieved to know that I can heal.

peace.

The Fault in Our Stars: Cancer is Not Romantic

2012-02-10T21:35:00.000-08:00

I don't know about you, but when I was in like sixth grade, the book series that was all the rage for girls in my class were those by Lurlene McDaniel. The cancer books. They were always these cry-your-eyes-out novels about teenagers with cancer, falling in love and dying and having one last wish and all that. Cheesy and corny mated, and this was their babies. I don't remember a whole lot about the plots of these books. I remember one with a cancer camp, where people did this thing with the bonfire ashes,¹ one where a girl married a guy in a wheelchair in which he felt emasculated by said wheelchair-boundedness, and one where an adopted teenager tracks down her birth mother in hopes of getting a bone marrow transplant from a hypothetical sibling. I read several of these books, and I can only remember faint details of plot, and the only theme I can really remember is the impression of the nobility of those who undergo treatment for and/or die from cancer.

I am halfway through John Green's The Fault in Our Stars, and what I have to say is that Lurlene McDaniel, while her books may be of great comfort and help to some people, is absolutely the author of what protagonist Hazel Grace Lancaster calls "cancer books." Green's novel has helped me come to a realization.² I say "helped," because really, this isn't just about the book. It's about the countless people I love who have suffered from this disease and the people who love them too. So, here it is: there's nothing romantically heroic about fighting cancer. There's no heroic or weak or brave or cowardly with cancer. There is no bravely fighting or heroically fighting or being strong or weak. There can't be. In fighting cancer, there is only the enduring will to live. Because, what we're talking about, when we refer to someone "fighting cancer," is a doctor comes to you and says, "We need to inject this poison into your body," or "We want to bombard your cells with waves of radiation." And if you decide to fight, you say yes, you or your parents sign a form, and you let those doctors torture you with their medicine. Then, you suffer, oftentimes causing you to think that death wouldn't be so bad. No, that is not heroic, because if a child who is "fighting cancer" screams and cries and begs for it the pain to stop, you would not dare call them a coward, nor would you call a grown adult "weak" for reacting the same way. That's how human beings of all ages respond to unimaginable pain and suffering, and you would not call them weak or cowardly if they simply wished to die either. I've been there, in that place where death doesn't look so bad, and I haven't been through chemo or radiation or felt the despair of a failed treatment. I get that feeling. I lose no respect for people who feel that way.

The cancer ward is not the home of romanticized epic heroes, far removed from the grit and torment of real human feelings. No, it is the home of people, human beings, just like you and me, who grumble when they feel pain or throw up or can't breathe, or not, who are afraid of death, or not, who are enraged at what they have lost to cancer, or not, but most importantly, who are more than just cancer patients. They are people: conservatives and liberals, pro-life and pro-choice, kind people and mean people, funny people and boring people, sports fans and nerds and intellectuals and musicians, who are not defined by the illness that has unfairly taken over their lives.

The point is, wanting to live is not necessarily heroic, though it might often appear so to we-who-do-not-have-cancer. I guess when we contemplate the idea of a person we think we can't live without dying, we want to believe that they have something other people don't, that they have more strength or courage or something than us that will mean that person who is monumentally important to us won't leave us alone in the world without them. I don't blame people for wanting to romanticize the idea of fighting cancer, wanting to minimize the personal impact of the utter destruction cancer can wreak on a person's life. I don't blame people, who have no idea how to behave around someone whose hold on life is tenuous at best, for blurting out cliche words of encouragement. Even when you're not the one with the tumors, dealing with cancer is ridiculously hard, and I am in no position to tell other people how to cope. I just hope that people are sensitive to the fact that people with cancer are not "other," their troubles are not so foreign to those-who-do-not-have-cancer, and that they are individuals, who will not all want to be treated in the exact same way, whether that means hyper-sensitivity to all mention of the disease or constant morbid sarcasm concerning their fate and possible demise. People with cancer are still just people. Treat them as such.

peace.

For my dad, who prays the rosary every day and has a massive collection of baseball caps, and who survived prostate cancer.
For my former boss, who runs a pharmacy with her husband and is a huge Iowa fan, and who survived breast cancer (twice).
For my cousin's daughter, who was a princess, and who died of a brain tumor.
For my grandpa, who went for a walk every single day of his life, into his 90's, until he died of leukemia.
For my sister's classmate, who loved the Steelers and running track, and who died of lung cancer.
For my former coworker, who got in a nerf ball fight with me at work and was studying massage therapy, and who died of cancer.
For another former coworker, who planned her grandchildren's visits to the minute, and who died of cancer.
And for many more I cannot list here.

¹ The camp had a big bonfire where the campers and counselors would take some of the ashes home with them when they left, and dumped those ashes back into the fire pit the next year when they returned. If someone died before the next year, their campfire ashes were given to another camper/counselor who dumped those ashes into the fire pit on behalf of the deceased.

² Here I want to point out that I am/have been close with people who have been diagnosed with, been treated for, survived, and died of cancer. Although I have never had the disease, I am in some ways at risk for it and have experienced more than the average number of diagnostic tests to find out if my abnormalities are in fact cancer. I know cancer, at least enough to say what I'm about to say. It's close enough to home that I am continuously on the verge of tears writing this.

Book Review: Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism

2012-02-08T16:26:00.000-08:00

It took forever to read! Lots of information I already had, which doesn't make it a page-turner for me, but if you don't know much about the beginnings of Mormonism, you might get a different result.

Before the critique, here's a little outline. Bushman begins with a great deal of background into the history of Joseph Smith, Jr.'s maternal and paternal families, which I found incredibly helpful and interesting. Next is a discussion of the visionary experiences of both Joseph Smith, Jr. and other family members of his, and the accounts of the translation of The Book of Mormon. After that is a discussion of The Book of Mormon itself, which included an apologetic response to some of the main theories as to how Joseph Smith, Jr. could have written the book himself. I thought Bushman did a good job suggesting alternative possibilities, but I think he sees his arguments as more airtight then they are. For instance, just because View of the Hebrews differs from The Book of Mormon's narrative doesn't mean that Joseph Smith, Jr. couldn't have been inspired by such ideas. After this is a discussion of how the LDS church was organized, and finally there is a concluding chapter discussing Mormonism's relationship to other Restorationist movements, and why it is unlikely that Joseph Smith, Jr. got any ideas from any of those other groups. Now, on to the review.

First off, I want to encourage Richard L. Bushman to rethink his comma usage habits. I know it's not technically necessary to always use a comma to separate an introductory clause, but Bushman's choice to not use that comma contributed to my taking so damn long on this book, because I was often confused by his sentences. That's really the only style comment I have for this one, which is saying something. I can be kind of a snob on these things. Oh, but he calls it "Revelations" instead of "Revelation." Boo.

I also had a problem with the way Bushman would often phrase his reporting of the different accounts of what happened all those years ago (cue creepy flashback music). For instance, I found that he would often say that Joseph Smith, Jr.'s* detractors "claimed" that such and such happened, whereas when he was reporting a pro-Joseph or pro-Mormon account, he would just say that's what happened. For instance, he would say "Joseph had a vision with an angel," but also says that "an excommunicated Mormon apostate named Philastus Hurlbut collected affidavits in Palmyra and Manchester from people who claimed to remember the Smith family" (70). Notice how he has to point out that Hurlbut was "excommunicated" and "apostate," and that his witnesses sworn documents are "claimed," while pro-Mormon sources are simply recorded as fact.

There is also a problem of Bushman trying to explain away problems with the credibility of Joseph's claims of visions, saying basically that the reason there are different versions of the First Vision is that, as time went on, Joseph understood the vision in different ways. At first he simply saw it as a message of personal salvation, while later he understood it as his first call to a great mission for God (58). I take issue with this because, a change in what role he saw this vision taking in his personal narrative does not explain the vastly different descriptions of this vision in the different versions. Whether or not it's about personal salvation or "the opening event in a new dispensation of the Gospel" (58) would not logically affect your memory of how many supernatural beings appeared to you, who they were, and what they said to you. Similarly, when different Mormon sources report, for instance, different reasons why exactly Martin Harris went to New York with a sample of reformed Egyptian characters, he basically says, "eh, we're not sure about that" (86). Meanwhile, if a detractor changes their story, or if several detractors' stories don't match up, a great deal of emphasis is placed on the discrepancies, and it is implied that this is evidence that they cannot be trusted as credible sources of facts. For instance, Bushman makes a point to state that Anthon "contradicts himself on an important detail" (87). I would think that whether a person see a bunch of angels or God the Father and Jesus Christ is rather an important detail, but Bushman doesn't even mention the drastic ways in which the versions of the First Vision differ.

Later, when discussing the accounts of people near Joseph about whether or not he could have written the Book of Mormon on his own, he presents as evidence that Emma Hale Smith told her son, Joseph Smith III, that his father could not have "written the manuscript beforehand or memorized what he dictated" (96). However, Hale Smith also told Joseph III that his father was not the author of Mormon polygamy, when it is clear that she knew very well that her husband was married to several other women, and that he introduced the doctrine to the church. This is a woman talking about the man she loved, the father of her children, who was dead. It is easy to understand that she did not want his legacy tainted in the minds of her children. It's fine to report what she said about Joseph's translating, but Bushman presents it as settling the matter.

Don't get me wrong; I'm glad I read this book. Understanding that the author is working under the assumption of the validity of the truth claims of the LDS church allowed me to maintain that health level of skepticism that I admit I don't always have when I'm reading non-fiction. I did not let my disappointment cause me to reject or disdain everything in the book, however, and was surprised to learn several new things about the social and religious climate surrounding Joseph Smith, Jr. during the rise of Mormonism. For instance, Bushman gives some simple but insightful background to the organization of the LDS church, demonstrating why it's interesting that Mormonism took on a model that was neither congregational nor episcopal, and not based on close reading of the New Testament, but rather drawing authority in a unique way, through the revelations of a prophetic leader.

Overall, I deem this book worth reading. In general I see any faithful perspective book on Mormonism as worth reading, because, whatever their faults, they contain valuable insights into the collective consciousness of the Mormon community. I love that.

peace.

* I really wish we could call him Joseph Smith II because I hate that extra comma in there, especially considering the number of times Joseph is mentioned in a list of other people using serial commas. So. Many. Commas.

Understanding the Prop 8 Ruling: David Boies vs. NOM Chairman

2012-02-08T13:22:00.000-08:00

peace.

Today's Rage-Mail from NOM

2012-02-08T12:01:00.000-08:00

Yes, it's emails like these that lead me to believe that either 1) NOM doesn't know the definition of simple words like "marriage" and "constitution," or 2) thinks that their supporters are too stupid to know the difference, and is lying on purpose to get them riled up.

(click to enlarge)

Do they really think they can get away with this lie? Seriously, this email is blatantly stating that yesterday's court decision says that marriage is unconstitutional! No, you supreme dipshit of the century, that is not what it says. It says that it's unconstitutional to give someone a right and then take it away in order to make that group inferior. California gave LGBT people the right to marry, and then they tried to take it away. That's a no-no, so sayeth the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

NOM is trying to make it look like marriage equality = the end of all marriage, that if marriage isn't strictly defined the way they want it defined, then it means nothing and it is destroyed. They are not just twisting facts and giving misleading interpretations at this point; they are telling lies. That shouldn't surprise anyone of course, just look at the campaign materials that were disseminated in California to get people to vote for Prop 8 in the first place. They told plenty of lies about gay people and the "consequences" of marriage equality then, and they're doing it again today. They're liars. That's what they do, because they don't actually have any facts to back up their bigotry and hate.

I assure you, yesterday's court ruling means nothing except that gay people might be able to get married in California again at some point in the future.

peace.

My Wife, the 3 Year Old

2012-02-07T20:29:00.000-08:00

Something I simply cannot stand is the image of a man afraid to answer a question from or disagree with the woman he's married to/dating/sleeping with. Because you know, women are all ridiculously insecure toddlers, who cannot handle being disagreed with or told a difficult truth or having a serious conversation with another adult.

I'm not saying men should just say "yes dear, that dress makes you look totally fat," but the idea that all hetero men live in terror thinking they're going to do or say the wrong thing and end up in the doghouse is painfully offensive. Not only is it insulting to suggest that women can't handle a difficult conversation, but it's also sickening to make a joke out of a woman expecting a man to take personal responsibility for her self-image, self-esteem, self-confidence, etc., and treating men as a servant to the female ego (or vice versa).

You don't have to be brutally honest to avoid this, but an adult, any adult, should be able to hear "I think you should try a larger size" without punishing their significant other with words or through withholding sex. An adult should be able to handle their significant other respectfully disagreeing with them, they should be able to hear their significant other respectfully tell them when they do something wrong.

I just hate to see a situation (usually in movies, TV, or commercials) where a person (it could be male or female, to be honest) say that they can't speak to their significant other about something because they don't want to get in trouble, get put in the doghouse, be denied sex, or suffer any other consequences within the relationship. It's so fucking disrespectful to both partners.

peace.

Prop 8 Ruled Unconstitutional Again Today

2012-02-07T10:03:00.000-08:00

Another victory in the equality movement: Prop 8 was again ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It may still move on to be ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court, but today's victory is incredibly encouraging.

Read the full ruling here.

CBS News
The Washington Post
Chicago Sun-Times
Bay Windows
San Francisco Chronicle
Huffington Post
Reuters
NPR
BBC News
Newsday
Globe and Mail
The Guardian
The Wall Street Journal
The Vancouver Sun

Could a Supreme Court ruling against Prop 8 strike down all state constitutional amendments against marriage equality?

peace.

Facebook's War on Breastfeeding Photos

2012-02-04T10:40:00.000-08:00

Like Guggie Daly, people keep getting their facebook accounts suspended or deleted simply for posting breastfeeding photos.

It's a nonsensical policy. A woman's right to breastfeed in public is protected by law in most states in the US and in several other countries. It does not make sense to enforce a policy that is so radically different than the common definition of obscenity in the law.

While facebook is a free service, we who use it are consumers, they are making money from our use of the product, and we have a right to speak up about what we want from facebook.

The fact is, when images of breastfeeding are deemed "obscene" and stigmatized in this way, it discourages women from breastfeeding by contributing to a cultural perspective that says breastfeeding should never be done in front of other people. People need to see breastfeeding in order to combat the shaming and stigmatization that discourages it. When women feel that they have to hide in order to breastfeed, that breastfeeding means isolation, they are less likely to do it. Breastfeeding is incredibly important to the health of women and their children, as you can see in the posts I've written and articles I've linked to about it in the past. A quick online search on the health benefits of breastfeeding demonstrates the necessity for women to feel that their choice to breastfeed is acceptable.

Women are even being deleted/suspended simply for sharing notes on their walls, such as this one, which includes an embedded breastfeeding photo. It is terrible to think that one might be penalized simply for sharing an image of something that, for them, is so common and natural they wouldn't think twice before sharing it with their friends and family on facebook.

Protest events have been organized for London, Dublin, Australia, and several other locations in the United States and around the world. Websites have been set up to document the photos that have been removed. Jodine Chase keeps a running tab on her blog tracking the suspensions and deletions.

If you want to help change facebook's policy toward breastfeeding photos, please like the page to learn more about what you can do.

peace.

Rape Myths

2012-02-03T12:12:00.001-08:00

Source.

peace.

Mids

2012-02-02T19:32:00.000-08:00

On my walk to work today I thought of no less than TWO great things to blog about, but I have completely forgotten them! But maybe if I just start writing, some or all of that will come back to me.

Next week I will be 24 years old. That's right friends, as my college classmates tell me, I will have entered the "mids." Where did I think I would be by my mid-twenties? Well, not married and living in [undisclosed location], that's for sure. I don't know how many times I've mentioned this, but if you didn't know already, I was sure I was bound for nun-ism when I started college. I was thoroughly unconvinced of my ability to care for myself and do basic things like pay bills. Also, I was convinced that my body was the most horrid thing to ever walk the face of the earth. Anyway, I'm looking forward to this birthday, because at my job, we have a party for everybody's birthday. Free food tomorrow! Also, husband god me a mystery gift that he's sure I'll like but which he did not get from one of my wish lists, and that has me intrigued.

While I dislike the cold a great deal, there are a couple things I like about winter. One is that the snow makes everything more interesting. A walk outside, while in summer can be rather monotonous, turns every single person into an amateur detective: "Three people walked by here; one of them ... was a child." "Wow, somebody was walking an enormous dog today!" "It's been snowing all day, but these footprints are very clear; they were made recently!" You also become much more aware of the wildlife around you, with all the footprints they leave. This is a big reason I love snow.

Husband and I have started watching a great TV show on Netflix: United States of Tara. We love it.

My friend has me watching a video blog on YouTube by John and Hank Green. I keep seeing references to John on Tumblr; apparently his books rock. So, I decided to give his vlog a try because of a video in which he says "I'm gonna replace all the curse words with British romantic poets." I'm continuing to watch because of a video where he tells a 15 year old girl how to get boys to like her, A Song About An Angler Fish, and a totally not stupid summary of what healthcare reform was all about. Also, Shakespeare insults.

I have discovered (well, confirmed a theory is more accurate) that I have to stop drinking to the extent that I get drunk. Whenever I do this, I get sick. Like, a cold. A monstrous, hateful, strong-desire-to-sleep-until-it's-over cold. Because I hate getting sick a great deal more than I like getting drunk, I'm going to stop getting drunk. I can have a few drinks, slowly, and as long as I don't get reeeeeeaaallly happy and buzzing, I should be good. I am informed that drunkenness causes my immune system to malfunction, and using a public bar bathroom (more than one, in fact) probably doesn't help. So, Mórrígan is no longer a drinker. This makes me sadder than you can really understand. (For the record, the last time I was drunk enough to get sick was last June - over 7 months ago. Don't worry about me being an alcoholic or anything; I don't actually drink that often. It's just that I really enjoy getting drunk-but-not-sick-or-blacked-out.)

So, being terribly sick (and whining to my husband about it way too much), and finding no real pain relief in my NyQuil, I turned to fanfiction. I started reading one story only to discover when I got to the end that it was actually still in progress (I never read those. I go out of my way to avoid incomplete fanfics, even if they look awesome). ARGH! So I read another one which was of significantly lower quality than most fics I read, but I continued because of how disgustingly awful (and OOC oblivious) Snape was being, and I wanted to see him punished. And it was definitely that kind of plot, where you know exactly what's going to happen.

That's pretty much all I got. I don't remember what I wanted to blog about on my way to work today. Reason enough to start carrying a notebook everywhere I go.

Oh, and hey, you can vote for the 2011 Brodie Awards (in which my blog is nominated) here.

peace.

Imbolc, Brigid, Poetry, and Spring Cleaning

2012-02-01T13:08:00.000-08:00

February 1st is the feast day of St. Brigid of Kildare. The Celtic goddess Brigid is associated with the sabbat of Imbolc, February 2nd, which is also the day celebrated by Catholics as Candlemas.

The character of Brigid is a conflation of both the goddess and the Saint. Essentially, the goddess was co-opted by the Christian church, her iconography remaining basically the same, but with a new Christian biography. Probably there was a nun named Brigid who did indeed live in Ireland in the middle ages, but it is difficult to differentiate between fact and legend, between the medieval woman's life and the characteristics of the pre-Christian goddess.

So, for me, the celebration of Imbolc (which comes right before my birthday) sounded like a great idea. Combining my Catholicism with the celebration of spring with the goddess/Saint tied to poetry and fire and holy wells (not to mention the fact that she's Irish) appealed to me on several levels. I made a Brigid's cross from the pages of a book, I set up my white, red, and green candles (colors associated with Brigid in one form or another), I poured water into a dish, and added brightly colored flowers and books of poetry. I have my Imbolc altar:

This afternoon, after I did a bunch of cleaning around the apartment, I lit the candles, and I sat down in front of my altar. I read some poems about St. Brigid's Day, and I even made some of my own poetry. Because I'm fighting off a monster of a cold, I also hoped for some healing to come my way. I'm so glad I did this; I think I'll go make some more poetry!

peace.

If you would like to celebrate Imbolc/St. Brigid's Day, here are some sources for ideas:
Celebrating Imbolc
13 Ways to Celebrate Imbolc
All About Imbolc
Feast of St. Brigid

The Goddess Brigid

St. Brigid of Kildare

Sluts and Friendzones

2012-01-25T18:28:00.000-08:00

“Slut” is how we vilify a woman for exercising her right to say “yes”. “Friendzone” is how we vilify a woman for exercising her right to say “no”.

Also, tease, and whore.
Source.

peace.

The Pervocracy: Rescripting sex

2012-01-24T20:41:00.000-08:00

Enthusiastic consent. VERBAL consent. It doesn't have to be awkward or unsexy or mood-killing. Please read Holly's post! It's epically good!

Life has scripts. Little socially-agreed plays that we enact rather than trying to figure out all our interactions from scratch every time. Many of them are very simple. There's the script you follow when you're checking out at a store ("have a nice day"), the script for talking to someone who's sad ("I'm so sorry"), and of course the script for talking to a dog ("WHOOZAGOODBOY").

And there's scripts for sex. Unfortunately, the most common script out there sucks.

Script: Consent Roulette

Active partner (generally male) and receptive partner (generally female) are alone together. They're chatting, drinking, or watching a movie. Active partner detects (or wishful-thinks) the whiff of romance/lust in the air. Active partner gradually increases his physical closeness to receptive partner and makes some sexual innuendos. Eventually A goes ahead and kisses R. If she doesn't object, A leads R to a bed or sofa and lies her down. A kisses R more and gropes her. If she doesn't object, A then puts on a condom and R is expected to spread her legs and stuff. Intercourse happens.

The above script is, let me be clear, not rape. That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that it's crappy. It doesn't give people the chance to have any sex besides kissing->groping->intercourse, it doesn't have any emotional component except A's uncertainty how far R will go, and it's just not all that fun. Even if A is female and R is male, all that does is ease the man's anxiety a bit; it doesn't fundamentally change the story.

And it's "roulette" because it makes consent all about luck. If you have this kind of sex with a woman and it turns out she wanted it, then yay--by sheer luck, you're not a rapist! On the other hand, if she doesn't want it, now she has to play roulette--if she says "stop," will he stop, or will he start holding her down?

peace.

Live Blogging the State of the Union

2012-01-24T19:04:00.000-08:00

Full text of the speech here.

I love that he's starting off with one of his campaign promises: getting the troops home. Great frosting on the cake that bin Laden was taken down too, I guess.

We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them.

Oh, hello Occupy Movement, nice to see you so early in the speech.

In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect.

Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, we've agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And we've put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again.

In other words ... shit was bad before I had a chance to fix it, and I did a great job cleaning it up.

Jackie Bray is a single mom from North Carolina who was laid off from her job as a mechanic. Then Siemens opened a gas turbine factory in Charlotte, and formed a partnership with Central Piedmont Community College. The company helped the college design courses in laser and robotics training. It paid Jackie's tuition, then hired her to help operate their plant.

I want every American looking for work to have the same opportunity as Jackie did. Join me in a national commitment to train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job.

OHGODPLEASEYES train people who need jobs!!

It's time to turn our unemployment system into a reemployment system that puts people to work.

I LOVE that: RE-employment system, NOT UN-employment system!

A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance.

"the child who dreams beyond HIS circumstance" Boo.

Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. In return, grant schools flexibility: To teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren't helping kids learn.

Yay education! But how do you plan to determine who is the "best"? How do you measure it without standardized tests? We need nuanced answers here; what's your plan?

We also know that when students aren't allowed to walk away from their education, more of them walk the stage to get their diploma. So tonight, I call on every State to require that all students stay in high school until they graduate or turn eighteen.

And what about home-schooled kids? Stay home until you turn 18? Does that include GED?

Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn't make sense.

Educating people who go back to their native countries helps improve the standard of living in those countries, stabilizing those nations that might present a threat because of drugs or arms trading, etc. (and McCain cringes in fear of foreigners: I'm shocked!)

That means women should earn equal pay for equal work.

One sentence about equal pay: I am not impressed. This is a SERIOUS issue, a HUGE problem for HALF the population of this country!

We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years, and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy. Experts believe this will support more than 600,000 jobs by the end of the decade. And I'm requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use. America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.

I could be misinformed, but isn't trying to convince us that fracking can be safe completely false? Anybody know what he's talking about with natural gas?

I think the clean energy section got the loudest applause so far - I like it.

I'm directing my Administration to allow the development of clean energy on enough public land to power three million homes. And I'm proud to announce that the Department of Defense, the world's largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history - with the navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.

I hope this isn't just hyperbole and he actually has a plan to do this with the DoD, because it sounds huge.

Ray LaHood is half puppy it seems.

We've all paid the price for lenders who sold mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, and buyers who knew they couldn't afford them. That's why we need smart regulations to prevent irresponsible behavior. Rules to prevent financial fraud, or toxic dumping, or faulty medical devices, don't destroy the free market. They make the free market work better.

Regulations are not the enemy, thank you.

With a rule like that, I guess it was worth crying over spilled milk.

No, do NOT clap. That wasn't funny! That was ridiculous. I can't believe a speech-writer approved this. Really? A spilled milk joke? Toby furrows his brow at you.

If he wasn't blinking, I would think that the Speaker was a wax model.

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes.

I don't think it's accurate to call it "your fair share," but I agree with the idea that people with a great deal of power and wealth should pay more in taxes. As we learned from Spider-Man, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Is someone yelling "NOOOO!" to banning insider trading?? Or is there a TROOOOOOLLLL in the dungeon?

This transition to Afghan lead will continue, and we will build an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, so that it is never again a source of attacks against America.

"Enduring partnership" or "puppet government"?

Are military personnel not supposed to clap?

And while it is ultimately up to the people of the region to decide their fate, we will advocate for those values that have served our own country so well.

Like not pepper-spraying or violently attacking non-violent protestors?

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel's security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We've made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we've built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we've led against hunger and disease; from the blows we've dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

I recall an episode of The Daily Show during the Bush Presidency where Jon asked, "wait, we have allies?"

Everyone stands to applaud the military - the Speaker lives!

There's no 'i' in team guys!

the troops who separated the women and children from the fight;

"the women and children" - you know, those weaklings who can't defend themselves. How about, "the non-combatants"?

SHAKE ALL THE HANDS!

Mention of women's issues: 2? Seriously, after all the anti-choice measures that went on in the last year? Really??
Section on education: 2 - sort of
Immigration: 1
Mention of mortgages: several, didn't count
Mention of the military/military metaphors: several
Jobs: 2, I think
Jokes: 1
Funny jokes: 0

That was quite a lot of fun!

peace.

Breastfeeding: You Can't Please Everyone, So Stop Trying to Please Other People

2012-01-24T16:09:00.000-08:00

From Facebook:

"If a woman breastfeeds with her whole breast out of the shirt, there's someone in the room wishing she would pull the shirt down a little more.

If she pulls her shirt down a little more, there's someone in the room wishing she would put a blanket over her side boob, or cleavage.

If she blankets her boob, there's someone wishing she would put the blanket over the baby's head.

If she blankets her baby, there's someone wishing she was in the corner.

If she moves to the corner, there's someone wishing she would face the wall.

If she faces the wall, there's someone wishing she would leave the room.

Can't please 'em all, so do what feels right to YOU, I say. But regardless of how you do it, keep nursing, ladies."

peace.

Why Are We Busting the Breast? - Facebook and Breastfeeding

2012-01-23T18:08:00.000-08:00

peace.

Ridiculous Accusations Against the Catholic Church Will Not Give Us Marriage Equality

2012-01-21T12:18:00.000-08:00

I usually consider the news and blog posts at The New Civil Rights Movement to be credible and informative, with little to no divisive or alienating rhetoric. That's why yesterday's post about why the Catholic church opposes gay rights left me shocked and disappointed. Don't get me wrong; I have serious issues with the Catholic church's stance on gay rights and what constitutes a marriage or a family. However, nothing is accomplished for gay rights when you spew out nonsensical conspiracy theories about the church's motives, especially when that theory is based on the premise that the those in the highest leadership positions secretly know and believe that there's nothing wrong with gays, gay marriage, gay adoption, etc.

The article states that the church's motive behind oppressing gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender people is because they depend on the cheap labor of priests, nuns, and monks (though the article doesn't mention monks), and they need a way to force a large enough group of people to "choose" religious life or holy orders, so that they'll have a big enough labor force off of which to gain a profit. Therefore, the article states, "by socially stigmatizing gay human beings and driving young gay people to despair about their chances for satisfying adult domestic lives, the Church as good as tortures young gay people into signing up to be priests and nuns."

I have serious problems with this claim.

In the first place, it is disingenuous to make such an argument based on the premise that the clergy, especially those who hold the highest leadership positions, don't actually believe what they say about gay people and what they term as the "gay lifestyle." Unless you have had private conversations with Pope Benedict or any other members of the hierarchy in which they told you that they actually have no moral objections to gay marriage, gay sex, etc, your argument holds no water. You are making a very serious accusation, and when you start acting like you know the secret thoughts in other people's minds ... well, you lose quite a bit of credibility.

Secondly, you are making a rather large leap in logic when you claim that this is the motivation behind the church's stance. While there may be some evidence to suggest a disproportionately high percentage of, for instance, gay men serving as Catholic priests, and one could possibly draw the conclusion that the church's rhetoric condemning gay relationships could lead more gay men into the priesthood, there is no evidence to support the idea that this is actually the goal of the hierarchy in their stance against gay relationships. However, there don't seem to be any available statistics to attest to the sexual orientation of monks or nuns, so the argument is flawed in that there is no evidence that a large percentage of the "cheap labor" force is made up of LGBT people.

Finally, there are other, more credible, theories as to the motivations behind the Catholic church's stance on gay issues, the first of which is that the hierarchy legitimately and sincerely believe that Scripture and Tradition condemn gay relationships as sin, and that they have a moral obligation to proclaim this "truth." It's possible that, for the hierarchy, the fear of the gay rights movement's possible effects on society is what motivates the severity of the rhetoric against gay relationships. In a time where the decline of Catholicism in the West is becoming a real possibility, this course of action has the added bonus of helping the church to remain relevant to believers. To proclaim that there is an insidious threat to humanity gaining acceptance and thriving among you, to which only Catholicism is the cure, could grant the church the relevance they may seek. I wouldn't think that this is the primary motivation, or even anything but a side effect of their desire to endorse their version of morality. This, at least, has legitimate support from sociology and psychology, as a version of ingroup-outgroup bias, or, more likely, scapegoating.

This is not the only dumb argument raised in the fight for marriage equality, and if we want to achieve our goals, we have got to stop letting people get away with such hypocrisy - it is no less unethical or bigoted to make such claims about the motivations of the Catholic hierarchy than it is to claim that gays want to recruit children, that they are all pedophiles, or that they will destroy marriage and the family. Stop it. You are damaging the credibility of the equality movement.

peace.

Don't Be You; Be Jesus?

2012-01-21T11:31:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I do stupid, stupid things. Things that I know will cause me pain and anger. Maybe it's my Catholicism, "offer it up," type thing (its' twisted, and most Catholics don't see it that way, but some do, and the image was there to influence me growing up).

I went on tumblr. I searched "catholic." A great deal of sycophantic blather (along with some sweet photography) ensued. Triple-gag.

Chief among them was this post.

“The Hail Marys we repeat as we pray the Rosary are not about Mary. Mary isn’t about Mary. Mary is the ultimate example of a human being who focused her life on Christ. Mary is about Christ, and so is her prayer. Mary takes us to Him, to Jesus.”

— Victoria Q. DeBayle

I'm not bothered by the idea that Hail Mary's aren't really about Mary. Coolio, you're talking to Mary to help you come closer to Jesus. I'm down with that. What made my jaw drop in horror was this, "Mary isn’t about Mary."

Essentially, "Your identity as an individual is meaningless; you should seek an identity that is as close a copy of Jesus as possible. Mary is awesome because she was all about Jesus." What's upsetting about this is not that a person can choose to be all about Jesus, but that when Catholics pray to Mary (something universally encouraged), that is what we want to emulate about her. That whole, "everyone would be happy if they all lived the same way" thing.

There is a thoughtful type of Catholicism. There are intelligent, open-minded, critically-thinking, interesting individuals who are Catholic. Searching "catholic" on tumblr yields ... few that I could see (had to scroll down quite a ways to find this one). What I see are mostly neo-orthodox teenagers who really, really, really want to show off how virtuous they are, and especially how very obedient they are. They act as if their ideas about life, especially sexuality and reproductive health care, are plainly obvious facts ("if you don't want to get pregnant, just be abstinent, duh!") Also, people agonizing over trivial "sins," the kind of scrupulosity for which a professional might suggest counseling and/or medication. My heart aches especially for the people who really do see themselves as totally depraved and unworthy of love in any form, whose only hope is that God will overlook what awful people they are. Saw several posts about the march for life, i.e. carrying giant posters of mutilated fetuses to convince people how terrible abortion is. 'Cause that's gonna work. And of course, the gays. It always comes back to the gays, right? I wonder how many girls like this are out there truly agonizing over their sexuality.

And the lesson is ... don't go looking for fantastic Catholic philosophers on tumblr.

peace.

Kate Kendell to Karen Garver Santorum

2012-01-20T15:56:00.000-08:00

... when you pretend that hate is love, that lies are truth, and that victims are oppressors, you have become insane.

- Kate Kendell, head of the National Center for Lesbian Rights

Source

peace.

Second Class Citizens Documentary

2012-01-20T13:59:00.000-08:00

This one definitely had me crying readers; it's worth watching.

thanks to Jessica for the link

peace.

11 Facts About Mórrígan

2012-01-19T22:51:00.000-08:00

I liked Jessica's post, so ...

11 Things You Probably Don't Know About Me

1. I was "cured" of my thumb-sucking in kindergarten by having an ACE bandage wrapped around my elbow at bedtime so that I couldn't get my thumb to my face while I was asleep. It was my idea.

2. I have been taking replacement hormones for Hashimoto's Thyroidism, an autoimmune disease usually found only in people who are "female, fat, and forty" (not my words), since I was in Junior High. I was initially diagnosed with allergies/asthma and a mild ulcer.

3. I didn't start reading the Harry Potter books until I'd been given Sorcerer's Stone as a gift for the second time. The first copy was a Christmas gift from my sister, who said that all her students were crazy about it. The second copy was from my parents, several months later.

4. I can name all fifty states, in alphabetical order, in less than 30 seconds.

5. Growing up, we had a baseball diamond in our back yard. The plates were discs like what you see here.

6. This past November I had my first mammogram, after finding some abnormal "lumps" in my left breast. The results of that and an ultrasound said I had a cluster of harmless cysts.

7. I love to learn songs in foreign languages, especially if they go really fast. When I find a song I like, I find the lyrics and play the song over and over until I get the phonetics down. Right now, my favorites are "Bonse Aba," "Cherokee Morning Song," and "Aisling's Song" (from the movie The Secret of Kells).

8. I own all 7 seasons of The West Wing, and I've watched them start to finish more times than I can count. The dialogue is soft enough to put me to sleep when my brain won't shut up, and the writing is so intensely beautiful that my jaw often drops when I'm watching it.

9. I am pretty sure that I have Asperger's.

10. I broke my addiction to chocolate (I used to eat Nestle Quik and hot cocoa powder by the spoonful) by giving it up for Lent one year.

11. I lost 30 pounds first semester of my freshman year of college, despite having access to an all-you-can-eat cafeteria every day of the week and stocking my freezer with TV dinners, and I have maintained a healthy weight ever since. I can't help but think it's because I am often too lazy to make a real meal when I'm hungry.

... and some bonus facts:

- I have no canine teeth.
- I have an extra bone in my spine - a bone that couldn't decide whether to be 1 or 2 bones, as my chiropractor put it.
- My family has always had a garden, and nothing beats green beans still warm from the sun
- I always dreaded Mom's big project days: making noodles, canning tomatoes, changing the window stickies in all the windows, etc, but now I wish I knew how to do all those things myself.

peace.

Paid to Cry

2012-01-19T10:10:00.001-08:00

If only I could be paid to cry,

I'd be a billionaire.

Mormonism in Ireland

2012-01-18T22:08:00.000-08:00

If you knew me personally, you'd know that I am particularly interested in the history and culture and basically everything to do with Ireland. If you've read much of this blog you'll also know that I have a really odd fascination with the religion in which my husband was raised: Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). For whatever reason, I wanted to do a little research into Mormonism's role in Ireland. Considering the history of religious (and, I would say, ethnic) conflict on the island between Catholics and Protestants, I was curious to see how the Mormon faith might fare in a region where one's faith has been, at least in the past, essentially a declaration of fealty to either Nationalism/Republicanism or Loyalism/Unionism.

The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland guarantees freedom of religion, though an obvious majority of citizens identify as Roman Catholic. In Northern Ireland, the largest religious demographic is Catholic, though they are not a majority (40%). Only a few thousand people in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland together identify as Mormon (though the LDS church reports a much higher number). I believe this is largely due to the fact that, when conversion rates were at their highest (in the 19th century), most converts did not remain in Ireland, but emigrated to the United States to be with other members of their faith in Utah.

There is an interesting history to the LDS church's missionary efforts in Ireland. It seems that the growth of Mormonism in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland at all is probably due to the immigration of a number of German Mormons to the Republic of Ireland in the early 20th Century.

I found this article essentially calling the Catholic church rather whiny for objecting to the use of diocesan records of parishioners by Mormons for their temple ordinances for the dead. The author does draw some interesting comparisons with Catholicism's tradition of praying for the souls of the unbaptized or unconverted dead, as well as the fact that infants have as little say in the matter of baptism as would a dead person, and Catholics still do that.

In modern-day Ireland, "church" and "sex abuse scandal" go together like peas and carrots. So, when a woman accused a Mormon missionary of sexual abuse, the story was published in this Irish Times article. In the wake of the Ryan Report (May 2009) and Murphy Report (November 2009), such allegations are taken quite seriously in Ireland.

I found a New York Times article from 1855 discussing the "Mormonites" and their preaching in Ireland (including a "preacher" baptizing "three females" ... in the nude). It seems that some were amused at the prospect of Roman Catholicism being undermined in mostly-Catholic Ireland by what this journalist clearly believed to be a rather crazy sect (referring to the female converts as "sultanas," or concubines).

This article states that Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the LDS church, is actually descended from "an Irish chieftain of the fifth century," and suggests that Mormons from all over the world might now want to visit Ireland, as "the ancestral land of their religion's founder."

MormonConverts.com is happy to share testimonies of people who have converted from other faiths, including those of Irish people:
Heavenly Father Has Guided Me Home by Margaret Curry
The Lord Strengthened Me by Christopher Hills

In all, I'd say that Mormonism has had little, if any, influence on the culture of either Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland, though obviously not for lack of trying. The thing is, for many people in Ireland (from either the North or the Republic), to change faiths is (in their minds) practically an act of treason. One Irish college professor (who also works in the music industry) I met in Ireland said that, for many in the Republic of Ireland, to become a Protestant "still smacks of being a traitor." Most people, if they no longer accept the faith they grew up with, simply stop practicing. Many in the Republic of Ireland will identify as Catholic, and stipulate either practicing or non-practicing, but they keep that Catholic identity. Unless or until religion stops being associated with ethnic/political loyalties on the island, there is little chance that anything besides Mainline Protestantism or Roman Catholicism could experience any real growth in either Northern Ireland or in the Republic.

peace.

Richard L. Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism

2012-01-18T19:06:00.000-08:00

I just started reading Richard L. Bushman's Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, and I'm most of the way through the first chapter. So far, I'm getting a much better picture of Joseph Smith Jr.'s family background, especially in the way of religion and family values.

I've read other books detailing the emergence of the Mormon faith, such as Under the Banner of Heaven, One Nation Under Gods, and The History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, but it's always good to get another perspective. Bushman's is the first faithful Mormon perspective that also results from scholarly research (besides my attempt to read Mormon Enigma last year) that I've seen. I am definitely looking forward to reading this book, and I hope to do a book review once I finish it.

peace.

Sex Education: These Are Things You Should Know

2012-01-17T14:46:00.000-08:00

I spend a lot of time advocating for comprehensive sex education, both on the blog and in real life. I rarely go into much detail about what "comprehensive" means, and I realize that people may be making their own assumptions about to what I am referring. Here are a few examples of age-appropriate information about the human body, sex, and relationships which I think would be a part of a comprehensive curriculum of sex education.

A two year old should know ...

that boys and girls have different body parts, and what to call those parts.

A four year old should know ...

that it is bad manners to touch people, especially their private parts, without their permission.

A five year old should know ...

proper hygiene for their external sexual organs - for boys this includes properly cleaning beneath the foreskin once it is fully retractable, for girls it may include a suggestion of wiping front to back after defecation to keep fecal matter away from the vulva and vagina

A six year old should know ...

that sex feels good and is how babies are made, and that it is normal for them to be curious about their bodies.

A seven year old should know ...

the difference between gender and sex, and the fact that genitals don't determine gender.

An eight year old should know ...

that not all sex is for procreation, that both straight and gay people have sex for love and for pleasure, as well as some idea of gay and lesbian sexuality.

A ten year old should know ...

the basics of communications skills necessary for healthy relationships.

A twelve year old should know ...

what intercourse is, the basics of male and female anatomy, and that masturbation is both healthy and quite common.

A thirteen year old should know ...

what constitutes consent (for anything from hand-holding to intercourse), how to seek consent, how to give consent, how to say no, how to accept a "no," to understand the emotions involved, and to deal with the possibility of embarrassment or fear of rejection either way.

A fourteen year old should know ...

exactly how a menstrual cycle works, how pregnancy occurs, how STDs are contracted, and the myths about transmission of STDs and how a woman can and cannot get pregnant.

A fifteen year old should know ...

how condoms and other methods of contraceptives/prophylactics work, how to use them.

A sixteen year old should know ...

about different types of sexual activity, from mutual masturbation and oral sex, to intercourse and anal sex.

A seventeen year old should know ...

about the biological and psychological aspects of human pleasure (including identification of clitoris, vulva vs. vagina, glans, foreskin, etc), and ways to please one's partner, including how to communicate one's sexual needs in a relationship.

An eighteen year old should know ...

how to approach relationship problems, from miscommunication and jealousy to abuse and controlling behaviors.

This is a rough idea of what age-appropriate sex education might look like. This can be something in which parents educate their own children, or which schools make a part of their regular curriculum. I believe that every year of school should involve some form of sex or relationship education, with a heavy emphasis on communication and respect for others in relationships, if not on the sex itself. I believe that a number of social problems, including the high divorce rate and occurrence of sexual abuse and dysfunction, can be attributed to the lack of basic knowledge amongst the general public about issues related to sex and relationships. I hope that those of my readers who have children or will some day have children do not wait for the system to fix this, but will take the initiative to educate their own children about these issues, so that they have a better chance at healthy, satisfying relationships in the future.

I highly recommend Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors and Ethel Sloane's Biology of Women, as well as Crooks and Baur's Our Sexuality (which was husband's textbook for his Psych of Human Sexuality course in college). Yet again I also want to direct you to Holly at The Pervocracy for information about sex, relationships, and gender roles in American culture. Mormon Expression Podcast also has some great episodes on sexuality and relationships. You can also get a great deal of information from r/SexPositive.

Other books I hear good things about (but haven't read myself):
Bonk by Mary Roach
Sex at Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha
Why Women Have Sex by Cindy M. Meston and David M. Buss
A Billion Wicked Thoughts by Ogi Ogas and Sai Gaddam
Human Sexuality: Diversity in Contemporary America by William Yarber, Barbara Sayad, and Bryan Strong

Children's Books:
And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell
My Princess Boy by Cheryl Kilodavis

Does anybody else have some good recommendations for information about sex and relationships, especially young children's books that are sex-positive and body-positive??

peace.

Message from the Reader

2012-01-16T23:39:00.000-08:00

There is a wildness inside of you.

2011 Brodie Awards - Nominations Are Now Open

2012-01-16T12:18:00.000-08:00

It's time for the Brodie Awards!

SUBMIT YOUR NOMINATIONS!

Suggested guidelines:

As you know, the idea behind the Brodies is to highlight excellent work from all over the LDS-interest Internet, and introduce as many people as possible to great blogs they may not be aware of. So here are my nomination guideline ideas:
Please nominate as many people, sites, and articles as you want. However, please do not nominate more than two individual works by any one author.
You are allowed (even encouraged!) to nominate your own works. No more than two, though.
Please nominate works that first appeared during 2011
Please try to nominate people and works that have some connection with Mormonism or with Outer Blogness (eg. either the work touches on Mormonism, or the author is a current or former Mormon and/or is an active participant in our community).
A category must have at least three nominations in order to be included in the voting and awards phase.
You may suggest your own categories — however please do it as early as possible in the nominations process, to give others plenty of time to add nominations in your proposed categories.
Any other proposed changes to the categories or to the guidelines are welcome — feel free to discuss it in the comments.
The nominations will be open for two weeks. (And I’ll add my own nominations when I make the polls.)

peace.

"My Water Just Broke!"

2012-01-16T10:28:00.000-08:00

What is the real sign that the baby will mostly likely arrive very soon? Hint: it's not when the water breaks. The following signs are in roughly the same order in which they may occur in real life, but don't quote me - real life is unpredictable.

First, since I'll be referring to them in the list, I'll briefly go over the stages of labor. The first stage is basically contractions to move the baby into place. The second stage is the actual pushing and delivery of the baby. The third stage is the delivery of the placenta.

Lightening

This is when the baby "drops" down into the woman's pelvis. This is not technically a sign of labor, as it can occur even a month before the estimated due date, but it is a sign that the baby is getting ready. However, it can also occur only hours or minutes before birth. A woman will probably know when the baby drops by the fact that she will probably be able to breath easier (hence the name), and there may be some change in her physical appearance.

Contractions

At some point, the woman will start to feel contractions. These may be Braxton Hicks (false labor) or the first step of early labor. The most significant difference between Braxton Hicks and early labor contractions is regularity. Braxton Hicks contractions are usually irregular in intensity, duration, frequency, etc. They can be painful, but usually simply cause discomfort. Stronger, intensifying, regular contractions indicate the beginning of the first stage of labor.

Mucus Plug/Bloody Show

This can be a sign of labor if it is caused by changes in the woman's cervix. If her cervix begins to dilate or efface, it can loosen the mucus plug that seals the cervix during pregnancy. It may or may not be "bloody," and can come out as a glob or as increased mucus discharge. However, it does not necessarily indicate labor, as it can also be dislodged through other means, such as sexual intercourse.

Water Breaking/Rupture of Membranes

This refers to the rupture of the amniotic sac/membranes and the release of amniotic fluid through the vaginal canal. It may or may not be accompanied by some form of contractions (either real labor contractions or Braxton Hicks). It may or may not happen at the beginning of labor. It can be a sign of labor, but it is not signal to take off at high speeds to the hospital that many might perceive it to be. A woman can safely labor for days after the rupture of the amniotic sac. It is possible for the amniotic sac to reseal itself and for more amniotic fluid to be produced. The main concern that leads birth attendants to want the baby out within a certain amount of time after rupture of membranes is the risk of infection. Especially if only a small amount of fluid is released, the likelihood of resealing is high. However, if the woman avoids sexual activity (the kind involving penetration), tub baths, is subjected to no vaginal exams, and if she is at home (where she will be exposed to fewer pathogens than in a hospital), the risk of infection is lower. A birth attendant can monitor the woman's body temperature and baby's heart rate for signs of infection, and as long as there are no signs of distress, it is safe to simply let the woman labor naturally.

Vomiting

Vomiting can be one of many signs of transition, or the period between active labor and the second stage of labor (time to push). According to Linda Jenkins, RN,

the laboring woman may feel confused or even unable to cope at all. Legs and arms may tremble uncontrollably. Belching, hiccuping, feeling nauseated or even vomiting may occur. Most women recall feeling irritable and often become astonishingly rude.

There you are, a simple and (I hope) informative introduction to the signs and stages of labor. If a woman is delivering in a hospital, it is safe, and in fact recommended, to spend much of early labor at home. Usually she will be told to call ahead, and to come in to the hospital when her contractions reach a certain duration and frequency. If a woman has planned a hospital birth, the only reason to get remotely freaked out is if she is at home when she begins transition, and even then, emergency services can most likely ensure a safe birth, and if she is low-risk, even birthing at home alone is not inherently dangerous (though if unplanned, it can certainly be frightening and stressful, which can affect the birth). Problems can of course arise, and it can be extremely helpful to have a professional birth attendant to identify them, but unless the woman says that she feels something is very wrong, there is usually little reason to be concerned. The point I really want to get across here is that the whole "Oh God my water broke!" scene from TV and movies ... is a total joke. Rupture of membranes is nothing to be too concerned about, and is certainly not a reason to rush off to the hospital (if one is planning a hospital birth).

peace.

Sex, Marriage, and the Relationship Between Them

2012-01-15T10:36:00.000-08:00

I'd like to talk about the relationship between sex and marriage, or perhaps the lack thereof. Jessica had a great explanation of why she doesn't think sex outside marriage is bad and why she personally waited for marriage to have sex with (or kiss) her husband. Our discussion in the comments led to a really great point on sex before and after marriage, and I wanted to share my thoughts on waiting for marriage here.

I did not wait to be married to have sex, nor did I wait to be in a committed, "I want to marry you," relationship to do sexy-ish things with another person (although the only person with whom I've had sex is the person to whom I am now married ). My husband's and my understanding of sexuality has developed largely in a scientific context. This isn't because we see sex as lacking any kind of emotional, mystical, or spiritual aspect, but we both grew up with the spiritual/it's about love/it's beautiful and sacred rhetoric in our respective religions. We were firmly grounded in the epic-ness of the impact sex can have on a relationship. Therefore, once we became sexually active adults, we were in serious need of the balancing perspective of biology and psychology to help us comprehend what was going on with our bodies and to give us a practical understanding of how to have a successful and satisfying physical relationship. My understanding of the biology and psychology of sex in human relationships influences my opinion on sexual ethics considerably.

When I ask, "what is the relationship between sex and marriage?" what I think I am really asking is, "Is monogamous marriage the only context in which sex is is positive, appropriate, ethical, and fulfilling?" Several other questions arise from this discussion, which mostly derive from one's understanding of what marriage means. For instance, what is the effect of commitment in sex? Will this discussion be different if viewed from the perspective of a gay or polyamorous person? Is sex without love harmful? Many of the answers are affected by one's view of marriage itself; there is a chasm between the perspectives of a person who sees marriage as a thoroughly meaningless cultural construct and one who sees it as a sacred institution ordained by God.

For me, sex and marriage are not directly related. Plenty of people are having sex without being married, and plenty of married people aren't having any sex. At the same time, that is simply the meaning the two hold for me. Other people see the two as inextricably linked, and in fact, feel that the only situation in which they could comfortably see themselves having sex is within monogamous marriage. I cannot judge whether any opinion is superior to the other, but I can say a little bit on the harm done by certain ideologies.

I am not opposed to people choosing to wait for marriage to have sex. However, I do not think that it is a good idea in all situations. As I've mentioned before, there is a natural progression of sexual activity for most people that begins with puberty and gradually escalates to the point of sexual intercourse and beyond. I am bothered by the idea of going from 0 to 60 in the space of a day (the wedding day). Especially if a person has been inhibited in other ways by a strict ethical code that said, for instance, that masturbation was an egregious sin, to go from zero sexual activity one day to intercourse the next is an unnatural kind of escalation that could be traumatic. Also, for some people, to remain sexually inactive when their body and/or mind is telling them that they are ready for sex can also alter the natural progression of sexual development to the point that it is harmful.

I do not want to imply in any way that waiting for marriage is always bad. However, I do think that it can be bad for some people. I think that the chances of harm can be greatly reduced, however, in a few ways:
1) comprehensive sex education in which sex is never demonized, in which those who have had sex outside marriage are not stigmatized, and in which diversity of sexual preferences and behaviors is celebrated.
2) being honest with oneself about one's readiness and need for sex (yes, for many people, there is a biological and/or psychological need), and neither denying that need, nor forcing oneself to participate when one does not feel ready, when it would cause significant distress either way.
3) having a partner with whom one is sexually compatible, at least enough that for one to be satisfied, the other does not have to suffer significantly.

Expanding on the third point, there are people who are happy going long periods without sex, and there are some people to whom that would be significantly distressing. Can it work out between people with different levels of desire? I believe so (and I'd love to hear from people for whom it did, or did not). How does one know it will work for them? That's where the second point comes in. Open acknowledgment between partners of each other's level of desire, and communication about each partner's ability to wait or engage in sexual behavior would be crucial. For this discussion to be productive, I would think that the first point would be very helpful.

I want to round off this discussion by reiterating something I mentioned on Jessica's post, that is, that every single person has an absolute, inalienable right to set the rules and boundaries in which they will be comfortable having sex, in which they will want to have sex. This is essential to having real consent. If someone would not be comfortable having sex before marriage, absolutely no one has a right to tell them that they should do it anyway, for any reason, even if someone else thinks that waiting will result in the kind of harm I discussed above. Lack of consent is lack of consent. Can it be talked about, asking serious questions about whether or not waiting is a good choice? Of course. But can one tell another person, flat out, that they should just get off their high horse and do it? No, that is wrong. The point is, when a person makes a choice to wait for the wedding night (or after) to have sex, as long as it is a conscious, educated choice, free of cognitive dissonance and coercion, and if it will not likely result in mental distress, to still insist that it is bad is to be just as prejudiced and ignorant as the slut-shaming fundamentalists who promise hellfire for those guilty of "fornication."

I compare this to me saying that I would never want to have sex with a woman, but that does not mean that it is bad for other women, gay or straight, to do so. Similarly, just because I cannot imagine having waited for marriage to have sex, that does not mean that people who wait are causing themselves harm or needlessly missing out on fun. For all I know, waiting is essential to their sexual satisfaction.

Like many posts here, the conclusion is that one has to make the choice that's right for oneself. I, of course, hope that everyone has the opportunity to be fully educated on the subject, to openly communicate one's needs and hear those of one's partner, and that one is not influenced by stereotypes or superstitions.

peace.

Depictions of Breastfeeding, Including Nudity, are neither Sick nor Illegal

2012-01-14T18:56:00.000-08:00

Prairie Nymph recently had an experience that had her pretty upset, and after I read it, I was pretty disgusted with her in-law's ignorance and prejudice as well. This person insinuated that a portrait of a naked baby breastfeeding was an issue that would concern social services. From the description, I'm guessing it looks something like this:

In response, I present to you a bunch of people who mostly likely never have, and never will be, approached by social services for these pictures of them caring for their babies. Note that three of the images are the creations of Anne Geddes, whose works are sold nationwide in the US, with no legal ramifications. Other pictures are works by professional photographers, and some are amateur snapshots. All of them are beautiful. (Click the image to view the source as far back as I could find it)

peace.

Shit Homophobic People Say

2012-01-13T13:55:00.000-08:00

peace.

Changed my Name Again

2012-01-12T15:18:00.000-08:00

Going by Mórrígan, at least for now, because she is another aspect of the Irish/Celtic triple goddess, and because Macha is harder for some people to pronounce. Will mostly likely change back at some point, don't worry about how to address me, Macha or Mórrígan are both fine.

The Mórrígan:

The Mórrígan is a goddess of battle, strife, and fertility. Her name translates as either "Great Queen" or "Phantom Queen," and both epithets are entirely appropriate for her. The Morrigan appears as both a single goddess and a trio of goddesses. The other deities who form the trio are Badb ("Crow"), and either Macha (also connotes "Crow") or Nemain ("Frenzy"). The Morrigan frequently appears in the ornithological guise of a hooded crow. She is one of the Tuatha Dé Danann ("Tribe of the goddess Danu") and she helped defeat the Firbolg at the First Battle of Mag Tuireadh and the Fomorians at the Second Battle of Mag Tuireadh.

The origins of the Mórrígan seem to reach directly back to the megalithic cult of the Mothers. The Mothers (Matrones, Idises, Disir, etc.) usually appeared as triple goddesses and their cult was expressed through both battle ecstasy and regenerative ecstasy. It's also interesting to note that later Celtic goddesses of sovereignty, such as the trio of Eriu, Banba, and Fotla, also appear as a trio of female deities who use magic in warfare.

peace.

Liebster Blog Award

2012-01-11T19:30:00.000-08:00

I was slightly shocked and deeply touched to find that Jen had nominated me for this award. As I mentioned on her blog, Jen's writing helped me personally in learning how to set boundaries for my relationships and to demand respect from other people, and in her comments on my own blog, she always has some fascinating insight to contribute to the conversation.

The following list contains five bloggers who have helped to make me the writer and person I am today, and I wish to extend my most heartfelt thanks for the work that they do.

Holly at The Pervocracy has given me a great deal of powerful insights into relationships, human sexuality, and gender equality. Her monthly posts about Cosmo have showed me just how insidiously cultural gender norms and sexual stereotypes pervade our society.

Reasoning with Vampires, a blog about writing, about bad writing, about badly-written vampires. What more could one ask for? Dana, you had me at "Stephylococcus."

Hyperbole and a Half is another blog that, while thoroughly fun and entertaining ... well that's just it. Allie's posts make my day better because she makes me laugh until my abs hurt. The first post of hers that I read had me laughing so hard I thought I was going to throw up. It. Was. That. Funny. Her post detailing her recent depression was simultaneously laugh-out-loud funny, heartrendingly sad, and deeply poignant.

What can I say about Jessica, author of Faith Permeating Life? In her blog, she talks about many of the same issues I address here: relationships and sex, equality, faith and religion, and snippets of life where a lesson was learned. Some of her beliefs are radically different from my own, and it is because of this that I love what she writes, definitely not in spite of it! Jessica helps to remind me that my experiences, especially with religion, are not universal, and her writing is full of intriguing ideas and good advice. Like those of the other writers listed here, I cannot more highly recommend Jessica's as a blog worth reading for any person.

The author of Full Marriage Equality has forced me to question nearly every stereotype, assumption, and belief I ever held about human relationships, and I am forever thankful for those posts that opened my eyes and made me see the difference between valuing equality and actually understanding what full equality means.

This is no superficial "thanks" for me. You have all truly touched me, helped me, and inspired me with your writing, and I am very, very grateful for that.

For the people I've nominated, if you choose to participate, you also get to nominate your favorite, most influential, funniest, smartest, or just plain bestest bloggers as well!

The Rules are:
1. Show your thanks to the blogger who gave you the award by linking back to them.
2. Reveal your top 5 picks for the award and let them know by leaving a comment on their blog.
3. Post the award on your blog.
4. Bask in the love from the most supportive people on the blogsphere – other bloggers.
5. And, best of all – have fun and spread the karma.

I want to give an honorary nomination to CJ at The Narrow Gate. The only reason she isn't in the list above is because she no longer posts on that blog, but if she ever returns to blogging there, you will find some very intelligent and captivating discourse.

You can find my nominator's stirring posts at her blog, Only a Little Sugar-Coated.

peace.

Mormon Voices' Top Ten Anti-Mormon Statements of 2011

2012-01-09T15:05:00.000-08:00

A group called Mormon Voices has compiled the following list of what they consider the worst anti-Mormon statements from 2011.

EDIT: Mormon Expression Podcast weighs in.

"By any standard, Mormonism is more ridiculous than any other religion"
(Bill Maher, Oct. 15, 2011, George Washington University, as reported by Maureen Dowd in The New York Times, October 18, 2011)

No, I don't think so. Many religions have strange, incredible beliefs and practices. Catholics believe that bread and wine become the body and blood of Jesus, and that they must eat and drink them in order to be saved. Many Christian sects believe that there is one God in three persons, and that you have to be dunked in water to go to heaven. Hindus in Nepal practice animal sacrifice at Dashain to commemorate the triumph of good over evil. When a religious practice seems whacky, it is usually only because it is foreign, or because it supplements beliefs one does not hold. This is not to say that this makes Mormonism, or any other religion, necessarily harmless or harmful, but certainly the outlandish claims and practices make it no more or less harmful than other religions. The doctrines of Hindus may appear just as ridiculous to Mormons as those of Mormonism are for an atheist and antitheist such as Maher. The ridiculousness of the truth claims or practices of a religion have no bearing the qualitative comparison of religions.

"(Mormonism is) one of the most egregious groups operating on American soil."
(The late Christopher Hitchens on Slate, Oct. 17, 2011).

In the article, Hitchens highlights some of the more violent and oppressive periods of Mormon history. This, at least, is an attempt to critique Mormonism on its merits, its affect on the surrounding world. Unfortunately, he also falls into cataloguing Mormonism's "weirdness" in describing the practice of "amassing great archives of the dead, and regularly “praying them in” as adherents of the LDS, so as to retrospectively “baptize” everybody as a convert." However, he also makes an interesting point about the so-called "religious test" in regards to Romney's campaign for president, saying that when a religious organization is as active in American politics as the LDS church has been, is it really unfair to expect a Mormon candidate to answer for his religion? When one asks, "can a Mormon be a good president?," are they politicizing his religion, or hasn't the Mormon church done that themselves already? Hitchens concludes, "we are fully entitled to ask Mitt Romney about the forces that influenced his political formation and—since he comes from a dynasty of his church, and spent much of his boyhood and manhood first as a missionary and then as a senior lay official—it is safe to assume that the influence is not small."

"The theology comes across as totally barmy. We can become gods with our own planets! And the practices strike me as creepy. No coffee and tea is bad enough. But the underwear!"
(Michael Ruse, Chronicle of Higher Education, Nov. 30, 2011).

See above. Simply put, "it's so weird!" is not a valid argument against any religion.

"The current head of the Mormon Church, Thomas S. Monson , known to his followers as 'prophet, seer and revelator,' is indistinguishable from the secular plutocratic oligarchs who exercise power in our supposed democracy"
(Harold Bloom, the New York Times, Nov. 12, 2011).

"That is a mainstream view, that Mormonism is a cult - Every true, born again follower of Christ ought to embrace a Christian over a non-Christian"
(Rev. Robert Jeffress, Values Voter Summit, Oct. 7, 2011).

In my experience, the latter claim is not at all true for many Christians. Jeffress is entitled to his opinion, but I do not think it's a very popular one in most Christian sects. In fact, I've seen a great deal of Christian rhetoric stating that Christians need to seek out non-Christians a great deal more than Christians, in order that they may also be born again, saved, etc. (Comments about whether or not Mormonism is Christian below.)

"I believe a candidate who either by intent or effect promotes a false and dangerous religion is unfit to serve. Mitt Romney has said it is not his intent to promote Mormonism. Yet there can be little doubt that the effect of his candidacy — whether or not this is his intent — will be to promote Mormonism"
(Warren Cole Smith, Patheos.com, May 24, 2011).

Many of these quotes are directly related to Mitt Romney's presidential campaign. I think it's horrendously wrong to simply presume that, because someone is a member of a specific religion, their becoming President of the United States poses a threat to the country. I thoroughly disagree with Romney on several issues, and perhaps his stance on those issues is related to his Mormonism, but I nevertheless take issue with his opinions, not the reasons he holds them. There is quite a big difference. If I were to broadly state that no Mormon should ever be President because I see many Mormons who are against gay rights, women's rights, immigrant rights, etc., I would be stereotyping a group of people based on one aspect of who they are. I, however, know full well that there are Mormons who are completely supportive of gay rights and women's rights. So when I hear that a Mormon is running for president, in order to actually know whether I want to vote for her or him, I need to research where that person actually stands on the issues that matter to me. When one depends wholly on stereotypes, one is willfully refusing to investigate the facts, and so is ignorant of reality. That's no way to choose a president.

"Yes, it is my opinion that an indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President of the United States of America"
(Tricia Erickson, CNN.com, July 7, 2011).

"Mormonism is not an orthodox Christian faith. It just is not - It's very clear that the Founding Fathers did not intend to preserve automatically religious liberty for non-Christian faiths"
(Bryan Fischer, Focal Point radio show, September 2011).

"Can you name the candidate that's running for president that believes that if he's a good person in his religion he will receive his own planet? - Would you vote for someone for president who believes in their religion, if he's a good person, he'll get his own planet? - Do you want to get your own planet?"
(Ben Ferguson, Fox 13 News, Memphis, Tenn., July 6, 2011).

"The Christian coalition, I think (another candidate) could get a lot of money from that, because Romney, obviously, not being a Christian -"
(Ainsley Earhardt, "Fox and Friends," July 17, 2011).

Are Mormons Christian? A simple question with a myriad of complex answers. One cannot come to any conclusion about it until one determines what the definition of Christian is and who has the authority create that definition. Many groups who also call themselves Christian say that Christianity is rooted in some very specific dogmas, usually the doctrine of the Trinity, and of salvation through faith alone in Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the Savior of the World. Catholics slightly disagree, obviously saying that faith and works are both necessary, but very few faith traditions calling themselves Christian are called non-Christian by the Catholic church, while many groups call Catholicism un-Christian. In my opinion, there can be no way of determining who has the authority to create this definition, seeing how each group has their own specific criteria for who has the authority and what the definition is, all of them either contradicting one another or prioritizing different tenets at the top. As far as I'm concerned, Mormons are Christians if they say they are Christians, but of course, to me it's a non-issue. I don't care what you call yourself; I care how you behave toward yourself and other people.

Are these quotes anti-Mormon? I don't really think so. Some of them are rude or in bad taste, some are inaccurate or based on biased assumptions (such as one's definition of "Christian"), but anti-Mormon? I guess that depends on your definition of anti-Mormon, and then we're back to the whole "what's a Christian?" problem. Is it anyone who isn't Mormon? Is it anyone who disagrees with a doctrine of Mormonism? Is it only limited to those who make claims based on false assumptions about Mormonism, or who knowingly lie about what they know of Mormonism? If so, how do we nail down what is and is not "really" part of Mormonism? If Mormons get to call themselves Christians, don't all those who want to be called Mormon have the same right, despite their orthodoxy or orthopraxy? I don't think anybody has the authority to make such clear-cut decisions. No, not even the President of the LDS church. In essence, anti-Mormon is a loaded term anyway. Since being Mormon or pro-Mormon or anti-Mormon is really a matter of self-identification, to label people as anti-Mormon can give us no real information as to how they feel about Mormonism or Mormon people, and so it, too, is simply a useless stereotype.

peace.

Can I Do Anything?

2012-01-09T13:02:00.000-08:00

I really love the way Husband responds when I'm upset. His first question when he notices odd/sad behavior is usually, "Are you okay?" If I say "no" or "I don't know," his next question is almost always, "Can I do anything?"

I like that he has total respect for the privacy of my own thoughts. He usually doesn't ask me what's wrong; he just wants to know if he can help. He doesn't demand that I tell him exactly what's going on in my head. If I say there's nothing he can do to help, he sometimes asks me if I want to talk about it. If I say "no," he doesn't push me. He doesn't offer unsolicited advice. He'll hug and kiss me, because he knows how much physical contact relieves stress and anxiety and sadness for me.

I just love the way he does that. Anybody else want to share some fluffy relationship tidbits?

peace.

Religious Trauma Syndrome: Articles by Dr. Marlene Winell

2012-01-08T22:02:00.000-08:00

I've talked before about my personal perceptions of the psychological effects of leaving one's religion behind, specifically in the context of Kübler-Ross's Five Stages of Grief. I want for religious people to understand and to have compassion for the very real pain and trauma that occurs when a person finds that they can no longer accept the theological or moral or cosmological tenets of the faith they had heretofore espoused. I found a set of articles by Dr. Marlene Winell, author of Leaving the Fold: A Guide for Former Fundamentalists and Others Leaving their Religion, on the website of The British Association for Behavioral and Cognitive Psychotherapies, and I wanted to share them here as a further resource for religious, non-religious, and formerly religious people in addition to my previous post.

RTS Overview

Article 1: Religious Trauma Syndrome: It’s Time to Recognize It

... religious indoctrination can be hugely damaging, and making the break from an authoritarian kind of religion can definitely be traumatic. It involves a complete upheaval of a person’s construction of reality, including the self, other people, life, the future, everything. People unfamiliar with it, including therapists, have trouble appreciating the sheer terror it can create and the recovery needed.

Article 2: Understanding Religious Trauma Syndrome: Trauma from Religion

Foundation of fear:
The first key doctrine is eternal damnation or annihilation for all unbelievers. This is the terrifying backdrop for the salvation message presented to all newcomers and all children born into the faith. The Bible is quoted, including the words of Jesus, to paint a horrifying picture of hell as a lake of fire, a fire of eternal torture impossible to quench despite any pleading. Mormons describe a hell of ‘outer darkness’ that is cold and just as terrifying. Jehovah’s Witnesses threaten the horror of dying forever at Armageddon.

Small children can obviously visualize these things while not having the brain capacity to evaluate the message. Moreover, the powerful social context makes rejecting these teachings impossible. Children are completely at the mercy of religious adults.

The salvation formula is offered as a solution of course, but for many, it is not enough to ward off anxiety. How does one really know? And what about losing one’s salvation? Many adults remember trying to get ‘saved’ multiple times, even hundreds of times, because of unrelenting fear.

Self as bad: Second to the doctrine of hell, the other most toxic teaching in fundamentalist churches is that of ‘original sin’. Human depravity is a constant theme of fundamentalist theology and no matter what is said about the saving grace of Jesus, children (and adults) internalize feelings of being evil and inadequate. Most of these churches also believe in demons quite literally, some to the point of using exorcism on children who misbehave. One former believer called it ‘bait-and-switch theology -- telling me I was saved only to insist that I was barely worth saving’.

... Fundamentalist Christianity promises to solve all kinds of personal problems and when it does not, it is the individual that bears the paralyzing guilt of not measuring up.

Article 3: Understanding Religious Trauma Syndrome: Trauma from Leaving Religion

Religious Trauma Syndrome (RTS) is a function of both the chronic abuses of harmful religion and the impact of severing one’s connection with one’s faith and faith community. It can be compared to a combination of PTSD and Complex PTSD (C-PTSD). In the last article of this series, I explained some of the toxic aspects of authoritarian religions that cause long-term psychological damage (Bible-based ones in particular). In this writing, I will address the trauma of breaking away from this kind of religion.

With PTSD, a traumatic event is one in which a person experiences or witnesses actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others. Losing one’s faith, or leaving one’s religion, is an analogous event because it essentially means the death of one’s previous life – the end of reality as it was understood. It is a huge shock to the system, and one that needs to be recognized as trauma.

... Problems with self-worth and fear of terrible punishment continue. Virtually all controlling religions teach fear about the evil in ‘the world’ and the danger of being alone without the group. Ordinary setbacks can cause panic attacks, especially when one feels like a small child in a very foreign world. Coming out of a sheltered, repressed environment can result in a lack of coping skills and personal maturity. The phobia indoctrination makes it difficult to avoid the stabbing thought, even many years after leaving, that one has made a terrible mistake, thinking ‘what if they’re right?’

Space considerations prevent a full description of all the challenges a person faces over a lifetime of recovering from religious indoctrination and living in a religious environment. Cognitive problems can be serious because decision-making for oneself is difficult and critical thinking skills are undeveloped. A person healing and recovering needs to unlearn many dysfunctional ways of thinking and behaving and then rebuild. They are faced with reconstructing reality, in essence. The old assumptive world is gone and a new one must be built. A new sense of self has to be developed, and personal responsibility for life has to be accepted. The existential crisis can be enormous when one feels entirely groundless and must start over.

Dr. Winell asserts that, "Adding to the challenge is the all-too-common rejection from family and friends. For most people from a religious family, they must also reconstruct an entire social structure, while learning to view other people and the world in completely new terms. This can even require new employment. Marriages suffer when only one leaves the faith, and divorce is not uncommon." As a person who, for the most part, has left her childhood religion behind, I can say that it is an experience heavily laden with anxiety, fear, depression, anger, and confusion, and when family members stigmatize or stereotype me because of my change of beliefs, it compounds the pain and suffering dramatically. However, if family and friends are educated about the trauma leaving religion can cause, maybe a few people can be spared the pain of losing the relationships they cherish, and being rejected simply for their thoughts, as well.

peace.

Myth and Fact: Psychology Today 5 Part Series on MGM (Infant Circumcision)

2012-01-07T17:58:00.000-08:00

Part 1: Myths about Circumcision You Likely Believe

Myths:
Myth 1: They just cut off a flap of skin.
Myth 2: It doesn't hurt the baby.
Myth 3: My doctor uses anesthesia.
Myth 4: Even if it is painful, the baby won't remember it.
Myth 5: My baby slept right through it.
Myth 6: It doesn't cause the baby long-term harm.

Part 2: More Circumcision Myths You May Believe: Hygiene and STDs

Myths:
Myth: You have to get the baby circumcised because it is really hard to keep a baby's penis clean.
Myth: Little boys won't clean under their foreskins and will get infections.
Myth: Uncircumcised penises get smelly smegma.
Myth: "My uncle wasn't circumcised and he kept getting infections and had to be circumcised as an adult."
Myth: My son was diagnosed with phimosis and so had to be circumcised.
Myth: Uncircumcised boys get more urinary tract infections (UTIs.)
Myth: Circumcision prevents HIV/AIDS.
Myth: Circumcision is worth it because it can save lives.

Part 3: Circumcision: Social, Sexual, Psychological Realities

Myths:
Myth: You have to circumcise the baby so that he will match his dad.
Myth: My first son is circumcised, so I have to circumcise my second son.
Myth: My husband is the one with the penis, so it is his choice.
Myth: Everyone is circumcised.
Myth: Circumcision is an important tradition that has been going on forever.
Myth: The other boys will make fun of him.
Myth: Circumcision makes sex better for the woman.
Myth: Women don't want to have sex with uncircumcised men.
Myth: "Being circumcised doesn't affect my sex life."
Myth: "If I were any more sensitive, it would be a problem."

Part 4: Circumcision Ethics and Economics

Headings:

No medical association in the world recommends routine infant circumcision. None.
Circumcision wastes money.
Circumcision violates the Hippocratic Oath to "First, do no harm."
Everyone has a right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.
Parents' aesthetic preferences are not valid reasons for circumcision.
Even if you are fine with being circumcised, your son may not be.
Parents have a duty to educate themselves on circumcision rather than do it just because it was done to them.
Just because it has been a "tradition" does not make it right.
It's time to face our discomfort and admit that circumcision was a mistake.

Part 5: Why Continue to Harm Boys from Ignorance of Male Anatomy?

Headings:

WHY DO FORCED RETRACTION INJURIES CONTINUE TODAY?
WHAT DOES FORCED RETRACTION HAVE TO DO WITH CIRCUMCISION?
WHAT ABOUT THE CONCERN FOR UTI, URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS?
WHAT IF MY SON'S FORESKIN 'BALLOONS' WHEN HE PEES?
WHY NOT JUST LEAVE THE BOY'S PENIS TO DEVELOP ON ITS OWN?
WHAT CAN BE DONE TO DISCOURAGE THIS INJURY?

peace.

Pathological Fear - Is Birth as Scary as We've Been Told?

2012-01-05T13:42:00.000-08:00

For more info see http://www.oneworldbirth.net

peace.

I Dare You to Tell Me Women Are Weak

2012-01-04T18:21:00.000-08:00

peace.

The Courage It Takes to get Professional Help for Mental Health Issues

2012-01-04T17:40:00.000-08:00

I was listening to a whole lot of Mormon Stories episodes about mental health with panels of mental health professionals.

I was never a popular kid in school. From the time I was 10 to 17 I was seriously depressed, and I've been haunted by crippling anxiety my entire life. I have no way of knowing what I could have done or been had I not been constantly afraid of ordinary things like driving cars, talking to other people, and change. Maybe I'd make all the same choices anyway, and just not be so depressed about it all, who knows. I'm pretty happy these days, but these podcasts brought up some pretty painful memories, and reminded me that my struggle isn't over.

One of the doctors mentioned the likelihood that, for a person who experienced long-term depression through adolescence, depression would likely affect them off and on throughout their lives regardless of whether or not they receive treatment. It brought me to tears. Sometimes it feels like I'll never be free of it.

And through all this I've never had or sought any treatment. I saw a counselor a couple times freshman year of college when I had fallen into a very deep pit of depression after breaking up with my first boyfriend ever and finding myself overwhelmed by a level of coursework for which I simply was not prepared. I met with her twice. She was a very nice woman, but I was uncomfortable and did a great job of using the appointments to convince her that I was really okay and wasn't going to let this (failing, not going to class) happen again. I was very grateful for her reassurances that one F wasn't such a big deal and that the professors I had classes with the next semester would be very kind, helpful people. And that's it. I'm almost 24, and in spite of dealing with depression almost constantly through my life, I've never gotten serious treatment for it.

Why? Because it's terrifying. Admitting there's a problem is part of it, but mostly I am frightened of the prospect of what it might take to change things. What if it means confronting family members about their behavior toward me? What if I get there and start talking about my life, and the counselor starts highlighting all those things about myself I'm most ashamed of, and I have no answers? This is just a fraction of what frightens me about getting treatment. I feel like I'm seriously understating it though, because it's hard to articulate verbally. I cannot express how much fear the prospect of treatment induces in me. It. Is. Terrifying.

That's why I have such sympathy for people making that choice. It takes a lot to take that step and get help. I also completely understand when people don't, because I'm no different than them. I know how hard it is.

peace.

PS Mormon Stories and Mormon Matters are excellent podcasts which cover a wide range of issues, not solely related to Mormonism. A couple of the episodes I listened to today:

Treating Depression in Mormon Culture
Childhood Sexual Abuse with Dr. Barbara Morrell

Maid, Mother, Crone - The Goddess Archetype in My Personal Narrative

2012-01-04T00:09:00.000-08:00

Tonight was the first night I lit my Triple Goddess candles, and it was also the first day of my bleeding.

As I held the lighter over the candles, I considered for a moment which to light. The colors signify the three manifestations of the Goddess, white for the maid, red for the mother, and black for the crone. This being the infertile time, I considered the black candle first. The crone reminds me of the necessity of death, and for me personally, the necessity of letting go of old, worn out ideas that need to be laid to rest. Will I ever have a successful professional career? Probably not. Will I satisfy my family's expectations that I "use my degree"? I don't think so, or at least, I won't be using it in the form of pursuing a career. I'm putting that idea in its final resting place. My education is put to use every time I read a book, every time I write a blog post, every time I interact with people asking for advice on various online forums. My education showed me how to use my brain and to make my own choices. That is use enough for me. Like the time of the new moon, I'll use this time to retreat into the quiet, to allow Death to take what it will, accept the loss, accept that I cannot control the ebb and flow of life and death. I will watch the tide go in and out. Death has its place in this time. I lit the black candle.

However, I also know that blood is life. It carries nutrition and oxygen to every part of the body and carries away waste. The pulsing of our blood maps the highs and lows of life, slowing and quickening with our sadness, happiness, anger, disappointment, anxiety, and hopes. In a special way, a woman's monthly blood is also life. The vessels form and fill with blood, waiting to be used to grow new life. This blood contains stem cells, which can mean new life to those who suffer disease. I've been writing a great deal, posting on all my blogs, full to the brim with ideas. At this time when the blood that is life is flowing, motherhood, giving birth to new creations of the mind and body are at the forefront of my awareness as well. I lit the red candle.

This first day of bleeding also marks the first day of a new cycle, a new beginning, nearly coinciding with the New Year. I do not know where I will go from here, but today, I am trying new things. I am starting fresh, again. I lit the white candle.

It is difficult to really connect to the concept of one's cycle on a spiritual level when I use a hormonal form of birth control. I'm not really "in tune with my cycle" so much as I am following a schedule of inserting the Nuvaring and removing the Nuvaring. The blood comes when the ring is gone, not when the cycle is complete. It stops when the ring is there, not because the cycle has actually begun again. I am in control. On some level, I appreciate that more. Control is very important for a person who has allowed others to determine her fate for so long. And maybe it is appropriate that the time when I will no longer have control will be when Husband and I decide we're ready to have children. I will choose to relinquish control over my body as I relinquish control of my life, or at least total control, as children have a tendency to take choice off the table in a way. Control is a tricky thing. I daresn't have too much.

peace.

10 Reasons Not To Vote For Ron Paul

2012-01-03T20:24:00.000-08:00

(Reblogged from http://ronpaulsucks.tumblr.com/, who got it from http://www.addictinginfo.org/category/ron-paul/)

1. Ron Paul does not value equal rights for minorities. Ron Paul has sponsored legislation that would repeal affirmative action, keep the IRS from investigating private schools who may have used race as a factor in denying entrance, thus losing their tax exempt status, would limit the scope of Brown versus Board of Education, and would deny citizenship for those born in the US if their parents are not citizens. Here are links to these bills: H.R.3863, H.R.5909, H.J.RES.46, andH.J.RES.42.

2. Ron Paul would deny women control of their bodies and reproductive rights.Ron Paul makes it very clear that one of his aims is to repeal Roe v. Wade. He has also co sponsored 4 separate bills to “To provide that human life shall be deemed to exist from conception.” This, of course, goes against current medical and scientific information as well as our existing laws and precedents. Please see these links: H.R.2597 and H.R.392

3. Ron Paul would be disastrous for the working class. He supports abolishing the Federal minimum wage, has twice introduced legislation to repeal OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Act and would deal devastating blows to Social Security including repealing the act that makes it mandatory for employees of nonprofits, to make “coverage completely optional for both present and future workers”, and would “freeze benefit levels”. He has also twice sponsored legislation seeking to repeal the Davis-Bacon Act and the Copeland Act which among other things provide that contractors for the federal government must provide the prevailing wage and prohibits corporate “kick backs.” Here are the related legislative links: H.R.2030, H.R.4604, H.R.736, and H.R.2720

4. Ron Paul’s tax plan is unfair to lower earners and would greatly benefit those with the highest incomes.He has repeatedly submitted amendments to the tax code that would get rid of the estate and gift taxes, tax all earners at 10%, disallow income tax credits to individuals who are not corporations, repeal the elderly tax credit, child care credit, earned income credit, and other common credits for working class citizens. Please see this link for more information: H.R.05484 Summary

5. Ron Paul’s policies would cause irreparable damage to our already strained environment.Among other travesties he supports off shore drilling, building more oil refineries, mining on federal lands, no taxes on the production of fuel, and would stop conservation efforts that could be a “Federal obstacle” to building and maintaining refineries. He has also sought to amend the Clean Air Act, repeal the Soil and Water Conservation Act of 1977, and to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to “restrict the jurisdiction of the United States over the discharge of dredged or fill material to discharges into waters”. To see for yourself the possible extent of the damage to the environment that would happen under a Paul administration please follow these links: H.R.2504,H.R.7079, H.R.7245, H.R.2415, H.R.393, H.R.4639, H.R.5293, and H.R.6936

6. A Ron Paul administration would continue to proliferate the negative image of the US among other nations. Ron Paul supports withdrawing the US from the UN, when that has not happened he has fought to at least have the US withdrawn from the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. He has introduced legislation to keep the US from giving any funds to the UN. He also submitted that the US funds should not be used in any UN peacekeeping mission or any UN program at all. He has sponsored a bill calling for us to “terminate all participation by the United States in the United Nations, and to remove all privileges, exemptions, and immunities of the United Nations.”Ron Paul twice supported stopping the destruction of intercontinental ballistic missile silos in the United States. He also would continue with Bush’s plan of ignoring international laws by maintaining an insistence that the International Criminal Court does not apply to the US, despite President Clinton’s signature on the original treaty. The International Criminal Court is used for, among other things, prosecution of war crimes. Please see the following links: H.R.3891,H.AMDT.191, H.AMDT.190, H.R.3769, H.R.1665, H.CON.RES.23, and H.R.1154

7. Ron Paul discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and would not provide equal rights and protections to glbt citizens. This is an issue that Paul sort of dances around. He has been praised for stating that the federal government should not regulate who a person marries. This has been construed by some to mean that he is somewhat open to the idea of same sex marriage, he is not. Paul was an original co sponsor of the Marriage Protection Act in the House in 2004. Among other things this discriminatory piece of legislation placed a prohibition on the recognition of a same sex marriage across state borders. He said in 2004 that if he was in the Texas legislature he would not allow judges to come up with “new definitions” of marriage. Paul is a very religious conservative and though he is careful with his words his record shows that he is not a supporter of same sex marriage. In 1980 he introduced a particularly bigoted bill entitled “A bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955 A direct quote from the legislation “Prohibits the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” shows that he is unequivocally opposed to lifestyles other than heterosexual.

8. Ron Paul has an unnatural obsession with guns. One of Paul’s loudest gripes is that the second amendment of the constitution is being eroded. In fact, he believes that September 11 would not have happened if that wasn’t true. He advocates for there to be no restrictions on personal ownership of semi-automatic weaponry or large capacity ammunition feeding devices, would repeal the Gun-Free School Zones Act (because we all know our schools are just missing more guns), wants guns to be allowed in our National Parks, and repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968. Now, I’m pretty damn certain that when the Constitution was written our founding fathers never intended for people to be walking around the streets with AK47′s and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” (That just sounds scary.) Throughout the years our Constitution has been amended and is indeed a living document needing changes to stay relevant in our society. Paul has no problem changing the Constitution when it fits his needs, such as no longer allowing those born in the US to be citizens if their parents are not. On the gun issue though he is no holds barred. I know he’s from Texas but really, common sense tells us that the amendments he is seeking to repeal have their place. In fact, the gun control act was put into place after the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., and Robert Kennedy. Please view the following links: H.R.2424, H.R.1897, H.R.1096,H.R.407, H.R.1147, and H.R.3892.

9. Ron Paul would butcher our already sad educational system. The fact is that Ron Paul wants to privatize everything and that includes education. Where we run into problems is that it has been shown (think our current health care system) that this doesn’t work so well in practice. Ron Paul has introduced legislation that would keep the Federal Government “from planning, developing, implementing, or administering any national teacher test or method of certification and from withholding funds from States or local educational agencies that fail to adopt a specific method of teacher certification.” In a separate piece of legislation he seeks to “prohibit the payment of Federal Education assistance in States which require the licensing or certification of private schools or private school teachers.” So basically the federal government can’t regulate teaching credentials and if states opt to require them for private schools they get no aid. That sounds like a marvelous idea teachers with no certification teaching in private schools that are allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. He is certainly moving forward with these proposals!Remember his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955? Guess what? He basically advocates for segregation in schools once again. It “Forbids any court of the United States from requiring the attendance at a particular school of any student because of race, color, creed, or sex.” Without thinking about this statement it doesn’t sound bad at all. But remember, when desegregating schools that this is done by having children go to different schools, often after a court decision as in Brown Vs. Board of Education. If this were a bill that passed, schools would no longer be compelled to comply and the schools would go back to segregation based on their locations. Ron Paul is really starting to look like a pretty bigoted guy don’t you think?

10. Ron Paul is opposed to the separation of church and state. This reason is probably behind every other thing that I disagree with in regards to Paul’s positions. Ron Paul is among those who believes that there is a war on religion, he stated “Through perverse court decisions and years of cultural indoctrination, the elitist, secular Left has managed to convince many in our nation that religion must be driven from public view.” (( Koyaanisqatsi Blog: Wrong Paul Why I Do Not Want Ron Paul to be My President )) Though he talks a good talk, at times, Ron Paul can’t get away from his far right, conservative views. He would support “alternative views” to evolution taught in public schools (i.e. Intelligent Design.) We’ve already taken a look at his “bill to strengthen the American family and promote the virtues of family life.” or H.R.7955Besides hating the gays he takes a very religious stance on many other things. He is attempting to force his beliefs on the rest of America, exactly what he would do as president.

peace.

Healthier Choices

2012-01-03T01:26:00.000-08:00

Ideas I'm thinking about trying:

- Cod Liver Oil (fermented), for DHA, EPA, Omega 3, and various other nutrients
- No-poo hair care (no more shampooing; either conditioner-only or cleansing with baking soda then rinse with vinegar)
- Oil of Oregano, to improve digestion
- Baking soda and crystal salt in water, to balance pH
- Substituting quinoa for pasta/rice, because it has more nutrients and good carbs

Things I'm definitely going to do:

- switch to natural deodorant when the sticks of Dove I have are gone
- Husband and are are definitely considering switching to this instead of laundry detergent

Tomorrow I'm heading to the local natural food store to see if they have what I need. Probably won't try everything at once. If I start to feel healthier, I want to know the specific thing that caused it!

So the grocery list is as follows:

- Oil of Oregano
- Aluminum-free Baking Soda
- Fruit
- Quinoa
- Fermented Cod Liver Oil
- Salt
- Organic Milk

peace.

Where My Imagination Takes Me

2012-01-02T20:58:00.000-08:00

Last night I was laying in bed, and an idea for a story came to me (I never write them; I'm rather useless at the actual writing part). It's about a girl who, whenever she gets really angry, turns into a wolf. But she's not a monster or anything when she's a wolf. She just sort of sits there looking bemused. To get her to turn back, she has to drink a bowl of milk, but she doesn't like milk. She won't attack you or anything if you try to give her milk; she just doesn't care for it. She sniffs it and walks away. Sits in a corner, bored, but eventually she gets thirsty, drinks the milk, and turns back into a human. That's all.

peace.

The Tease, The Slut, and Other Characteristics of Rape Culture

2012-01-01T16:24:00.000-08:00

Rape Culture

First I'd like to address some misconceptions about the term "rape culture," what we mean when we say we live in a rape culture, we are trying to fight rape culture, etc. There is this idea that, of course, everyone is against rape, and if you're not well you're just a sicko. This is just false. When we talk about living in a rape culture, we are talking about a large number of people in the culture, in total ignorance, perpetuating beliefs and values that allow people to be raped. For example, when you're watching a romantic comedy and the girl's all pissed until the guy grabs her for a kiss, and she fights him at first, but she just had to realize that she really did want the kiss. That's rape culture. He forced physical affection not just without her consent, but against her will, and we call that shit romantic! Rape culture is doing only the bare minimum instead of the best you can to prevent rape. Because "no means no" is not good enough.

In other words, when I say we live in a rape culture, I do not mean that most people believe that rape is okay or that they idolize the [totally stereotyped] image of the monster skulking in an alley just waiting for a beautiful, innocent young maiden to ravage. I mean that we are only doing the bare fucking minimum to prevent rape, and it's not fucking good enough. Because people are raped all the fucking time. If my language makes you uncomfortable, good. That's the point. Because there's an awful lot of bad, crude, abusive, violent fucking going on and that should make you uncomfortable. Women, men, and children are being raped every single day, and it's because this society is just too lazy and too arrogant to fix the crappy parts of our culture.

So, now that we've got that out of the way, here's how words, such as "slut" and "tease," contribute to rape culture.

The Tease

When you express as a value, "you don't want to be a tease," you are really just making it harder for people to say "no" if they change their mind at some point in a romantic situation. Imagine a person who thinks they want to have sex up to a point, then they change their mind, for whatever reason. What's the voice at the back of their head saying? "But you don't want to be a tease!" And they end up having sex when they didn't want to, because they had been convinced that what the other person thinks of them is more important than that sexual activity be consensual. Though their partner probably has no idea that they didn't want to, this person who had sex unwillingly will probably experience the event as a rape. They may feel the same traumatic effects as if they had been held down and forced into intercourse. They will probably be a great deal more reluctant to come anywhere near sexual activity in the future, for fear that they will be faced with the same situation and not be able to simply say that they've had enough.

The Slut

There is nothing wrong with liking sex, and it is entirely possible for a person to have multiple sexual partners and for that sexual activity to be responsible, respectful, and satisfying. In addition to perpetuating a false stereotype, that it is harmful or immoral to have multiple sexual partners, the myth of the slut propagates a false dichotomy, a belief that sexuality is black and white when it isn't. It perpetuates rape culture by presenting the false idea that either a woman never wants sex or she always wants sex, nothing in between. Presuming that a woman is a "slut" allows a potential sexual partner to think that they don't need explicit consent from the so-called "slut," because they can just assume that, as a "slut," she always wants sex. In reality, obviously, a woman who has multiple sexual partners has as much a right and propensity to say "no" at any time for any reason as any other woman. The need for explicit consent is universal, whether one has never had sex before, has never had sex with this particular partner but has had many partners previously, or has had sex with this particular partner many times before. Only "yes" means "yes," but lots of things actually mean "no."

Here are some illustrations to help you understand:

The problem isn't just these stereotypical labels for women; it's also the misconceptions about rape itself, about what constitutes consent and what constitutes force. It's the stereotypes that say if a person just does x, y, or z they won't get raped. It's the stereotypes and misconceptions about rapists that paint them as these totally depraved monsters waiting in dark alleys. It's not that black and white. Rape is a huge gray issue, but only because we refuse to give up our biases and allow the victims to speak their truth.

We can eradicate rape culture, if only we would try.

peace.

The Less-Than-Cuddly Professor Severus Snape

2011-12-27T18:20:00.000-08:00

Why do people love Snape? To begin with, I'll tell you how it happened for me. It started during Chamber of Secrets when he opens a can of whoop-ass on Lockhart. My hatred for Lockhart fully eclipsed my dislike of Snape, and I was definitely rooting for him at the dueling club and at the end in the staff room. Snape may have been a jerk, but he at least was as competent as he claimed to be. Then in Goblet of Fire, when Voldemort returned, and Harry was rescued by Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Snape, that image of the trio of professors framed in the doorway of Moody's (or rather Crouch Jr.'s) office imprinted itself in my mind's eye. The three of them all appeared terribly impressive to me. And when he grimly accepted that duty to return to Voldemort's side, risking life and limb as Dumbledore's spy, he became a hero to me. Half-Blood Prince made me wonder what I was missing about him. And The Deathly Hallows showed me a much more complex picture of suffering, love, ostracism, friendship, loss, guilt, loyalty, secrecy, heroism, and disappointment that is the life of Severus Snape.

Yet people wonder, with good reason, how anyone could be a fan of Snape. He's cruel to Neville for his lack of skill, he mocks Hermione for her buck teeth when he should have punished her attacker, and he's always rude to Harry and looking for ways to get him expelled. On top of all that, he's deeply interested in the Dark Arts, and has gone so far as to join Voldemort's league of Death Eaters. So how is it that this blog writer came to love Severus Snape, the greasy-haired git, the bat of the dungeons? I'll tell you.

Severus Snape is mean. He openly mocks students, whether they are intelligent or inept. He constantly berates Neville for his ineptitude and scolds Hermione for being too good in his class. He's rude and sarcastic to nearly everyone. He's always trying to catch Harry, Ron, and Hermione doing something bad enough to get them expelled. He insults Harry's father at every chance he gets.

It is safe to say that Dumbledore always believed Voldemort would return. Since Snape was his spy before, it makes he would expect him to do the same when Voldemort rose again. Clearly there were plenty of Death Eaters still at large after the first fall of Voldemort, and their children attended Hogwarts. Snape would need to continue to play the role of a supporter of Voldemort, biding his time like the rest, but still showing prejudicial tendencies and an affinity for the Dark Arts. Would Draco Malfoy fail to tell his father if Professor Snape was kind of muggle-borns or "blood traitors"? Hardly. In order for Snape to secure his place in Voldemort's inner circle, he needed to behave as if he supported the ideals of the Death Eaters. Possibly it wasn't a terrible imposition for him to be rude to Harry and his friends, but we cannot know that for sure.

Snape did not have a happy childhood, and while Harry's upbringing wasn't exactly cheerful, he got a fresh start at Hogwarts. He was world famous for being the reason Voldemort fell. He made friends quickly and was soon reasonably popular at Hogwarts. Snape had no such luck as a child. In addition, Harry was a constant reminder to Snape of his responsibility for Lily's death and of his losing Lily to James because of his own weakness in the first place. Finally though, I think it's important to point out the simple fact that not everyone gets along. Not getting along with Harry doesn't make you evil.

Snape is no innocent. He has demonstrated himself to be a person who finds revenge perfectly acceptable. He did things to get back at Petunia when she made him or Lily angry. He created the horrific Sectumsempra spell "for enemies." He tried to get James &c expelled, you know, all the time. He became heavily involved in the Dark Arts and joined Voldemort basically right out of Hogwarts.

Snape was raised to believe in prejudices against muggle-born witches and wizards and to practice the Dark Arts. However, when he found friendship in a muggle-born witch, he found himself living a contradiction in which allowed Lily to bring out better qualities, though he remained interested in the Dark Arts and was reluctant to profess tolerance for muggle-borns. It would have been terribly difficult to fit in with his Slytherin peers when his best friend was a muggle-born Gryffindor, and it wasn't as if he could change houses. It is also implied in Order of the Phoenix that members of different houses don't usually socialize with each other much, and the hatred of James Potter &c would have guaranteed that no one outside of Slytherin house accept him even if inter-house socializing were more common. All in all, Snape had been given a pretty raw deal, and as a child was forced to choose between remaining loyal to his best friend and having a secure social circle in his own house. It would be difficult for a young person his age who had grown up in a well-balanced and happy environment to be faced with such a choice, let alone for someone who had experienced little love or happiness in his life. The choice he made was not positive, but it would have been difficult for him to see very far beyond his immediate need for security and acceptance at his age.

These same needs for security and acceptance, as well as for power, can be seen as the reasons behind his choice to join the Death Eaters. After losing Lily as a friend in school, what path could he have seen besides following his old school friends into Voldemort's fold? After feeling so powerless to keep Lily in his life, to defend himself from James's and Sirius's bullying in school, he may have seen a way to gain power over others, to determine his own destiny for a change. It is not uncommon for those who have been victims of abuse to become abusers themselves, to victimize others in order to feel less powerless themselves. I do not mean to excuse any of the terrible things Snape did, but I think that it is also difficult to demonize him, to say that he is merely evil, when one understands all the events and circumstances that brought him to make the choices that he did.

It's complicated. Snape has also done some terribly heroic and selfless things. Of this we can be certain.

At great risk to himself, Snape spied for Dumbledore, and though Snape was rude and repeatedly looked for ways to get Harry expelled from Hogwarts, he protected Harry from harm for years. We know he did this to honor Lily, perhaps to keep her alive in a way, through Harry. Whether because it made all his effort seem a waste or because he thought it an insult to Lily's memory, he is deeply disturbed when he learns that it was all so that Harry could die at the right time. He also risked everything in keeping his vow to both Dumbledore and Narcissa in killing the headmaster. Dumbledore was the only one who could have spoken for him and his true loyalties if he were caught and tried as a Death Eater, as he did when Voldemort fell the first time. Though as a professor he was mean and rude, while headmaster of Hogwarts, Snape gave punishments such as helping Hagrid in the Forbidden Forest - keeping the students safe from the very real danger of the wrath of the Carrows. In addition, he went out of his way to complete the plans of Dumbledore, though he did not agree with the plan, because he swore he would.

It is easy to protect one's friends and loved ones. Their safety is in one's own best interest. Snape, however, repeatedly acts to protect people he not only does not love, but people whom he actually dislikes a great deal, not because he'll get anything out of it, but presumably because it is the right thing to do.

I think that for me, Snape as a character presents us with the opportunity to consider the paradox of loving or admiring someone who is not very loveable, and not always very admirable. Snape is mean, and has done terrible things, and continues to do things that aren't very nice. The complexity of his character, of a person who is actually crucial to the defeat of Voldemort, and yet who was so abusive to the 11 year old Harry, who loved Lily and saw her worth, and yet who directly contributed to her death. There is no denying that without the service he gave Dumbledore and the Order, Harry could not have triumphed over Voldemort. In fact, without Snape's overhearing the prophecy in the first place, would Voldemort have fallen the first time? It is impossible to know what would have taken place had Snape only made different choices.

The Byronic Hero

Especially since Deathly Hallows came out, I have viewed Snape as a Byronic hero. As I saw it, Snape has a kind of greatness about him that is not related to any sort of traditional virtue or heroic deeds. Looking at what he's been through and what he has accomplished, both the good and the bad, there is an epic feeling about his life story that cannot be denied. According to Wikipedia, "The Byronic hero typically exhibits several of the following traits (Source):

Arrogant
Cunning and able to adapt
Cynical
Disrespectful of rank and privilege
Emotionally conflicted, bipolar, or moody
Having a distaste for social institutions and norms
Having a troubled past or suffering from an unnamed crime
Intelligent and perceptive
Jaded, world-weary
Mysterious, magnetic and charismatic
Seductive and sexually attractive
Self-critical and introspective
Self-destructive
Socially and sexually dominant
Sophisticated and educated
Struggling with integrity
Treated as an exile, outcast, or outlaw"

People have been fascinated by and developed an affinity for characters like Snape for quite a long time, and will probably continue to do so for as long as storytelling exists. It is the same attraction to characters like Melmoth in Melmoth the Wanderer, Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights, and Dorian Gray from The Picture of Dorian Gray. He challenges our stereotypes and biases. He infuriates and inspires awe. For that, we both love and hate him, which was, of course, the point.

peace.

First World Problems

2011-12-27T17:00:00.000-08:00

peace.

Beliefnet's Belief-O-Matic

2011-12-27T08:00:00.000-08:00

I took this quiz on beliefnet.com telling me which religious tradition or philosophy would best suit my beliefs about deity, salvation, morality, etc. I'm not terribly surprised by the results:

I had no idea what Liberal Quakers are, but I am certainly impressed by their beliefs, especially the diversity of belief among followers. I also find it hilarious that practically every religion fits me better than the one I grew up with: Catholicism. I'm more Jewish than Catholic. I'm more Mormon than Catholic. I'm more Scientologist than Catholic! Needless to say, I don't think I could ever be happy returning to Catholic orthodoxy or orthopraxy. While my heritage and identity is Catholic, I do not find a whole lot of "truth" in Catholicism. Mostly because I don't accept the premise that there is any one absolute truth to be found when it comes to religion. Truth is something of a paradox to me. I think I'm more Catholic than this quiz says I am, because I think I'm more Catholic than the Catholic church considers me. The quiz is most likely following the church's "official" definitions.

Anyway, I think that the reason the results came out the way they did was because they give you the option to say how important the answers are to you, and pretty much the only ones I rated as very important were the moral/social questions (homosexuality, divorce, abortion, non-violence) and the "why is there evil?" questions. Because how many gods there are and how you get into heaven just isn't that important to me.

peace.

2011 in Videos

2011-12-25T22:18:00.000-08:00

... mostly just from my YouTube favorites list, not in any particular order:

Yeah ... did you notice a lot of gay rights stuff? I think I might have some kind of obsession ...

peace.

Resolutions!

2011-12-25T20:09:00.000-08:00

Just a few ideas I want to put down in writing so that I'll give it a real shot:

do more yoga
add financial support to the causes I support only vocally
find a house
create a make-a-baby fund and add to it regularly

As for last year's resolutions ...

I no longer drink cow's milk, because when I stopped and started again, I realized that it makes me crazy. I was a mean wife when I started drinking cow's milk again. Now I drink mostly G.T's Kombucha (cherry chia) and organic soy milk.

I tried to cut out gluten, but I didn't notice any effects.

I eat a lot less sugary junk food now! I am buying a lot more of our food (mostly produce) from the natural food store in town, so I can get local and organic fruits and vegetables, meat, dairy, etc.

Though this wasn't a resolution, we are slowly transitioning to a much more green and healthy lifestyle. In the last year, I've switched to natural/organic/green toothpaste (Tom's), feminine products (Lunapads, Mother Moon Pads, and DivaCup), shampoo and conditioner (Desert Essence), toilet bowl cleaner, dish soap, kitchen/bathroom cleaning spray (Seventh Generation), glass cleaner, lip balm (chicken poop), sweetener (raw honey), vitamins (New Chapter), and cooking oil (LouAna peanut oil, which doesn't hydrogenate under high temperatures).

I did not end up picking up sewing again, but I did hem my new pants last month, and a couple days ago I showed husband how to do it himself!

I did work on decorating the apartment! The picture frames are arranged by material/color (silver with silver, light wood with light wood, etc). Husband's swords are hanging up with some relative order, and I got him to throw out the rattier-looking ones. One thing I haven't done yet though is frame the painting my dear friend brought back from France for me. The one store I know we can get supplies from is closed on Sundays, which is the one day husband and I usually both have off. Maybe we'll get a chance to do that this week, since he has the week off!

peace.

PS - speaking of resolutions, what about New Me November? Did anyone else make resolutions a couple months ago, and how are you doing now? I am most definitely back to blogging, and I've started a new blogging project on tumblr (sorry though, I'm using my real name/identity there and won't be posting links here. Speaking of which, if you see a post/page that has too much detail into my real name/identity, please point it out to me. I'm still trying to get it all off this blog.)

The Three Brothers, The Abandoned Boys

2011-12-22T20:04:00.000-08:00

peace.

Esty Shopping Experiences Review 2011 Roundup

2011-12-21T20:45:00.000-08:00

Last post for the day, I promise!

As the holidays loom nearer, I just wanted to review/hype the great small businesses I bought from or received gifts from in the last year!

Easter Egg Upcycled Crayons from DucksInARowBoutique: a great idea for toddlers who can't quite grip those skinny regular crayons!

Organic Burp Cloths from marygbags - Also personalized and paisley: very soft fabric and adorable patterns; the person we bought them for loved them!

Little Red Riding Hood Organic Cotton Onesie from The Cottage Mama: very comfortable and incredible detail in the design.

Personalized Upcycled Alphabet Crayons from MadebyMAXX: very inexpensive and you can order whatever letters in whatever colors you want!

Thong Cloth Pantiliners by Caroline's Creations: They fit wonderfully, stay put, and are very cute!

Reusable Snack Bags by MelsSells: lovely if you want to avoid using all those plastic bags for snacks.

Peas in a Pod Plush Toy by HiddenGrins: each pea makes a different sound (crinkly, squeaky, etc), and it's wonderfully soft!

Antiqued Alphabet Blocks by meeshabelle: very detailed, but I wouldn't recommend for children who still put everything in their mouths - I don't know what kind of paint is used (it might be non-toxic though), but it looked like a bit of chewing will definitely make it come off.

More Upcycled Crayons by Polkadotty: excellent customer service, as I've come to expect from all my Etsy sellers!

Quilled Christmas Tree Ornaments by Barbara's Beautys: beautifully detailed!

Eggplant and Apple Knit Hats by Coffee & T: ridiculously soft, and they actually smell wonderful (sometimes you get that plastic-y smell from knits, but not this)!!

Custom Beeswax Candles by Beeswic: haven't received the order yet, but again, wonderful customer service!

I love shopping on Etsy. You get to support individuals and small businesses, you can find natural/chemical-free alternatives for lots of products (toiletries, clothing and accessories, toys, etc), and you can find creative, innovative products for just about any personal interest. Type "Harry Potter" into the search bar and you'll be entertained for hours! There, my Etsy roundup for 2011 is finished!

peace.

The Reader's Super Duper Catholic Christmas Gift Guide!

2011-12-21T18:00:00.000-08:00

Here's your 2011 Christmas Gift Guide, inspired by Eliza R. Snitch!

This gift set is great for your on the go Catholic loved ones, and "included is a holy card of St. Faustina that contains a third class relic." Your truly devout Catholics will not be impressed, but I guess they won't go so far as to actually sell parts of dead people on EWTN's catalogue. Darn.

No Catholic home is truly sanctified unless properly decorated with a crucifix (even Macha has a couple!), and what better way to remember the horrific and gruesome death of Our Lord and to appreciate the immensity of his sacrifice than with this crucifix, which is "a silver-plated, handcrafted cover and 24kt gold accents," and also "hand-painted and includes turquoise stones."

Nothing says Christmas like a Holocaust victim tree ornament.

Spread some Christmas cheer with the book that shows us all why we need to be having more unprotected sex.

Show the sexy, modern woman in your life how much you truly care by giving her this book that tells her everything she's doing is wrong!

Know any new parents? You can give them this plaque to remind them that all babies are watched over by at least two baby angels!

This glow-in-the-dark reminder that they are always being watched definitely won't give your children paranoid neuroses!

And speaking of terrifying children's products, you need this. Period.

Happy Shopping everyone!

peace.

Book Review: The Goddess: a beginner's guide

2011-12-21T10:55:00.000-08:00

Teresa Moorey's book is part of a series of beginner's guides to many topics, including Chakras, Meditation, Shamanism, and Witchcraft.

I liked the attitude of the book, that the author is not propagating goddess worship as the One True Faith™, but as a mythos that people can use to improve their lives and the lives of the people around them. Moorey sets this up in the first chapter, saying,

Reacceptance of the Goddess could to much to heal splits, encouraging us to face all aspects of our nature and to think deeply before we condemn anyone or anything as 'evil'. However worship of the Goddess isn't an invitation to do exactly what we like, for it brings an awareness of the cosmic web, and of how each action affects the whole, and affects us. There is no dogma, and the only rule is 'Harm none' but ideally a great deal of responsibility is called for.

... there is a considerable number of women who are looking to goddess images and stories as a source of inspiration, while possibly not designating themselves by the term 'pagan'. This makes no difference, for there are no Goddess catechisms to cause agonies of conscience. The Goddess accepts all who come to Her in openness.

While I found the work inspiring and appealing on a personal level, I was not completely impressed with it on a scholarly or stylistic level. Moorey needs to work on grammar and punctuation in general (as you can see in the above quote), and the work is not scholarly in either content or style of writing. I am not so concerned about her strange method of citation (inconsistent and not fitting into the standards of any stylebook I've seen). I was more bothered by her sometimes amateur understanding of myths. For instance, she attributes the characteristics of both Chronos and Cronus - two completely different characters in Greek myth - to the god Chronos, calling him Zeus's father and the son of Ouranos AND the personification of Time (97-99). She also makes some unfounded and unsupported guesses about goddess myths, hypothesizing a "patriarchal slant" (63,79) for which she discusses no evidence. If one is looking for a scholarly, historically accurate discussion of goddess myths, this is not the book for that person.

That is not to say that this makes it worthless to those who would explore the usefulness of goddess stories and imagery in their lives. On the contrary, that is exactly what this book is for, and indeed, to imply that there is a "right" way to tell a myth is to misunderstand the purpose of myths. One tells the story in a way that will convey the meaning that the storytelling intends; who cares if it doesn't match up with previous tellings? This is not a history book claiming to give the reader a look into the beliefs of the ancient Greeks and Romans; it is a book about incorporating the myriad stories and images of the goddess in one's personal life. Her interpretations of the myths and how they can apply to one's personal journey sometimes appear too authoritative, when, to someone who has studied mythology in the past, are simply conjecture. That does not mean that one's personal interpretation is invalid, but Moorey sometimes gives the impression that hers is the interpretation generally accepted as accurate. This can be bothersome if one is looking to discover how the stories can relate to them personally, and not for a forced, feminist reading.

Each chapter ends with suggestions for "practice," ideas for rituals or meditations where one can incorporate the goddess in one's life, and there is a list of "Further Reading" at the end of the book. As a practical guide for those interested in the idea of goddess worship or goddess consciousness or the Divine Feminine, the book would be a great place to start. For me personally, it has brought up a new facet of my relationship with religion. My idea of deity is summed up by the line from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, when Dumbledore says to Harry, "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" As far as I am concerned all gods and goddesses exist only within the human mind. But that does not mean that they are not real, or that the rituals and stories and images connected to them are useless in a person's life. In other words, I take a Jungian approach to the mythologies related to the world's religions. All are useful, and all are true, even if they are not real.

peace.

PS - for those looking to explore the idea of goddess worship, etc, I also recommend The Dance of the Dissident Daughter by Sue Monk Kidd and Women Who Run With the Wolves by Clarissa Pinkola Estes.

Regulatory Capture

2011-12-20T09:27:00.001-08:00

peace.

Here Comes Christmas-Yule-Saturnalia-Winter Solstice

2011-12-18T18:53:00.000-08:00

Day of Ashura: December 5th (in 2011)
Hanukkah: Early to Late December
Our Lady of Guadalupe: December 12th
Saturnalia: December 17th-23rd
Yule: December 20th-31st
Winter Solstice: December 21st-23rd
Pancha Ganapati: December 21st-25th
Soyal: December 22nd-January 10th
Christmas: December 25th
Kwanzaa: December 26th to January 1st

This isn't a Christmas-is-pagan-so-the-joke's-on-the-Christians post, and it's not a Christmas-is-really-about-Jesus post, and it's not a Christmas-is-about-commercialism-so-fuck-that-shit post. This is just a short discussion on honoring the connectedness of all humanity.

This week or so at the end of December is celebrated in myriad ways by several different cultures. It is the celebration of the rebirth of the Sun God out of the great Mother Goddess. It is the celebration of the Incarnation of the Savior and the Son of God, Jesus. It is the celebration of the God of the Harvest, Saturn. It is the celebration of the oil that lit the darkness for eight days. It is the invitation of the return of Spring. It has been a time of charity and gift-giving, of waiting for things to come, of fire and ice.

Through history and across great distances people groups have performed rites and held celebrations to honor this time when the days are shortest and the promise of Spring, of renewal and resurrection, sustains us in the darkness and the cold. All humankind knows what it is to wait for the fulfillment of things hoped for or promised. The story of the divine being who will come to save us, whether from sin and damnation or from starvation and death, is one that many cultures and people feel in their bones. We have felt it waiting for the birth of a new baby, waiting to meet our soul mates, waiting to receive our diploma, waiting to land our dream job. This quiet incubation where all is stillness and dark resonates in all our psyches.

This season of Midwinter, I hope that, whatever your tradition or belief, you do not waste any energy contemplating which people or which tradition is right, but on how we can renew the connections in our many-faceted human family. We all know the fearful anticipation, the joyful hope, in which we wait for things to come.

peace on earth, and goodwill to all humankind.

Question for Other Fans of The West Wing

2011-12-15T20:18:00.000-08:00

How long was Zoey Bartlet supposed to have been held captive after she was kidnapped the night of her graduation?

She was kidnapped on May 7th, which we know because it was the night of her graduation, the date Charlie finds on the note from his wallet.

It's never stated outright how long she was held captive or how long President Walken was in charge.

There is a clue: from the episode "Jefferson Lives," Abby Bartlet is chastising Leo McGarry, and says, "seventy-two hours; the bruises aren't even... did you see her face?" I can't be sure whether that was supposed to refer to how long she had been gone or how long it had been since she had been found. That conversation happened on July 4th. If you follow the hour-by-hour timeline (below), it doesn't appear that seventy-two hours had actually gone by. Between kidnapping and rescue, the show appears to tell us that only fifty-one hours have passed.

This is either a plot hole (a la A Wrinkle in Time), or she really was gone for nearly two months. It just seems to me that it wasn't very long between the kidnapping and rescue. The season premiere opens at "hour seven," or seven hours after Zoey was taken. This first episode tells the story from hour seven to the next evening following the kidnapping, when the Bartlet family attends Mass. The next episode, "The Dogs of War," begins at hour twenty-four. It is Tuesday morning (President Bartlet has just been talking with Toby at about 1:00AM/hour fifty) when we see a woman at the FBI Command Center receive a phone call. We know that not much time has passed, because Admiral Fitzwallace asks Leo if he's been home since "this started," and Leo gives him a look that clearly says "well duh." When the call comes in that Zoey has been found, the clock behind Leo and Fitzwallace, labelled "POTUS," says it's 1:55AM. Zoey disappeared at about 11:30PM Saturday night, and (according to the time stamps that keep popping up) she was found at about 2:00AM Tuesday. Though there's no timestamp, I assume that President Bartlet returns to the Oval Office the next morning.

So, we know that she was kidnapped on May 7th and that she was returned apparently returned within three days, but that she still had bruises from her ordeal on Independence Day. It has been almost two months since she was kidnapped and yet she still has bruises on her face. Either my understanding of how long a bruise lasts is flawed, or we have a serious plot hole here.

peace.

Does NOM really want to hear my answer?

2011-12-13T20:45:00.000-08:00

I just got this email message from Brian Brown of NOM (as in, the national organization against gays getting married). He needs money. But if you don't give him enough money, he wants to know what part of their efforts he should cut back on.

Do you really want me to answer that Brian? 'Cause the answers are yes, yes, yes, and yes. Stop fighting marriage equality. Stop trying to repeal laws that guarantee equal marriage. Stop trying to defend discriminatory laws. And ... well I'm not sure what lies you think Obama's going to tell on the campaign trail; if you couldn't tell by Secretary Clinton's speech to the UN, this administration is for equality in every sense of the word. I don't recall him ever implying that he would uphold discriminatory policies like DOMA and DADT, so I don't really see him doing so in the future. Seriously.

peace.

Worth Every Knut

2011-12-09T15:00:00.000-08:00

peace.

A Bit More on Modesty

2011-12-08T18:45:00.001-08:00

This is what I'm talking about.

You are not capable of controlling what goes on inside the minds of every single person who looks at you. There is no moral imperative to control other people's thoughts, and in fact, to attempt to do so would be immoral if you have any respect whatsoever for the concept of free agency. It is also illogical to presume that the sight of knees or shoulders or a back or cleavage automatically and universally results in sexual arousal or sexual fantasies, and least of all sexual objectification of human beings, OR that to cover those body parts universally results in more moral and respectful thought processes.

If you don't want to show your knees or shoulders or back or cleavage, that is entirely your choice, and it doesn't make you a prude or uptight or anything else. It makes you an individual capable of making your own damn choices about what you do with your body. If you try to tell me that it's more moral than what I wear when I reveal my shoulders or cleavage, I have a problem with that.

Wear whatever the fuck you want. If it's got something hateful or violent or prejudiced on it, an argument can be made about the morality of your clothing choices. Besides that, clothing is value-neutral. Morality doesn't have anything to do with it.

peace.

Hillary Clinton's UN Speech on LGBT Rights

2011-12-07T10:49:00.001-08:00

If you haven't seen this yet, please do so now.

Interesting how she mentions FGM as an act of violence against women, but says nothing about the violent nature of MGM.

peace.

What's the Attraction?

2011-12-06T20:13:00.001-08:00

A coworker came up to me to whine about someone (I didn't see them) wearing their pants too low, asking at what point does it become indecent exposure? (Urgh.) She just kept asking, "what's the attraction to that?" Sadly, I am in no way eloquent in real life when someone asks an ignorant question like this, but it didn't take me long to remember a conversation from a college literature course where we talked about how clothing is a symbol. The professor asked us what we could presume about a person who buys jeans that are torn up and faded.

So what does it mean? I think that, like wearing ripped-up jeans, wearing your pants low enough that your boxers show is a symbol of flouting authority and social norms (no, it did not start as a way for prison inmates to advertise for sex). It says, "I don't care." It says, "you're not the boss of me." It says, "I don't want to be a part of your clean-cut social class." It's about bothering people like you, who dress the way you do, oh coworker of mine.

It's not about being attractive.

That's the presumption that my coworker couldn't get past, that is, that people's choice of clothing is determined entirely by the desire to be seen as attractive. Um, no. I, for one, don't dress the way I do in order to be attractive, at least not most days. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be attractive, but to assume that that's what every single other person is thinking when they put their clothes on each day is a massive (and massively incorrect) generalization. I wear what I wear because I like it, because I like the color, or because it's made of a soft fabric, or because I like the way it looks on me. I don't make clothing choices by asking husband if it makes me look hawt.

I don't like people judging the way other people dress, style their hair, alter their bodies, or any other choice of appearance. I personally wear pants that cover my underwear, but if you don't, I don't think that makes you a bad or disrespectful or untrustworthy person. My hair is naturally colored, but if you've got blue hair, rock on, good sir. Having rather small breasts, I don't always wear a bra, and I don't really care if anybody else does. I might not enjoy the sight of someone's flesh spilling out over the top of a pair of tight jeans, but that doesn't mean I think there's something wrong with them for dressing that way, or that there should be rules against it (or anything else I find to be unsightly, for that matter). You don't have to like the way other people dress, but if you think that you can tell what kind of person they are based on their clothes, you are just wrong.

peace.

Objective Comparison: Harry Potter is Better than Twilight

2011-12-05T09:11:00.001-08:00

I didn't make it, but my god is it the truth!

peace.

It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.

An Index to the Book of Mormon

2011-12-04T21:58:00.001-08:00

I want to start re-reading The Book of Mormon, along the way making notes on familiar plotlines, turn of phrase, and other pieces of the book that reminded me of other works. I don't necessarily intend to talk about things like View of the Hebrews, but if I see similar overarching themes I will probably make mention of it.

The plan is for each reference to be a separate post, titled with the book, chapter, and verse out of The Book of Mormon that I'm comparing to another story.

Do you have any suggestions? Should this be a separate blog from Life as a Reader? Do you think separate posts for each reference is a good idea? Should I open it up to reader submissions? Should I only talk about sources that were available at the time The Book of Mormon was written, or should I also post if I see a similarity to a more recent work? Any other thoughts?

This isn't going to be happening anytime soon. I still need to finish re-reading the Harry Potter books so I can start a series of posts I have planned. I still need to re-read the first three books of the Inheritance series so I can read the final installment. And right now I need to read the final book of the Wolves of Mercy Falls series so I can return this copy to the friend I borrowed it from. It's an idea I've had in my head for a really long time, probably ever since I first read The Book of Mormon in 2009. So, there's plenty of time to add your two cents and help me do it right. Thanks in advance for your input!

peace.

"Awkward" Conversations are Important for Healthy Relationships

2011-11-30T20:09:00.001-08:00

A very serious problem in our culture's perceptions of relationships and romance: avoiding the awkward moments. [I'm focusing on sex in this post, but it does extrapolate to non-sexual aspects of the relationship.] Probably due mostly to the advice found in Cosmo and similar worthless rags, there is a belief that there are subjects/actions that you cannot talk about or do with/in front of your significant other if you want to preserve the "heat" or the "mystery" or whatever the fuck code word they're using at the time.

Women are given advice to "protect" their man (because there are only hetero relationships to these magazines) from the ghastly evidence that they use a toilet for the same reasons as men, that they menstruate, that their breath isn't always sweet (yes, I've seen Cosmo tell women that they should jump up and brush their teeth before having sex in the morning). Essentially, the premise is that, if he finds out you're actually human just like him, it will ruin the relationship, because you will no longer be "mysterious." And it's repeated again and again and again.

Why is that a problem?

In the first place, in a healthy relationship, both (or all) partners damn well better know that their partner(s) is a human being, capable of ugliness and mistakes. It is upsetting to me that men and women are portrayed in an almost heroic light if they do something as compassionate as be there when their significant other is throwing up, or sick/injured to the extent that they haven't been able to bathe. I get the impression that what we are supposed to be thinking is something like, "oh what a trooper, and how absolutely selfless to put up with all that humanness!" No, sorry, this should be a given. In a healthy, mutually supportive relationship, it should be a matter of course that when your significant other needs you, you are there. Like buying milk when you run out, holding my hair back when I'm throwing up or kissing me on the mouth when I have a cold is just what a loving, committed partner does. Avoiding the awkward means not being there fully for your partner, and that's not okay.

Secondly, it prevents open communication in relationships, which is harmful. People are afraid to talk about what they want, whether sexual or not, and what they don't want, or what might be bothering them, because they're terrified of "ruining the moment" with any awkward reminders that sex is a human activity, and it involves messiness and a learning curve. That means you must talk to each other in order to grow in love and understanding for one another. And even if we're not talking about a long-term, committed relationship, you still need to talk to one another if you don't want to cause harm to one another out of ignorance. Yes, even if you're just having casual sex, if you start groping somebody without talking about whether or not they're certain they want to, you are risking doing harm to them or yourself. It can be as bad as rape or as relatively harmless as plain old bad sex. So my friends, don't be afraid to just come out and say what you're thinking (note: that doesn't mean be tactless, just honest). Just say it. Say, "I'm horny. What do you say to fucking 'til we die of orgasm?" Say, "I would go down on you, but I know you haven't showered today, and it just won't be pleasant for me. Care to wash up?" Just say, "I know you like this angle, but you're poking my bladder and now I have to pee." Just say, "I don't want to have sex tonight," and seriously, be honest about the reason. If you keep saying you have a headache, someone's going to think you have a neurological disorder.

Not only does "keeping the mystery alive" (by way of avoiding potentially awkward conversations) dehumanize you and/or your partner, it actually results in the very thing it purports to prevent: bad sex and bad relationships. So sex kittens, whether you're looking for a hot (and positive) hookup or a long-term romance, my advice to you is (big shocker): COMMUNICATE!!! Yes, even if it's awkward. Maybe your shallow partner will get freaked out and walk away, but you're better off without someone who will hurt your relationship and your sex life by not listening to your needs. So just go for it, because it's worth it.

peace.

Saving Marriage: Let's Be Realistic

2011-11-29T09:34:00.001-08:00

I have some thoughts to add. Obviously I don't think it's right to say that monogamy can't work. I'm in a monogamous marriage, and the truth is we really don't want to sleep with other people. It's not because we're sooooo in love either. Mostly I think it's because we're both shy-ish and that we both have a difficulty really trusting other people. We are each other's best friend, and it's partially just because we aren't good at forming or maintaining friendships. We're loners.

I agree that we need to rethink what it means to be in a loving relationship. No, you do not lose your ability to find other people sexually attractive if you are "truly in love," and it's time we stop stigmatizing it and saying that you should feel guilty if you so much as look at an attractive person. Making comments to your significant other that you find this other person more attractive than them, and why can't they be more like this more hot person? is just plain mean, and if you have made a commitment to not sleep with other people then to do so would be hurtful. However, looking, and acknowledging that it's a value-neutral, instinctive behavior to enjoy the sight of an attractive person (yes, even if it's not just in a "I appreciate beauty" sort of way). Being attracted to another person doesn't mean you don't really love your significant other. It means you are human, and you are experiencing a common variation of human sexuality, that is, that you are attracted to other people while being in love with, and still being attracted to, your significant other.

I agree that monogamy is not superior to non-monogamy, whether we're talking about polyamory, swinging, serial monogamy, or just casual sex. There are many forms of loving, fulfilling, satisfying sexual and non-sexual relationships that people can engage in and be happy.

I know some people are going to look at this chart and see people adding a ridiculous amount of complexity to something they think has always been very simple. The reality is that this chart has been reality for thousands of years, and I'm saying it's time that this society just gets over it already and let people be who they are without calling them perverts.

peace.

How Will I Parent?

2011-11-27T13:25:00.001-08:00

These are the statements I want to live and love by when I have children. I don't know for sure that I'll never make a hypocrite of myself. I can't promise that I'll always be in control and always do the right thing, but this is my hope. This is my hope for the next generation.

No, we don't hit our children. Yes, we do discipline them. No, we don't use punishments. Yes, we care that they know right from wrong. No, we don't give them whatever they want. Yes, we are considerate of their feelings, no matter how trivial it seems. No, we do not shame or guilt our children to make them compliant. Yes, we consider their thoughts and feelings when we make decisions about their lives or ours. No, we don't think obedience is as important as developing good judgment or knowing they have the right to make their own choices. Yes, I want my children to grow up to be happy, productive, and independent. No, we don't want them to only do and believe as we have done and believed; we believe that what we have chosen for ourselves is right for us and us alone. Yes, I hope that they decide for themselves about their futures, their beliefs, and their lifestyles. No, this won't be easy. Yes, it will be worth it, because when you plant seeds of love, they grow.

peace.

Thankful

2011-11-23T08:57:00.001-08:00

I have not yet involved myself in the discussion of the Occupy Wall Street movement going on all across the country. I agree with the message, I am disgusted by the police brutality, and I hope that someone wakes up and sees that you can't serve The People when you're receiving shitloads of money from the richest 1% of the population. I haven't commented on it yet here because I couldn't think of anything terribly intelligent to say about it until now.

The title of this post is "Thankful," and I do want to share what I'm thankful for. I am thankful that, through scholarships and financial aid I was able to attend a private college at a community college price. I am thankful that I was able to get loans so that, while I was in school, I could focus mostly on my studies and only needed to work part-time to provide for my living expenses. I am thankful that I have caring, financially stable parents who were able to help me out here and there when I couldn't make ends meet.

I am thankful that my husband found a great part-time job in college as well, which turned into an excellent full-time job after he graduated. I am thankful that we are able to pay our expenses with one full-time and one part-time wage-earner in our household. I am thankful that we were able to get a new (used) car when we needed one and can afford the payments comfortably. I am thankful that, this holiday season, we can afford to show our gratitude for everyone who has helped us in the past few years, and buy a little token of love for our dearest friends and family.

I never had to work a 60 hour week to get by or pay for school. I have always had health insurance. Husband and I have, at times, had to decide between buying food and paying bills, but it wasn't for an extended period of time. I have also occasionally experienced the terror of a medical bill that doesn't fit into the budget.

I want this sort of prosperity for everyone who lives in this country (I'd like it for everyone in the world, but for now, I can accept that that's not within the power of the United States). This is what the Occupy movement is about, in my opinion. Just as all human beings are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I believe that essential to those rights is the right to education and healthcare.

That's not all there is to it though. It's in everyone's best interest that everyone have uninhibited access to excellent education and healthcare. How could we be better off with a large number of uneducated and/or sick people running around with no way out of their situation but to hope they can find a job that doesn't require a college degree but still pays enough to cover their expenses - oh, and also basically just crossing their fingers and hoping they don't get sick or injured, because they're not only uninsured, but if they miss too much work, they'll lose their job.

Tangent: by healthcare, I include serious efforts at preventing disease and injury through aggressive campaigns to make people aware of just how little nutrition and how much useless and fattening fillers all that junk food they eat contains, and how much factory farming contributes to the low quality of diet people in this country have.

I see people posting about how they worked two jobs and 60 hours a week and they're just fine. Well, to them I say, yeah, so are lots of other people, and that's exactly what we're all pissed off about. You shouldn't have to work 60 hours a week on top of going to school in order to get by. You should be able to go to school and not worry quite so much about money so that you can focus on the education you're paying so much money for.

The thing is, it really doesn't come down to hard work anyway. If hard work was all it took to prosper in this country, there would be quite a few more millionaires. Injury or illness or natural disasters or a bad job market can affect you no matter how hard you work. There are a host of factors that people have no control over, and what I'm saying is that, because we all know that all those things happen, and that it's nobody's fault, it should be a matter of course that we all decide to help pick up the slack for people who can't seem to make ends meet. For that to happen, the people who make decisions like this shouldn't be enslaved by the few very rich people who paid for their campaigns.

I am thankful for every favorable circumstance that's helped me succeed in life. What I hope for, what the Occupy Wall Street movement hopes for, is that everyone have the opportunity for the same favorable circumstances that lead to success. I'm not looking for universally-distributed hand-outs, but it should be easier. It should be just a little easier to achieve the moderate sort of prosperity that is the American Dream.

peace.

Tide Commercial Rejects Stereotypical Gender Model

2011-11-21T14:09:00.001-08:00

If you haven't seen the ad yet, here it is:

Huge high five for Tide for this commercial that neither puts the woman in charge of the household chores, nor makes a joke out of the man doing the "woman's" work. It's just a stay at home dad who is proud of what he does at home. His exuberance is no sillier than if a woman were saying the same things. I approve!

It seems to me that any commercial for a household product (paper towels, soaps, detergents, cleaning spray, mops, furniture polish ... what have you) is bound to do several things. They usually star women, implying that either it's a woman's job to clean up or that only women actually care about cleaning the house. If there's a man in the commercial, he will either play the role of the one making the mess (which the woman will later clean up), or he will be attempting to clean up a mess in order to not get into trouble with his wife. Men are usually portrayed as bumbling slobs who are just trying to get through the day with as little nagging from their wives as possible. I remember one paper towel commercial where the father is left alone with the kid, they try to put something in the blender, the lid comes off while mixing, and the mom walks in to "save the day." Because I guess men can't be trusted either to be alone with children or to clean up after their own damn selves.

Also, what's with all the pastel clothing?

We could also talk about all the ads that try to tell you what it means to be "manly" and how only "real men" use these products:

This is why I thank all the gods for our DVR. We don't have to put up with this nonsense if we don't want to.

peace.

Now I'll Ask YOU Questions

2011-11-15T08:48:00.001-08:00

Is anyone else utterly terrified at the prospect of ANY of the Republican candidates for President actually getting the job (though Mitt Romney doesn't bother me quite as much as say, Rick Perry or Herman Cain)?

Is it offensive to either sex to use the phrase "You've got 'em by the balls!"?

For those of you who used to be religious, do you still completely love the songs? If so, does it have anything to do with how much you love music in general?

Do any of you read fanfiction, and if so what/where do you read?

Do you do your Christmas shopping (if you celebrate Christmas) super-early, do you wait for Black Friday deals, or do you wait until the last minute?

What's a pet cause that you support?

Would your ideal vacation spot be historical and interesting, tropical and relaxing, or outdoorsy and full of activities?

peace.

The Pervocracy: Escalation

2011-11-11T11:08:00.001-08:00

This post was so good, I just have to share it:

How much conflict there is in a relationship, or the seriousness of the conflict issues, are not predictors of whether there will be violence. The biggest predictor is the degree to which conflicts in the relationship escalate.

The studies I read looked at dating violence, which is not the same thing as dating abuse, although obviously there's lots of overlap. Dating violence simply means that there's hitting/shoving/slapping; emotional abuse and controlling behavior aren't factored in. Dating violence, unlike abuse, is most often bidirectional--roughly 70% of the time both partners had struck each other. (I wish there was more distinction drawn between a relatively equal fight and "bidirectional" violence that's really self-defense, but that's a hard thing to determine in one case, let alone establish statistics on.)

The takehome is that we shouldn't be teaching teenagers (and grownups) to avoid conflict. We should be teaching them "don't hit people," but that's hardly sufficient. What we should really teach is de-escalation.

De-escalation means bringing someone down from an irrational, emotionally hyperaroused, screamy-hitty state, but it does not mean appeasement. It can sometimes mean talking someone down by comforting and reassuring them, but that's far from the only method and it's only useful if they're just mildly agitated. If they're screaming or threatening violence, saying "honey please honey it's okay" is usually not the best way to de-escalate them. Setting firm limits is not just more empowering for the de-escalator; it's more effective.

Read the whole incredible post HERE!

peace.

Gushy Feel-Good Music (sort of)

2011-11-11T09:58:00.001-08:00

Bonse Aba Translation: All who sing have the right to be called the children of God.

Cherokee Morning Song Translation: I am of the Great Spirit, it is so!

Yeah, I got a kick out of it being Eragon-themed. Heh.

This one's for all my readers!

If My Mother Wants to Hurt Me ...

2011-11-10T11:38:00.001-08:00

"When I was about twenty years old, I met an old pastor's wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didn't believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time.

"But one day when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spanking--the first in his life. And she told him he ...would have to go outside and find a switch for her to hit him with. The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying.

"He said to her, 'Mama, I couldn't find a switch, but here's a rock you can throw at me.' All of the sudden a mother understood how the situation felt from the child's point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.

"The mother took the boy onto her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. Because violence begins in the nursery--one can raise children into violence."

~From a peace prize acceptance speech given by Astrid Lindgren, author of Pippi Longstocking

This was posted by Nonviolent Parenting on facebook today. I had to share.

peace.

Guns or No Guns, It's Not About Crime

2011-11-10T08:52:00.001-08:00

This is a difficult post to write. I want to avoid the stereotype that anyone who wants to own a gun is mentally unbalanced or has some kind of sick bloodlust, but I do have a problem with guns, and it's not necessarily to do with whether or not access to guns increases or decreases crime or gun death or injury.

Wisconsin just passed a concealed carry law allowing permit holders to carry concealed weapons in public, though several counties have taken the initiative to ban them from publicly owned buildings, and any business can post a sign prohibiting weapons.

I've talked before about why I think gun control is important. Essentially, as I see it, people with the intent to kill will do so whether or not they have access to a deadly weapon. They'll sharpen a stick if they have to. But, for well-intentioned people to kill someone, putting a gun in their hands just might do the job. I'm aware that there are other ways to accidentally kill people, such as in car accidents, but that's no reason to add more ways to accidentally end a life into the mix.

Completely aside from that, whether crime rates increase or drop with the increase of gun control laws, I have a problem with guns. If you want to carry a gun in case you witness or are a potential victim of a violent crime, then you believe that we can and should solve the problem of violence and crime in our society with more violence. Thinking that people as individuals can solve any problem with violence is how we got into this mess in the first place; that's not how we get ourselves out of it. I have a philosophical problem with the idea of carrying a gun "just in case." I think the New Testament writer hit on something great when he wrote, "all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword" (Matthew 26:52). Martin Luther King Jr added greater depth to the point when he said,

Hate begets hate; violence begets violence; toughness begets a greater toughness. We must meet the forces of hate with the power of love... The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you murder the hater, but you do not murder hate ... Returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

I believe that if we want to solve the problem of violence and crime in our culture we need to do two things. First we need to ensure that children from the very beginning of their lives are not taught that, as adults, aggressive behavior is a good way to solve problems. This can be achieved through advocating gentle discipline, through prohibition of corporal punishment, and renovation of the penal system away from retributive "justice" and toward a restorative model.

Secondly, we need to focus more effort on preventing poverty, and not just through charitable giving either. We need programs, whether funded by the government or not, that help people find a way that suits them to become more self-sufficient. Poverty is what gives rise to gangs and organized crime. Crime gives people an income where they might otherwise not have one. If, however, people living in poverty can be given the help they need to prosper without the help of the gangs, those gangs lose their power.

So, this really isn't about whether or not people have access to guns. In a society where children are taught not to solve their problems with violence or aggression from an early age, where solving the problems of those living in poverty are given a priority in public discourse and in legislation, where the society responds to crime with compassion and seeks to prevent it through compassionate means, whether or not those citizens carry guns is sort of irrelevant. What disturbs me about gun laws today is not that people can carry guns; it's the reasons they give, the idea that they want to use violence to fight crime, which of course only feeds into the culture of violence.

peace. and love, and charity, and compassion.

Jason McElwain - If you haven't seen it yet, you absolutely MUST!

2011-11-09T11:38:00.000-08:00

Book Review: Shiver by Maggie Stiefvater

2011-11-08T09:33:00.000-08:00

I finished it last night at about 12:30am, and I have to say I am pleased with it. I was really afraid it was going to turn into another sickening MUSTHAVEBOYFRIEND Twilight knockoff, but I was pleasantly surprised by Stiefvater's writing. Granted, there were some cringe-worthy moments of "death is better than not having my boyfriend," but they were few and far between, and the protagonists pretty much entirely avoided Bella Swan's self-loathing and welcoming of death. (Expect frequent comparisons to Twilight in this post.)

So, plot. It is a love story, so yes, the plot revolves around the relationship between Sam and Grace. That's to be expected. However, I am disturbed at Grace's lack of goals and desires besides "being with Sam FOREVAH!" The reason this is bad is explained very well in this article.

Also, those cringe-worthy "death before singleness" moments. On page 72 Grace and Sam are finally together, and Grace is thinking, "My wolf is a cute guy and he's holding my hand. I could die happy." Please direct your gagging into a nearby toilet or waste paper bin. A similar thought occurs to her on page 98. Grace and Sam are cuddling, and Grace thinks to herself, "I can't live without this." And again Grace makes me want to tear my eyes out on page 296, when she muses, "This, Sam and me, this was my real life. The life where I went to school and waited up for my parents and listened to Rachel vent about her siblings - that felt like a pale dream in comparison. those were just things I had done while waiting for Sam." And this isn't the first time we see Grace talking about how unimportant things like education and relationships with people other than Sam are.

Okay, I have to say, when Grace starts talking like this, I picture her as Bella, which is difficult, because Bella's character was specifically written to be entirely nondescript. Which means I have to picture an invisible, non-sentient ghost of a thing. That upsets me. However, Grace gets points for having her own actual human issues with her parents' thoroughly bad parenting, and her clearly having to learn how to be a human being on her own. This was probably made especially difficult by the trauma of the wolf attack and almost dying after being left in a hot car. Grace gets some forgiveness on those grounds. And, when I really consider what's going on, I don't see the same "I was meant for this because I have no healthy relationships outside of the mythical creatures" thing as in Twilight. Bella sees her bad parents and lack of interest in other people as "proof" that she was meant to be a vampire - it's destiny!. Grace, however, actually was bitten as a child, and it is in fact her biological make-up that causes her to long for a connection with the wolves, and perhaps contributes to her distancing herself from people who don't understand that longing.

Now I want to get into the reason I think Sam and Grace's relationship is a positive healthy one, as opposed to the abusive and unhealthy one between Edward in Bella. Edward is controlling, manipulative, and mean to Bella. Bella is positively enslaved by Edward's hunkiness, hates herself for not being worthy of his love (because she's ugly, slow, weak, vulnerable - you know, human), is constantly self-abusive (and so is Edward, come to think of it), and would rather die than not have Edward as her boyfriend. Also, Edward poses a real threat to Bella's life. In contrast, Sam and Grace are respectful and nice to each other and themselves. Sam saved Grace from the pack's attack, demonstrating his complete aversion to harming humans (no om nom nom danger, as Dana would put it). He actually calls Grace out on how her lousy parents really affect her (a subject completely avoided in Twilight). They're considerate of each other's feelings. Grace is horrified that she has to put Sam in a bathtub, knowing his trauma.

I also like that Sam at least has non-relationship desires for his life. Even without the idea of not being with Grace, the fact that he will someday be all wolf torments him. Hey, Stephanie Meyer, have a look at this! A mythical creature protagonist who doesn't hate himself! And in fact, rather than seeing Grace as someone who just doesn't value her life much except in relation to her boyfriend (like Bella), I am reminded of the question of fate and choice brought up in The Time Traveler's Wife (I admit, I've only seen the movie, but this scene was powerful), when Clare says, "I never had a choice." Sam and the wolves have been a part of her since very early childhood, and since the attack she has been preoccupied (she actually admits she's obsessed) with them. Did she have a choice? Were they "destined" to be together? Did that attack take away her choice by giving her this biological impulse to be near the wolves? Could she have ignored it, if she had wanted to?

All in all, I enjoyed the book. I like that the author switches POV from Sam to Grace throughout, because it shows you the internal weaknesses and external appearances of both characters, what they really think of themselves and each other. At the same time, I felt like Stiefvater didn't do enough to establish two separate voices in her writing, and the only way to know whose head you were in was the chapter heading, and the fact that Sam's narrative is dotted with lyrics. Still, I like the story. I wish more young adult romances had such positive, healthy romantic relationships in them, and such honest treatment of right and wrong (for instance, while we're not made to be angry with Bella's parents for being negligent in Twilight, Grace and Sam have an honest conversation about how their behavior is just plain wrong, without it becoming a reason to cut them out of her life).

So yes, I liked this book. I'm looking forward to reading the sequel soon!

peace.

Great Books of 2011

2011-11-07T12:12:00.000-08:00

Michelle asked, "What was your favorite read this year?"

I've read quite a few great books this year: several by Amy Tan and Louise Erdrich, two of my favorite fiction writers, and a number of intriguing nonfiction works as well (the list is below).

Of the fiction I read, Four Souls and The Bonesetter's Daughter touched me the most, both being stories of a woman finding her true self by connecting to her past, her heritage, her ancestors.

Apostasy to Restoration and The Sisterhood were both great insights into Mormon culture and theology!

Harmful to Minors and God is Not Great showed me entirely new perspectives on long-held superstitions, myths, prejudices, stereotypes, and plain old fear-based propaganda, and how it all contributes to a poorer quality of life for many in the U.S. and elsewhere.

Cleopatra and Mysteries of the Snake Goddess brought me back to my Classical Studies classes from college - it was great to renew my understanding of Classical history! I very nearly had yet another minor with as many CS credits I had.

Of all the nonfiction I read though, I have to say that Women Who Run With The Wolves and The Dance of the Dissident Daughter were my favorites, both being sort of the story of finding your way to self-empowerment and self-healing as a woman in a harmful patriarchal culture.

This year I completed:

The Bonesetter's Daughter by Amy Tan
The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan

Love Medicine by Louise Erdrich (for the second time)
Shadow Tag by Louise Erdrich
The Painted Drum by Louise Erdrich
Four Souls by Louise Erdrich

Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine (nonfiction)

Triumph by Carolyn Jessop

The Crystal Cave by Mary Stewart
The Hollow Hills by Mary Stewart

Irish Folk Tales by Henry Glassie

Women Who Run With The Wolves by Clarissa Pinkola Estes

When Men Become Gods by Stephen Singular

The Dance of the Dissident Daughter by Sue Monk Kidd

God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens

Apostasy to Restoration by Edgar T. Lyon

The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine

Cleopatra: A Life by Stacy Schiff

Mysteries of the Snake Goddess by Kenneth Lapatin

The Sisterhood by Dorothy Allred Solomon

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets by J.K. Rowling
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban by J.K. Rowling (who knows how many times I've read the books of the Harry Potter series.)

A couple books I started but didn't finish (yet)

The Curse: A Cultural History of Menstruation by Janice Delaney

Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith by Linda King Newell

I recommend all these books, though WWRWTW is massive and very dense, as is Mormon Enigma - be prepared to renew a few times if you're checking them out of the library!

peace.

A Day in My Life as a Reader

2011-11-03T09:22:00.000-07:00

Jen and Ahab want to know what my day looks like.

I hope you won't be disappointed at how boring I am. Husband has to get up early in the morning, so I wake up to the sound of his alarm and him crawling over me to get out of bed. And I wake up again when he kisses me good-bye. Sometimes I stay awake after that, and sometimes I go back to sleep. I work part time as a photo lab technician, and my work days usually don't start until early afternoon, so I wake up at about 9 or 10 and decide what I need to get done that day. I usually won't get to see husband again until 8 or 9 that night.

I don't read newspapers or watch the news on TV; I browse my facebook and twitter feeds for the news. Most of the people I know on facebook like to post news stories, opinion articles, interesting scientific discoveries, etc. That can take quite a while if there's a lot to read.

If it's a cleaning day, I plug my laptop into the living room sound system and listen to the Mormon Expression podcast while I work. I do that a lot actually, like yesterday while I addressed the envelopes for our Christmas cards, when I fold laundry, make my dinner. Sometimes I have to go out and untangle our gay pride flag. It gets wrapped around the pole a lot.

If I don't have any errands or chores to do, I either read or find something to work on on my laptop (like blogging, browsing change.org for good petitions, keeping in touch with loved ones, etc).

When it's time to go to work, I walk 4 blocks to the store and clock in. Running the photo lab keeps me pretty busy. There's plenty of daily and weekly maintenance to do, heavy bottles of chemicals and boxes of paper to carry up from the basement, and of course orders to print. If I'm lucky, a customer comes in with a challenging task (can you remove that person from this old photograph and print me x number of 4x6s?). Those are the orders I love, and I'm definitely getting the hang of Photoshop. I love [most of] the people I work with, so the time goes by quickly, and we close at 9pm. Husband usually shows up to walk me home about 5 minutes before closing (I won't walk home alone; there have been too many assaults and rapes in the community recently, and it's nice to be able to see husband that much sooner too).

We walk home together, and we might go grocery shopping or do our laundry (that's the plan for tonight!) or something else terribly domestic and boring. Then we sit on the couch together, watching one of our shows or reading, or I do something while husband does paperwork for work. Then we go to bed way to early for two people as young as we are. MLIA.

peace.

New Me November

2011-11-02T20:30:00.000-07:00

I saw a friend's facebook status a couple days ago: "why is january the only month of the year we decide to make changes to our lives? How about New Me November?"

I'm propagating this shit. It's New Me November friends and I want to hear what you're going to do about it.

My goal: I want to stop getting down on myself, stop thinking I can't accomplish anything, stop thinking I'm "less than." I want to remember that I am strong and smart and I have value. And part of that means getting back to blogging!

Well, how about you?

peace.

What Does November Mean To You?

2011-11-01T20:40:00.000-07:00

Michelle asked, "What does November mean to you? Any memories, traditions, or feelings that are stirred up by this time of year? "

A whole lot, actually.

November 2, 2002 was the day my grandma died (yep, tomorrow is the anniversary). I was 14. At the time I had been living with Grandma B for a couple years, because she didn't want to be alone at night. She was in very poor health, and she needed help with a lot of basic daily tasks. I made her breakfast, then my dad would pick me up to take me to school. When I got home I packed a bag of clothes for the next day (I hadn't actually moved in with Grandma; all my stuff was still at my parents' house) and went back to Grandma's. I made supper (on weekends I made lunch too), did whatever else Grandma needed me to do, did my homework, and went to bed on the hide-a-bed in the living room. I didn't do it all on my own though. My older brother would often stay at Grandma's instead of me (in fact, he had been staying with Grandma for a long time before I ever did). I only started staying with her the year he first started working at boy scout camp and was gone for a couple months out of the summer.

The last time I saw Grandma, it was a Monday night. The next day, I was to get my tonsils out along with three other siblings. My big brother stayed with Grandma while I recovered. A few days later, when I was still bedridden, my brother called the house to say that Grandma was sick and going to the hospital. It wasn't true, but he couldn't bring himself to tell my sister over the phone that she was gone. After he'd gotten a hold of everyone that needed to know, he came home. He came into my room to tell me in person, but I knew from his face what happened. I screamed, "NO!" which caused the wounds in my throat to open up and start bleeding. I found out later that at this point my family started to worry sincerely for my life. Apparently they already thought I was frighteningly weakened by the surgery, and sudden, uncontrolled bleeding accompanied by emotional distress only increased their fears.

The funeral home director is a personal friend of the family, and he agreed to leave Grandma in her bed so that we could all have a chance to say good-bye. That evening, Mom and Dad took me to Grandma's apartment, where I broke down sobbing into her blanket, crying, "oh Grandma!"

After that is really a blur. I was not only very weak and unable to eat much food for the pain it caused, but I was also pretty well doped up on pain medication. I hardly remember the funeral, at which I was an altar server. Grandma had planned out the entire thing, including who was to do what and what songs were to be sung, and surgery or no surgery, we were all going to play our part. I don't really remember the funeral though. I remember the cemetery. It was cold and windy. After the committal ceremony and the crowd dispersed, it was just us close family members. My sister started singing, "Soon and Very Soon." I was told to go back to the car, probably because I was so weak. I sat there thinking it was unconscionable to just leave her out there, in a cold box in the wind. All alone.

Soon after that I had some vivid and strange dreams about Grandma. I talked about one of them here. In another, I was actually holding Grandma's hand at her bedside as she said good-bye to me. It was a really meaningful experience for me.

The following months were the saddest of my life. We all had to learn to live a life without the head of our family. It was not easy for any of us. I had classmates who judged us for mourning for so long, for being so affected by her death. The first week of November is always incredibly sad for me.

November 9, 2004 was the day a young man at my high school died of cancer. He was in my sister's class, and his death shook the entire school, whose secretary had passed away suddenly only a month earlier.

November has never been a very happy month. Until I met husband. His birthday is also November 9th ... but he's never been into his birthday much. I take this as a direct challenge to make his birthday as spectacular as possible every year, and I think that's good for me, to have a goal of cheerfulness at this very time of the year.

Still, November mostly reminds me of death and mortality. Grandma's death was the biggest event of my life, second to meeting husband. I was permanently changed. I never cried at movies, ever, before Grandma died. I laughed throughout Titanic. The first movie I saw after Grandma died was Gladiator, and when [SPOILER ALERT] the guy dies at the end [END SPOILER], I completely broke down. And after that basically any remotely emotional scene in a movie gets me.

I feel like this was leading up to some big message or lesson ... or something. If I learned anything from Grandma's death, it's that you don't waste time not having a relationship with people you love. As an emotionally and socially immature preteen/teenager, I wasn't very good company for Grandma. I wished I was closer to her, but she didn't really let me know that what she really wanted from me was conversation and a relationship. I just thought she wanted me to entertain her. She was always asking me to play Rummi. She always won. These days, I make time to visit and talk to people I love. I don't want to ever feel this haunting guilt, this feeling that I didn't do enough (which doesn't go away even if I know that I simply wasn't mature enough at the time to deal with the situation I was thrust into). I try to put my relationships first, and be there for the ones I love.

peace.

Harry Potter and the Absence of Trauma

2011-10-31T12:19:00.000-07:00

Hello! First, thanks everyone who posted a question for me to blog about. I promise I'll get to them soon, but first I just wanted to share another tidbit about Harry Potter series after finishing Prisoner of Azkaban. Enjoy!

This one's called, "Trauma? What trauma?" Thinking about the seriousness of everything HRH encounter in just the first three years at Hogwarts, I am amazed at how little these events seem to effect their personalities. Here's where I get all psychological on you, so if you're not into realistic characters, you might not enjoy this. But, if you're all about the psychological fuckery, lets dig in!

I'll start with the first book, in which Harry joyfully enters Hogwarts (I've already discussed the strange absence of homesickness among Hogwarts students), solves the big mystery of what Fluffy is guarding, and takes on Voldemort and his servant, Quirrell. In the climax of the story, Harry sees a second face on the back of a man's skull, a face belonging to none other than the most scary-ass dark wizard there ever was. Next he nearly dies as he burns the shit out of Quirrell's face and hands by touching his skin. Later, when Dumbledore does the first of many end-of-the-installment-explication speeches, he alludes to the fact that the damage done to Quirrell was deadly. It's not clear whether his death was caused by Voldemort leaving his body or his contact with Harry, but one obviously possible conclusion is that Harry killed him. Especially after the terrifying encounter with a two-faced evil wizard, this should be incredibly traumatic. There's a reason they make police officers take time off and see a counselor if they shoot somebody. Ending another life, or even contributing indirectly to someone's death, is traumatic. Harry should not be all peachy keen after leaving the hospital wing, I don't care if Gryffindor did win the house cup. And, neither should Hermione or Ron be perfectly alright either, considering Ron was knocked out cold by giant chess piece, and Hermione was forced to let Harry go on alone, quite possibly to his doom.

This isn't the only time characters in the Harry Potter series are left psychologically unscathed either. There's a recurring theme of plot twists in which people are revealed to be someone they're not. In Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone, we find out that Quirrell is in fact a servant of Voldemort, carrying the dark wizard around in his skull. In Chamber of Secrets, Ginny gives all her trust to Riddle's diary, and he turns out to be a memory of the young Voldemort. In Prisoner of Azkaban, Ron discovers that his pet rat, who, Ron disgustedly points out, slept in Ron's own bed, is discovered to be a servant of Voldemort. In fact, he is the very person who betrayed Harry's parents, as well as Sirius, ending in James and Lily's deaths and Sirius's 12 year imprisonment. Later in the series, we find that the Alastor Moody has been impersonated by another servant of Voldemort's, that the previous owner of Harry's trusted potions textbook is in fact Professor Snape, and we see Harry witness Snape, trusted by Dumbledore if not by Harry, apparently betraying that trust entirely and murdering Dumbledore right in front of him. One would think that so many lies and betrayals would make such young, impressionable people develop problems trusting others as a result of their traumatic pasts. But, I really don't see much of that in the series. Alas, these young people appear incredibly able to bounce back from the terrible things people have done to them.

It isn't until Order of the Phoenix that Harry seems to show any signs of trauma at all, when we find that he has been having nightmares about what happened in the cemetery, and witnessing Cedric's murder. Certainly his super-angsty behavior in Order of the Phoenix can finally be seen as all those nasty things finally catching up with the hero. Has he been repressing them all this time? That's a possibility too, but the fact that very few characters show signs of trauma after such harrowing events befall them is troubling to me. I like to see people acting like real people in my fiction. Sure, it's not as fun or adventurous to have a hero who is constantly haunted by the horrors of his past, but I think I'd be able to empathize with him better if he appeared to have a human reaction to such terrifying experiences - especially considering the fact that he's barely a teenager for half of the saga!

That's not to say there are no good examples of characters displaying expected signs of trauma. Hagrid doesn't like to talk about how he got expelled, up until his name is cleared at the end of Chamber of Secrets. Snape appears permanently changed by the awful circumstances he grew up with, and the knowledge of his responsibility for the death of a loved one (Snape is in fact my favorite character, being the most three-dimensional and complicatedly heroic of them all). Dumbledore, in the later novels, shows just how much of a toll his life of "great deeds" has taken on him. Neville, too, shows signs of being affected by the sad fate of his own parents, in his absentmindedness and lack of self esteem.

I do still think that these are great novels, excellent novels, about very important issues in our world: prejudice, choosing do to the right thing in the face of adversity, how the life of a "celebrity" isn't all it's cracked up to be, how the world isn't as black and white as you'd like to think. Looking at these broader themes, J.K. Rowling does a superb job in exploring the meaning of good and evil, the role of fate, and seeing past superficial assumptions to understand reality. However, I wish she'd taken more time to bring out the humanity of her characters who had experienced trauma. Making your characters seem real is incredibly difficult though, and I still tip my hat to Rowling for her amazing accomplishments in literature.

peace.

About What Shall I Blog?

2011-10-29T18:31:00.001-07:00

I've sort of been on hiatus and I'm ready to get back into the game. Ask me some question and I'll blog about it!

peace.

Bible Verses: The Epic, The Strange, and the Hilarious

2011-10-26T09:58:00.000-07:00

"In your right hand there are pleasures forever." - Psalm 16:11

"Yes, I am coming quickly." - Revelation 22:20

"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might" - Ecclesiastes 9:10

"Abraham said to his servant, the oldest of his household, who had charge of all that he owned, “Please place your hand under my thigh" - Genesis 24:2

"Yet she multiplied her harlotries, remembering the days of her youth, when she played the harlot in the land of Egypt. She lusted after their paramours, whose flesh is like the flesh of donkeys and whose issue is like the issue of horses." - Ezekiel 23:19-20

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2

"When a man has lost his hair and is bald, he is clean." - Leviticus 13:40

"Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." - Psalm 137:9

"You also took the fine jewelry I gave you, the jewelry made of my gold and silver, and you made for yourself male idols and engaged in prostitution with them." - Ezekiel 16:17

I could do a whole lot more ... anybody have their own to share?

peace.

Harry Potter and the Poor Choices Twelve Year Olds Make

2011-10-25T21:00:00.000-07:00

EDIT: I know this is going to sound like a rant, but just imagine me giggling as I write it. Because it was written out of amusement, not anger. The thing had me laughing the whole time.

I just re-read Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. I'm calling for a change of title, because the thought that came to mind consistently throughout the book was, "so this is what happens when you get 12 year olds running a criminal investigation ... this is not good at all!" Not that it's unreasonable to write a story where 12 year olds do irrational and immature things, in fact, it makes perfect sense. It's just incredibly frustrating to deal with that kind of protagonist as an adult (so I guess that makes it my own fault for reading a children's book).

First up, there's the whole lets-fly-this-illegal-car-to-Hogwarts idea. First, I want to ask them, do they think Ron's parents will just abandon the car? Do they think that if they don't arrive on September 1st they'll be kicked out of school? Did it ever occur to them, "hey, I'm only 12. Maybe I should wait for a grown up to help me out here."?? Apparently not, because decisions need to be made NOW, and thinking only takes up valuable law-breaking-and-dangerous-activities time. By the way, how did 12-year-old Ron manage to reach the pedals on that car? I know he's supposed to be tall and gangly and all that, but ... this seems a little too unrealistic to me. Anywho, Ron and Harry make it to Hogwarts and nearly escape death by tree. w00t for them, but they get in massive amounts of trouble for doing such a clearly dangerous and irrational thing. Why? Because there were clearly several intelligent options available to them, none of which they chose to utilize. McGonagall asks them, "Why didn't you send us a letter by owl?" which causes Harry to think, "Now she said it, that seemed the obvious thing to have done." Seriously Harry, you are supposed to be quick-thinking and heroic, and this behavior is kind of inconsistent with your characterization in the first book. So, the only reasoning behind this whole fiasco is that this is what happens when 12 year olds are confronted with difficult situations and left to make their own choices. And, this isn't the end of that trend in Chamber of Secrets, it seems.

Next, Harry, Ron, and Hermione (hereafter referred to as HRH) decide that the best plan for figuring out if Draco Malfoy opened the Chamber of Secrets is to brew a potion that 1. will take a month to complete 2. requires complete secrecy and 3. means they have to steal from Professor Snape. Got that children? Is anyone else thinking, "this seems like an awful lot of time and effort to get an answer for one question"? It's not that I think there is a better plan or anything; it just kind of sucks that this was their best shot at solving the mystery, and it wasn't until they had other chance conversations and random clues that they started solving the mystery. HRH are characterized as this "golden trio," who are brilliant, powerful, brave, quick-thinking, etc. I'm sincerely underwhelmed by this plan. It leaves a lot of time for this monster to roam the school attacking children.

Near the end of the book, after Harry and Ron rediscovered what Hermione had already discovered, they decide to inform an authority figure (yay!). However, they are waylaid by the announcement for everyone to get their butts back in the common rooms, after which they hide and spy on the authority figures ... and still don't tell anybody what they know. Here I'm almost willing to give Harry and Ron a pass, because they just found out that Ginny has been taken into the chamber and is probably dead. However, I again refer to Harry's heretofore characterization as someone who keeps his head in the face of scary and shocking situations, and I withhold that free pass with a stern look of disappointment. What the H are they doing?! This is the time to inform an adult. You are perfectly aware that the knowledge you conceal is essential to saving Ginny ... and you just freaking walk away? No. Just ... no. Bad protagonist! Bad!

Immediately after receiving the horrific news that Ginny is in the chamber, Gilderoy Lockhart walks in. Nobody likes him, or thinks he knows shit. The teachers all act like they expect him to save Ginny in order to get rid of this tool, and immediately after he leaves, McGonagall flat out admits that that was their goal: to get him out of the fucking way. And yet, Harry and Ron decide that it would be best to sneak out during a lock-down to inform this useless pile of robes that there is a basilisk in the chamber and that the entrance is in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom. They know exactly how idiotic and helpless this guy is, but they really seem to think that the other professors were entrusting Ginny Weasley's life to his expertise. Of course. I mean, why put your money on a less inept witch or wizard, like McGonagall or Flitwick or even Sprout? That would be so obvious!

So, Harry and Ron seek out Lockhart, which is bad enough all on its own. But wait! It gets better! After they wake up and realize this guy is so not going to confront this monster, they disarm him and have him at wandpoint, what do they do? Well, what else? They escort him to the entrance of the chamber and hop in all together, not only burdening themselves with a cowardly twit, but choosing to take on the fucking King of Serpents on their own. At this point I found it difficult not to yell out loud at my book, "What the fuck are you doing?! GO GET A TEACHER!" Seriously. Guys. Poor choices.

So of course this all sets up Lockhart for some poetic justice and Harry gets to face Tom Riddle on his own, show his loyalty to Dumbledore and his worthiness for Gryffindor House. Excellent. But couldn't we have gotten there without making me think this all didn't serve as just a reminder that Harry and Ron are kind of like chickens with their heads cut off without Hermione's rational thought processes to lead them? If you wanted to set them up for all this heroic activity, then don't give them all these opportunities to make safe and reasonable choices throughout the plot, because it really makes me question Harry's characterization as a quick-thinking, cool-headed, awesomely heroic person. Just set up the plot so that your protagonist is forced to say, "well this is dangerous and there's a slim chance of success, but it really is my only option here," because it really is. In this book, Harry's just a 12 year old who has trouble dealing with serious issues (you know, like pretty much every other 12 year old there is).

Now, on to Harry Potter and the Plot-Twist at the End that will Blow Your Mind ... oh wait, that's every book. Silly me.

peace.