unharmed
i have never had blood drawn, ever, in my life. i have never been in any kind of an accident. other than several appropriately bad cases of the fever or stomach flu, the most traumatic thing that has happened to my body was having my ears pierced.
i hate going to the dentist. this is the only regular physical "trauma" in my life. i get so nervous that i shake uncontrollably. once a nurse asked me while we were waiting for the dentist if i wanted a blanket. i said yes, but of course i was not cold and the blanket did not help.
i was thinking about my dad and one specific incident a few years ago. he was cycling when he was hit by a fedex truck (which we now call deadex). my mom told me recently that while he was in the hospital after the accident, the doctors pulled her aside and told her that they didn't think he was fighting very hard to stay here. she plead and forcefully leveled with my dad's unconscious body. soon after that he began showing signs of life and eventually fully recovered. i imagine she gave him many of the same pep talks during his battles with cancer. my dad has been through a lot--multiple broken bones, mild muscular dystrophy, many accidents, an unusually high number of cases of pneumonia--and now he is a cancer survivor.
exposure is what builds immunity. i am grateful for a life of health and am not sure whether my unscathed life has contributed to my fear of pain or if my fear of pain has kept me out of trouble. but i am deeply troubled and worried the older i get that when something finally happens to me, i won't be able to cope on a mental and physical level, and that i may not know how to fight to survive.
i hate going to the dentist. this is the only regular physical "trauma" in my life. i get so nervous that i shake uncontrollably. once a nurse asked me while we were waiting for the dentist if i wanted a blanket. i said yes, but of course i was not cold and the blanket did not help.
i was thinking about my dad and one specific incident a few years ago. he was cycling when he was hit by a fedex truck (which we now call deadex). my mom told me recently that while he was in the hospital after the accident, the doctors pulled her aside and told her that they didn't think he was fighting very hard to stay here. she plead and forcefully leveled with my dad's unconscious body. soon after that he began showing signs of life and eventually fully recovered. i imagine she gave him many of the same pep talks during his battles with cancer. my dad has been through a lot--multiple broken bones, mild muscular dystrophy, many accidents, an unusually high number of cases of pneumonia--and now he is a cancer survivor.
exposure is what builds immunity. i am grateful for a life of health and am not sure whether my unscathed life has contributed to my fear of pain or if my fear of pain has kept me out of trouble. but i am deeply troubled and worried the older i get that when something finally happens to me, i won't be able to cope on a mental and physical level, and that i may not know how to fight to survive.
please, for goodness sake
my husband has often laughed with me about / listened to me talk about how i want to go ballistic on my boss because of his unbelievably passive aggressive communication style.
for example, if there is a mistake in my data entry, he will say something like this: "it's the weirdest thing... this line was entered as 'tkj' several times in this sheet but it's supposed to be 'tkh' so it's causing an error in the report i'm doing. i don't know what could have happened, but i just thought i'd point it out to you."
ok... i am the only one who creates this report. OBVIOUSLY i just made a typo. could you please just say, 'megan, you entered this as 'tkj', could you be careful to enter it as 'tkh' in the future?' i mean, if you're really going to even go that anal in the first place, when it was obviously just an oversight that happened one time?
today there was a lunch meeting that i did not attend. a few hours later he came up to me and said, "did you get a chance to grab something to eat?" no, i did not, i had already eaten. "oh, ok. well, we'll probably have to clean that up...................." then he stares in to space as though he is having an epiphany about our responsibility in cleaning up the food, and then walks away abruptly. (this is not an exaggeration.)
i knew then that he was possibly asking me to clean it up, but i knew for sure when he came up another few hours later and said, "i think i am just going to have the custodians take care of it... would that be ok?" sure, that'd be great. because it's their job. and you never actually asked me to do it so i'm not sure why you're asking my permission.
i once overheard him talking with his boss about a difficult situation. my boss suggested that "perhaps you could just make an innocuous comment!" as if this would solve everything and he wouldn't risk stepping on anyone's toes. at that moment, it was the hardest thing of my life not to run over and shout NOOOO.
for example, if there is a mistake in my data entry, he will say something like this: "it's the weirdest thing... this line was entered as 'tkj' several times in this sheet but it's supposed to be 'tkh' so it's causing an error in the report i'm doing. i don't know what could have happened, but i just thought i'd point it out to you."
ok... i am the only one who creates this report. OBVIOUSLY i just made a typo. could you please just say, 'megan, you entered this as 'tkj', could you be careful to enter it as 'tkh' in the future?' i mean, if you're really going to even go that anal in the first place, when it was obviously just an oversight that happened one time?
today there was a lunch meeting that i did not attend. a few hours later he came up to me and said, "did you get a chance to grab something to eat?" no, i did not, i had already eaten. "oh, ok. well, we'll probably have to clean that up...................." then he stares in to space as though he is having an epiphany about our responsibility in cleaning up the food, and then walks away abruptly. (this is not an exaggeration.)
i knew then that he was possibly asking me to clean it up, but i knew for sure when he came up another few hours later and said, "i think i am just going to have the custodians take care of it... would that be ok?" sure, that'd be great. because it's their job. and you never actually asked me to do it so i'm not sure why you're asking my permission.
i once overheard him talking with his boss about a difficult situation. my boss suggested that "perhaps you could just make an innocuous comment!" as if this would solve everything and he wouldn't risk stepping on anyone's toes. at that moment, it was the hardest thing of my life not to run over and shout NOOOO.
it's not happening
i bought new cross trainers, bought a new sports bra, new socks, i have been pumped for zumba for days and it starts in 1 hour.
am i going? i definitely don't think so. and i can't explain why.
even without zumba, i had an awesome evening planned. i miss my husband when he's at work but i also love the time to go where i want, do what i want. my plans included: go to the library. go to rocky mountain chocolate factory. buy some new pants. relax, have an awesome healthy dinner, and enjoy my art history reading. take a nice long bath and look at real simple.
what have i done so far? sat in front of the computer. just like i have been doing since 8am.
why does this happen?
am i going? i definitely don't think so. and i can't explain why.
even without zumba, i had an awesome evening planned. i miss my husband when he's at work but i also love the time to go where i want, do what i want. my plans included: go to the library. go to rocky mountain chocolate factory. buy some new pants. relax, have an awesome healthy dinner, and enjoy my art history reading. take a nice long bath and look at real simple.
what have i done so far? sat in front of the computer. just like i have been doing since 8am.
why does this happen?
"don't use an iud because it's not as easy to start having kids when you feel like you should"
i wish i hadn't listened to my mom about birth control. i wish i had gotten the iud i wanted. i wish she would have listened to me a little more, or that i would have spoken up a little more.
when i have my babies, i want to do it in a freestanding birth center. and i want a doula. i think that is the most hippie thing i have ever said. but, even if i change my mind, i am going to stand up for what i want.
when i have my babies, i want to do it in a freestanding birth center. and i want a doula. i think that is the most hippie thing i have ever said. but, even if i change my mind, i am going to stand up for what i want.
thanks obama!
what blows my mind about people who criticize supporters of obamacare is that they don't seem to realize that supporters have thought about possible 'negative effects' and still believe it is worth the effort. that maybe they are willing to receive a little less health care, if that happens, to help more people--or whatever the argument is. if i give any indication of support for obamacare, or try to talk about the good things that will happen, people look at me like i'm stupid. the costs. the cuts on coverage. yadda. do you not see me, a young and brand new professional, newly married, with kids in the future, with ALL of my assets and investments up in the air, and you think that i haven't thought about that?
i also do not understand why people are mad at obama instead of being upset with the insurance companies and medical providers--they are the ones pushing and keeping prices up. i know little about the medical system or about insurance companies, but i do feel like people will not give a potentially better healthcare system a chance because there is sacrifice in the short term. these things take time, and the insurance and medical communities will chill out over time or change completely, but people will not give up what they've had, even if it might help people less fortunate. i also understand that doctors go through tons of schooling and of course i'm grateful for that, but it concerns me that young med school students (guys, mostly) are very concerned about having the six+ figure lifestyle they thought they were getting when they could live comfortably for less. i understand that the practice itself has to make enough to survive, but i just feel like there must be options.
maybe i don't know what i'm talking about, but i find the whole conversation very frustrating.
i also do not understand why people are mad at obama instead of being upset with the insurance companies and medical providers--they are the ones pushing and keeping prices up. i know little about the medical system or about insurance companies, but i do feel like people will not give a potentially better healthcare system a chance because there is sacrifice in the short term. these things take time, and the insurance and medical communities will chill out over time or change completely, but people will not give up what they've had, even if it might help people less fortunate. i also understand that doctors go through tons of schooling and of course i'm grateful for that, but it concerns me that young med school students (guys, mostly) are very concerned about having the six+ figure lifestyle they thought they were getting when they could live comfortably for less. i understand that the practice itself has to make enough to survive, but i just feel like there must be options.
maybe i don't know what i'm talking about, but i find the whole conversation very frustrating.
o rly?
i really like most of the full-time guys i work with. they are good guys. but sometimes they just get me. in talking about a week-long leadership conference some of them attended, they talked about how surprised they were with the group they ended up with.
they talked about a "young lady of color" who is from the bronx, and how surprised they were at "how smart she was" and what a good job she did for their team on their powerpoint.
then they talked about a guy with "a scraggly mustache and beard" who had graduated from a fine arts school "but" was really, really smart--probably the smartest guy there.
then they said how they learned not to judge people by their "looks."
cool story guys.
they talked about a "young lady of color" who is from the bronx, and how surprised they were at "how smart she was" and what a good job she did for their team on their powerpoint.
then they talked about a guy with "a scraggly mustache and beard" who had graduated from a fine arts school "but" was really, really smart--probably the smartest guy there.
then they said how they learned not to judge people by their "looks."
cool story guys.
omnipotence and selfishness
one of my employees (medicaid) was talking today about her experience taking a philosophy class to fulfill a GE. on the first day of class, they were discussing reasons people give for not believing in god. someone brought up the argument that if he existed, he wouldn't let bad things happen to us, which led someone to comment that he doesn't have power to do anything he wants. "for example," the guy said, "he can't make a triangle a square."
this girl said she was so taken aback. she acknowledged that philosophy majors like to play devil's advocate and question everything, but she felt like it was crossing a line. she said it bothered her so much that if something like it came up again, she was going to raise her hand and tell them to stop. she wondered how they could say it when the scriptures "literally say" that god is "all powerful."
i thought this was fascinating. i feel very strongly that there are very set laws in the universe. call them laws of nature or of science or whatever. i believe god follows them just as all of us do. there are laws, processes, and organization to the matter of the universe and i believe gods become gods when they have a perfect knowledge of those laws and are perfectly obedient to them. i believe that this is why they have "all power." i think it's interesting that religion and science have been at odds for so long, in human terms. in my mind, science is, in a way, perfect religion. i think they are both governed by obedience. in religion, we become like god as we are obedient to the commandments of our heavenly parents. (not temporary, relative, cultural commandments, mind you, but a combination of the broad law of love, generosity, acceptance, and the specific ordinances and covenants god has prearranged. which starts to look a lot like a worship in mind of a great universal goodness seen more in eastern religions.) in science, all matter follows the laws of nature. the elements are perfectly obedient, and we are not. this brings up complicated questions, like what about when jesus commanded the sea to be calm? i think we talk about the elements obeying godly command because we do see that power as all powerful, but i think in reality they just abide by the same laws, speak the same languages, have a mutual respect and power, the way electrons automatically know how to interact. or perhaps there is a principle of human spirit ruling over the non-animated elements, a more advanced, "spiritual" meaning of "stewardship over the earth." yes, godliness is submitting to and obeying these laws, but they give gods power, rather than take it away. (isn't that an lds thought anyway? that obedience frees us from being powerless?) heavenly father has also told us that there are things he himself can't do (for example, "change", or he wouldn't be a god, or take away someone's agency, or he wouldn't be a god), so the idea of his all powerfulness is inherently complicated.
i digress.
one of my other employees then shared how they were talking in her psychology class about hedonism and similar concepts. she said she had never thought about doing good for others in order to return to god as making that original good act inherently selfish. she said she began thinking of the most fundamental thing she could: why do i love god? she said she thought of many different reasons, but they were all centered around her: "because he loves me." "because of all he does for me." etc. they talked at a little length about different reasons for why they love god.
again, fascinating, and my first reaction was that selfishness isn't always bad. i know that goes against a slew of modern general conference talks, and i know it says in the scriptures to lose our lives to find them. i also do believe that selfishness is at the root of all sin (which makes sin much simpler in my mind but also disqualifies a lot of acts that orthodox lds people would see as sinful as not actually so) but also that the human, and especially lds version, of sin is culturally imperfect (i haven't studied enough to say if it's scripturally sound). i think it is ok that are on an inherently selfish internal quest to find out what god is, what our relationship is, and what that means to us. (this search, obviously, is not so simple as the traditionally packaged and bowed lds answer.) we are told that exaltation is a family matter achieved with sealings, but that salvation is specifically individual. it is an inherently selfish journey of selflessness.
i also thought a lot about where love for god--or for anything--comes from. my first thought was that it's culturally learned, because christians are taught that god loves us and we love him too. however, i thought more about agnostics or more specifically people who have never heard of god. if someone was raised without any indication or idea of god (if this is psychologically possible), would they yearn to know god (assuming god exists)? i feel like, yes. this is kind of impossible because everyone on earth has heard of some kind of god; however, there are stories of people who don't believe in religion or have chosen not to be religious but still feel like something's missing. i think the easiest answer for this, in lds terms, is the light of christ. there is still some kind of spiritual experience that we don't understand, that comes from time to time when we're listening. i think, ultimately, that love comes from the spirit or is the spirit, which we always have access to as humans (and probably as intelligences, too). when parents have a child, they (usually) love it instantly and without reason. psychological studies have shown that there is a literal, chemical reaction that happens (or should happen, at least within the mother) when a baby is born (although these chemicals are blocked by some of the drugs hospitals use on childbearing women........but this is a whole 'nother post), but, as per above, isn't science just religion? i think we will find that the spiritual is the scientific and that we love god because there is a permanent, eternal relationship and intensely spiritual (and yes, even "scientific", which is easy to argue when our relationship with our biological parents is scientific) connection there.
i didn't tell them any of this, even though they vaguely, indirectly, kind of asked when the second girl said "so if either of you think of an answer"... because, seriously, who would just say this shit? me (and not me), i'm weird like that.
this girl said she was so taken aback. she acknowledged that philosophy majors like to play devil's advocate and question everything, but she felt like it was crossing a line. she said it bothered her so much that if something like it came up again, she was going to raise her hand and tell them to stop. she wondered how they could say it when the scriptures "literally say" that god is "all powerful."
i thought this was fascinating. i feel very strongly that there are very set laws in the universe. call them laws of nature or of science or whatever. i believe god follows them just as all of us do. there are laws, processes, and organization to the matter of the universe and i believe gods become gods when they have a perfect knowledge of those laws and are perfectly obedient to them. i believe that this is why they have "all power." i think it's interesting that religion and science have been at odds for so long, in human terms. in my mind, science is, in a way, perfect religion. i think they are both governed by obedience. in religion, we become like god as we are obedient to the commandments of our heavenly parents. (not temporary, relative, cultural commandments, mind you, but a combination of the broad law of love, generosity, acceptance, and the specific ordinances and covenants god has prearranged. which starts to look a lot like a worship in mind of a great universal goodness seen more in eastern religions.) in science, all matter follows the laws of nature. the elements are perfectly obedient, and we are not. this brings up complicated questions, like what about when jesus commanded the sea to be calm? i think we talk about the elements obeying godly command because we do see that power as all powerful, but i think in reality they just abide by the same laws, speak the same languages, have a mutual respect and power, the way electrons automatically know how to interact. or perhaps there is a principle of human spirit ruling over the non-animated elements, a more advanced, "spiritual" meaning of "stewardship over the earth." yes, godliness is submitting to and obeying these laws, but they give gods power, rather than take it away. (isn't that an lds thought anyway? that obedience frees us from being powerless?) heavenly father has also told us that there are things he himself can't do (for example, "change", or he wouldn't be a god, or take away someone's agency, or he wouldn't be a god), so the idea of his all powerfulness is inherently complicated.
i digress.
one of my other employees then shared how they were talking in her psychology class about hedonism and similar concepts. she said she had never thought about doing good for others in order to return to god as making that original good act inherently selfish. she said she began thinking of the most fundamental thing she could: why do i love god? she said she thought of many different reasons, but they were all centered around her: "because he loves me." "because of all he does for me." etc. they talked at a little length about different reasons for why they love god.
again, fascinating, and my first reaction was that selfishness isn't always bad. i know that goes against a slew of modern general conference talks, and i know it says in the scriptures to lose our lives to find them. i also do believe that selfishness is at the root of all sin (which makes sin much simpler in my mind but also disqualifies a lot of acts that orthodox lds people would see as sinful as not actually so) but also that the human, and especially lds version, of sin is culturally imperfect (i haven't studied enough to say if it's scripturally sound). i think it is ok that are on an inherently selfish internal quest to find out what god is, what our relationship is, and what that means to us. (this search, obviously, is not so simple as the traditionally packaged and bowed lds answer.) we are told that exaltation is a family matter achieved with sealings, but that salvation is specifically individual. it is an inherently selfish journey of selflessness.
i also thought a lot about where love for god--or for anything--comes from. my first thought was that it's culturally learned, because christians are taught that god loves us and we love him too. however, i thought more about agnostics or more specifically people who have never heard of god. if someone was raised without any indication or idea of god (if this is psychologically possible), would they yearn to know god (assuming god exists)? i feel like, yes. this is kind of impossible because everyone on earth has heard of some kind of god; however, there are stories of people who don't believe in religion or have chosen not to be religious but still feel like something's missing. i think the easiest answer for this, in lds terms, is the light of christ. there is still some kind of spiritual experience that we don't understand, that comes from time to time when we're listening. i think, ultimately, that love comes from the spirit or is the spirit, which we always have access to as humans (and probably as intelligences, too). when parents have a child, they (usually) love it instantly and without reason. psychological studies have shown that there is a literal, chemical reaction that happens (or should happen, at least within the mother) when a baby is born (although these chemicals are blocked by some of the drugs hospitals use on childbearing women........but this is a whole 'nother post), but, as per above, isn't science just religion? i think we will find that the spiritual is the scientific and that we love god because there is a permanent, eternal relationship and intensely spiritual (and yes, even "scientific", which is easy to argue when our relationship with our biological parents is scientific) connection there.
i didn't tell them any of this, even though they vaguely, indirectly, kind of asked when the second girl said "so if either of you think of an answer"... because, seriously, who would just say this shit? me (and not me), i'm weird like that.
a lot has changed in a little
our talks went well. really well. we wrote them the morning we gave them (12:30 church), which i don't feel even 1% guilty about. people act like you won't be able to access the spirit on such short notice, or give a good talk if you hadn't studied it for a week or more, but then they also tell missionaries what an honor it is to be able to speak with little to no preparation, to speak from the heart and to always have a little something prepared.
i was really surprised at what come out in my talk. it was genuinely me, even with where i'm at with everything. completely honest: i was more nervous about bearing my testimony at the end than i was about giving the talk. i didn't want to get up there and say something i didn't believe, or that i didn't feel like saying. and i didn't, but i feel like i still bore a strong, powerful testimony.
we are now sunday school teachers. i find this ironic and weird. and i'm a little afraid of what i'll say up there. our being called doesn't have anything to do with how the talks went, but i do feel very encouraged. i am actually happy to be called to teach sunday school, and i think i knew ever since we got the phone call that that's what it was.
when i taught relief society a few years ago, i was going through some really rough stuff, and already pulling away from my ward and byu religion but also what i had grown up with, on a large scale for the first time. i felt incredibly nonreligious 90% of the week, but when i would sit down to write my lessons, i knew that i could teach by the spirit and i knew that if i prayed for it the spirit would touch those who heard my lesson. there was no question in my mind. i feel like that's the same spirit in which i wrote my talk, and the spirit again came, strongly. husband and i were talking about this the other day--people in the church act like if you do one wrong thing, you lose the spirit and you can't get it back until you've gone through arduous processes. and i understand this is a principle of repentance, and i really believe in repentance. but it has been at the dark times in my life that i felt the spirit the strongest and felt the most direct connection with heaven. when i am dropping f bombs and generally swearing like a sailor, and then giving a powerful talk the next hour, feeling the spirit more than i have in months, it is a really strange but kind of comforting experience. it's reshaping the way i think about the spirit and making me wonder what is really at the heart of everything. i am grateful for the opportunity to be a sunday school teacher because i can experience this spirit on a regular basis. i don't believe the lord holds back the spirit from teachers who honestly want to teach well. and while i realize that may be more for the good of the audience than the teacher, it's no doubt that the teacher benefits by it. i did as a relief society teacher, and i know i will now.
i am still pulling away in some ways, even if i am feeling closer to heaven in others. lately i am struggling mostly with garments. besides the fact that it is still deathly hot, and that i have gained weight in the past year, making them more tight and uncomfortable, i do believe they are an outward showing of what i believe. i have a very honest desire to go back to the temple and see what's there. re-see it. i really want to go back and wear my garments there, in worship and honestly seeking to understand why the temple is such a pinnacle of LDS faith.
over the long weekend husband and i stopped in victoria's secret. even if i did wear garments all the time, a girl's still gotta have something for when TOM visits, and i was needing new undies. i told myself this was a very reasonable and started picking stuff out. my respect and love for my husband has grown a lot in regards to his respecting my decisions. i am very grateful to him. we feel very differently about garments--and about feminism, and about a lot of the things on my mind--but he has never made me feel bad about wearing or not wearing them. as i picked out underwear, i think both he and i knew i would really be wearing them more than just when i needed to wear a pad. but he knows how i feel, and to his credit, he grabbed my lovely batch of panties, took them to the register, and paid for them himself.
more than anything, i want to start from basics. i feel like unlearning can be as important (or more important) as learning. i feel like i have unlearned a lot of harmful things, and i want to steer back towards believing and being active and engaging as i do believe we are meant to. i want to see what is at the very bottom line of my testimony, and build on that.
more than anything, i want to start from basics. i feel like unlearning can be as important (or more important) as learning. i feel like i have unlearned a lot of harmful things, and i want to steer back towards believing and being active and engaging as i do believe we are meant to. i want to see what is at the very bottom line of my testimony, and build on that.
republicans
this conversation took place right at my desk yesterday between two full-time employees:
employee 1: "well, there is never enough money!"
employee 2: "yeah, the government wants to take it all. the government thinks it knows what's best for our money more than we do."
employee 1: "yep. well, it's our own fault for reelecting obama."
employee 2: "no, it's the fault of the idiots who reelected him. i didn't vote for him."
employee 1: "well, that's what i meant. it's the fault of... those people. the people that voted for him, not us."
employee 2: "yeah, idiots."
i was fuming. comments like this are made ALL the time in my office, but having it take place three feet in front of me, as a supporter of obama and a friend to many, many good people who are democrats, i was disgusted. i felt sick to my stomach. it was the beginning of a long, terrible day, and i didn't even go back to my building to work after lunch.
either they didn't notice my horrified, sick stare straight ahead or they don't care. my employee, who was at the desk with me (the republican who trash talked welfare and is now on welfare), knows i'm liberal, but she didn't say anything, as she never had. (during the election when they would go on for hours she would even say things like, 'i don't know why obama supporters don't stand up and defend themselves.' i'm pretty sure that was directed at me. well, she never asked.) should i have stood up to them? what would i have said if they asked me?
i didn't vote for obama (i didn't vote.... i know, shame), but i was this ' ' close to saying, "uhm, i voted for obama." i'm sure they would have asked "why?" probably i would have said, "because i'm an idiot, of course!!!" what if i had said, "oh, i get it. so you're upset about your money going to help people, other republicans, like m----- here that are on welfare?" i wonder what they all would have said then.but the truth is: i am severely repulsed by republicans and their attitudes.
i was taking ap gov while the 2008 presidential race was going on. i remember self identifying as slightly liberal (i am much more liberal now), and came home to ask my parents a few things. i brought it up to them, i still remember they were sitting on the couch together folding laundry, and they immediately started putting down my questions and potential ideas. 'we've always been afraid that you were getting a liberal education in this state,' they said. i will never forget that. it was a legitimate concern, but i was asking questions about the gospel, politics, and how the two intersect, and they were jumping to conclusions. they told me 'the right' stance to have and it escalated quickly because i started walking out of the room when they wouldn't listen to me.
that was the beginning of a long, distrusting, disliking relationship with republicans.
i know there must be good republicans out there. i know that disliking them so much is no better than them when they are putting down and calling democrats evil and idiots. i don't want to contribute to the hatefulness between the parties that permeated the last election, and i have never, ever spoken up before, not even again to my parents. but in my interactions with them they are consistently inhumane, closed minded, and quite frankly, disgusting. they are the ones that call all hispanics "mexicans" and get livid about printing school publicans in two languages, that champion the traditions that i think hurt so many, that believe the constitution is hanging by a thread, and that talk about the "gay agenda" and try to project their values on other people without taking those people's experiences into thought or consideration.
i don't even support that many democrat party platforms or policies. but i think it would be one of the most shameful things i could say about myself if i were to say i was a republican.
employee 1: "well, there is never enough money!"
employee 2: "yeah, the government wants to take it all. the government thinks it knows what's best for our money more than we do."
employee 1: "yep. well, it's our own fault for reelecting obama."
employee 2: "no, it's the fault of the idiots who reelected him. i didn't vote for him."
employee 1: "well, that's what i meant. it's the fault of... those people. the people that voted for him, not us."
employee 2: "yeah, idiots."
i was fuming. comments like this are made ALL the time in my office, but having it take place three feet in front of me, as a supporter of obama and a friend to many, many good people who are democrats, i was disgusted. i felt sick to my stomach. it was the beginning of a long, terrible day, and i didn't even go back to my building to work after lunch.
either they didn't notice my horrified, sick stare straight ahead or they don't care. my employee, who was at the desk with me (the republican who trash talked welfare and is now on welfare), knows i'm liberal, but she didn't say anything, as she never had. (during the election when they would go on for hours she would even say things like, 'i don't know why obama supporters don't stand up and defend themselves.' i'm pretty sure that was directed at me. well, she never asked.) should i have stood up to them? what would i have said if they asked me?
i didn't vote for obama (i didn't vote.... i know, shame), but i was this ' ' close to saying, "uhm, i voted for obama." i'm sure they would have asked "why?" probably i would have said, "because i'm an idiot, of course!!!" what if i had said, "oh, i get it. so you're upset about your money going to help people, other republicans, like m----- here that are on welfare?" i wonder what they all would have said then.but the truth is: i am severely repulsed by republicans and their attitudes.
i was taking ap gov while the 2008 presidential race was going on. i remember self identifying as slightly liberal (i am much more liberal now), and came home to ask my parents a few things. i brought it up to them, i still remember they were sitting on the couch together folding laundry, and they immediately started putting down my questions and potential ideas. 'we've always been afraid that you were getting a liberal education in this state,' they said. i will never forget that. it was a legitimate concern, but i was asking questions about the gospel, politics, and how the two intersect, and they were jumping to conclusions. they told me 'the right' stance to have and it escalated quickly because i started walking out of the room when they wouldn't listen to me.
that was the beginning of a long, distrusting, disliking relationship with republicans.
i know there must be good republicans out there. i know that disliking them so much is no better than them when they are putting down and calling democrats evil and idiots. i don't want to contribute to the hatefulness between the parties that permeated the last election, and i have never, ever spoken up before, not even again to my parents. but in my interactions with them they are consistently inhumane, closed minded, and quite frankly, disgusting. they are the ones that call all hispanics "mexicans" and get livid about printing school publicans in two languages, that champion the traditions that i think hurt so many, that believe the constitution is hanging by a thread, and that talk about the "gay agenda" and try to project their values on other people without taking those people's experiences into thought or consideration.
i don't even support that many democrat party platforms or policies. but i think it would be one of the most shameful things i could say about myself if i were to say i was a republican.
church
we're speaking in sacrament meeting next sunday. he asked us right after sacrament meeting with tons of people around (awkward) and i could tell he thought there was a good chance we'd say no. then last night we get a call that hubs and i have a meeting with "the bishopric" this sunday as well. husband is having horror visions of smack downs with all the bishopric there, but i think it will be one of the counselors and, if it's both of us, then it's a calling. there are only so many callings couples get together. my first thought is sunday school (please, if there is anything good left in the universe, do not force me to accept a sunday school teaching calling) but i am personally hoping for nursery.
obgy-no
as i've been thinking about this article going around, i was reminded of an experience i had with a doctor. i had my first obgyn experience as a premarital exam at the urging of my mother. before the exam, we sat in the doctor's office and he gave a little spiel. he recommended a specific lube, a book on intimacy in marriage, all fine. then he asked if i had been sexually active before. the question didn't bother me and is regularly asked in the medical community. but when i answered "no" he said, "good girl."
i thought it was weird even then, but was so anxious that i wasn't worrying about it. it didn't have some of the same dynamics as a bishop-young woman scenario, but the same power dynamic of older, specifically lds man obgyn-young woman was there. if i had said "yes" he probably wouldn't have said anything (hopefully). he has been a doctor to many women in my family, including my mom, and probably remembered we (or at least they, as far as he knew) are lds. but i still felt so ew about it.
i thought it was weird even then, but was so anxious that i wasn't worrying about it. it didn't have some of the same dynamics as a bishop-young woman scenario, but the same power dynamic of older, specifically lds man obgyn-young woman was there. if i had said "yes" he probably wouldn't have said anything (hopefully). he has been a doctor to many women in my family, including my mom, and probably remembered we (or at least they, as far as he knew) are lds. but i still felt so ew about it.
ps
to prove my point, this is literally word for a word a transcript from my training video:
interviewer: "our first question comes to us from sprint. it's from deborah and deborah asks, 'why is being a woman a strike against carlin?' you mentioned that."
old white guy: "first of all, i just want to say two things. one is that i wish i could spend a lot of time on every one of the questions. second is, sort of a little self congratulations. i often measure how effective i've been by the quality of the questions and i just glanced briefly through those questions and they're incredible.
"ok. and i think there were two from that person? ok. about the q... being a woman... yeah, uh, when i.. i see what could have been taken as a, a sexist remark and i hope you didn't take it that way... um, being a woman, first of all, in a man's world, of course, it... look, um, rosabeth moss kanter wrote a book years ago, a book called men and women in the corporation and she talked about what it means to be an 'o' when everyone else is an 'x', and she's in a culture, uh, a male culture, an engineering culture, where being a woman and being the top is a new thing, although there are some women in the top group of HP, it is still an unusual thing. she is an icon for women right now and we're all hoping those of us who want to see more women in top leadership positions... uh, that she will succeed. but, but, i do think all those three factors, just as with um, um, so, some women i've interviewed in another study i did, um, um women leaders seventy years and older, mini siebert was the first woman to be appointed to the new york city.. new york stock exchange and she, uh, uh, everyone looked but when you're the only 'o' with a bunch of 'x's, when you are looked at more sharply, more viewed, more with more wariness, and uh, and uh, and that's why, uh, she.. she has to be... and by the way, i think effective women leaders and effective men leaders share the same qualities incidentally. and that's... that's why i brought her, brought it up... it's still a disadvantage, women... there's still a glass ceiling, we're making some progress, but, it's still glacial progress. when brenda barnes came back into the work place, announced just yesterday, having quit pepsi cola ten years ago to be with her kids, many women were disappointed, she was one of the top women leaders at that time, she's returned from taking care of the kids. women... if.. any minority group, women... gay... uh...... a person of color... you are always being looked at more with.. with.. with more caliber ev.. evaluations than... uh, someone who is in the so called 'majority', anyway, that's uh, that's a pretty good answer...... let's do another one there. yeah. yeah."
well um, um said.
interviewer: "our first question comes to us from sprint. it's from deborah and deborah asks, 'why is being a woman a strike against carlin?' you mentioned that."
old white guy: "first of all, i just want to say two things. one is that i wish i could spend a lot of time on every one of the questions. second is, sort of a little self congratulations. i often measure how effective i've been by the quality of the questions and i just glanced briefly through those questions and they're incredible.
"ok. and i think there were two from that person? ok. about the q... being a woman... yeah, uh, when i.. i see what could have been taken as a, a sexist remark and i hope you didn't take it that way... um, being a woman, first of all, in a man's world, of course, it... look, um, rosabeth moss kanter wrote a book years ago, a book called men and women in the corporation and she talked about what it means to be an 'o' when everyone else is an 'x', and she's in a culture, uh, a male culture, an engineering culture, where being a woman and being the top is a new thing, although there are some women in the top group of HP, it is still an unusual thing. she is an icon for women right now and we're all hoping those of us who want to see more women in top leadership positions... uh, that she will succeed. but, but, i do think all those three factors, just as with um, um, so, some women i've interviewed in another study i did, um, um women leaders seventy years and older, mini siebert was the first woman to be appointed to the new york city.. new york stock exchange and she, uh, uh, everyone looked but when you're the only 'o' with a bunch of 'x's, when you are looked at more sharply, more viewed, more with more wariness, and uh, and uh, and that's why, uh, she.. she has to be... and by the way, i think effective women leaders and effective men leaders share the same qualities incidentally. and that's... that's why i brought her, brought it up... it's still a disadvantage, women... there's still a glass ceiling, we're making some progress, but, it's still glacial progress. when brenda barnes came back into the work place, announced just yesterday, having quit pepsi cola ten years ago to be with her kids, many women were disappointed, she was one of the top women leaders at that time, she's returned from taking care of the kids. women... if.. any minority group, women... gay... uh...... a person of color... you are always being looked at more with.. with.. with more caliber ev.. evaluations than... uh, someone who is in the so called 'majority', anyway, that's uh, that's a pretty good answer...... let's do another one there. yeah. yeah."
well um, um said.
old white guy club
i am watching a training video with two white guys because the white guys in my office don't have anything for me to do. the speaker is an old guy who is not that great of a speaker, but he's talking about leadership aka quoting tonnnnns of other old white guys. my butt hurts. i'm tired of sitting around the office. there is no work to do. and yet, i know i'll go home and sit around more and try to recuperate from doing nothing.
i want to feel ALIIIVE. where did that go to?
i also heard someone say the other day, 'they were being groomed for leadership positions.' i remember they were talking about a group of young men but i don't remember who said it or where i was. still, i cannot get it out of my mind because it makes me furious. the age old professions (law, medicine, business, etc) are run by old white guys who want to pass them on to young white guys. these guys are their sons and the sons of their old white guy friends. all of them probably grew up with wealth. instead of having to work for it they just need to be 'groomed'. implied here: hierarchy, unnecessary tradition, limiting advancement based on non performance based factors.
i know this is a generalization, but i still feel upset.
i want to feel ALIIIVE. where did that go to?
i also heard someone say the other day, 'they were being groomed for leadership positions.' i remember they were talking about a group of young men but i don't remember who said it or where i was. still, i cannot get it out of my mind because it makes me furious. the age old professions (law, medicine, business, etc) are run by old white guys who want to pass them on to young white guys. these guys are their sons and the sons of their old white guy friends. all of them probably grew up with wealth. instead of having to work for it they just need to be 'groomed'. implied here: hierarchy, unnecessary tradition, limiting advancement based on non performance based factors.
i know this is a generalization, but i still feel upset.
orange is the new black
after my husband told me his interest had been piqued in orange is the new black, but that he had stopped watching it after a few minutes because of all the boobs, i started watching it. and i finished it in a few days. i was horrified and fascinated and having so much fun.
i then read this interview with the real piper kerman. honestly, i was kind of disappointed. i admire her and agree with the praise the show has received, but when the interview gets to the part where she essentially says that women need special privileges (above men) to parent outside of prison, i was disappointed. i feel like if we really want fatherhood to become as much of the masculine personality as motherhood is for the female, and for everyone to see fatherhood on the same level as motherhood and have equality in parenting, it is inappropriate for women to have privileges over men. if you're going to talk about special allowances for parents that are in prison, it needs to apply to both men and women.
i'm realizing that there is an ideal and a reality to feminism, and that reconciling both of these is difficult. the reality here is that--whether it's caused by an unjust and sexist cultural society or not--more women are primarily responsible for the care of their children, and they do have a disproportionate amount of parenting responsibility, even if the ideal is that fathers and mothers share the responsibility evenly. do we overlook the needs of these women in order to make a point about what the ideal situation would be?
when i go to barnes n noble, i love that there is a big "changing table" sign on both the men and women's restroom doors. i love it. i am weird enough that while i'm on the pot i imagine myself in a leadership position in various companies in a conference room making the point that it's sexist to have changing tables in women's restrooms only, and that i care less about it forcing women to always do the dirty work than i do about how unfair it is to fathers that they can't parent in their own restroom. and then i get this terrible feeling like no one cares. like, who am i as a woman to speak for men? like if they really cared that much, they would have spoken up for themselves and things would be different. this is the reality, and it harshes on my ideal.
learning how to negotiate between the two is weird and hard.
i then read this interview with the real piper kerman. honestly, i was kind of disappointed. i admire her and agree with the praise the show has received, but when the interview gets to the part where she essentially says that women need special privileges (above men) to parent outside of prison, i was disappointed. i feel like if we really want fatherhood to become as much of the masculine personality as motherhood is for the female, and for everyone to see fatherhood on the same level as motherhood and have equality in parenting, it is inappropriate for women to have privileges over men. if you're going to talk about special allowances for parents that are in prison, it needs to apply to both men and women.
i'm realizing that there is an ideal and a reality to feminism, and that reconciling both of these is difficult. the reality here is that--whether it's caused by an unjust and sexist cultural society or not--more women are primarily responsible for the care of their children, and they do have a disproportionate amount of parenting responsibility, even if the ideal is that fathers and mothers share the responsibility evenly. do we overlook the needs of these women in order to make a point about what the ideal situation would be?
when i go to barnes n noble, i love that there is a big "changing table" sign on both the men and women's restroom doors. i love it. i am weird enough that while i'm on the pot i imagine myself in a leadership position in various companies in a conference room making the point that it's sexist to have changing tables in women's restrooms only, and that i care less about it forcing women to always do the dirty work than i do about how unfair it is to fathers that they can't parent in their own restroom. and then i get this terrible feeling like no one cares. like, who am i as a woman to speak for men? like if they really cared that much, they would have spoken up for themselves and things would be different. this is the reality, and it harshes on my ideal.
learning how to negotiate between the two is weird and hard.
heavy
something weird happens when you get fat. everyone around you will still talk about 'fat people' in general and it's never clear if they are doing a poor job trying to tell you personally something, if they have a psychological something that causes them not to view you as fat (even though you are), or if they really just don't care / don't think you can hear them.
my dad and i text jokes back and forth to each other. one day he started making up his own--there were a lot about byu football. then he sends this one:
"what happens when you put a ring on the finger of a byu undergrad?"
"she blows up like a balloon."
i was so shocked. my dad has NEVER said a word against me, and while we disagree about a lot of things (like the constitution and mitt romney and welfare), i cannot even imagine having a contentious relationship with him and have never, ever felt looked down upon by him. i was shocked. in his defense, he was probably on A LOT of drugs, but i just couldn't believe it.
this past weekend we saw all of my family for a farewell. it's ironic, but going around my family makes me feel worse about my body than anything else in my life. my mom and her sisters have all gained a healthy amount of weight from having kids, but other than that the only other overweight person on either side of my family is my aunt carrie (who everyone thinks is a joke, sadly). they are all skinny and good looking and wonderful. i hadn't seen most of them in a long time and as they filed past me in church and said hi i could see that look on their eyes of, 'whoa, what happened to her?'
i have a lot of feelings about weight gain. i've often wondered if growing up with brothers gave me a misconception about my metabolism and therefore caused me to overeat. or if what my mom ate during her pregnancy causes me to eat more / crave more than other people. or if i have depression. or if other people just eat nothing, all the time. or if their bodies just handle it better.
i love my body. i'm amazed with the shit it puts up with. i'm amazed that it will continue to function and grow through all i put it through. whatever you do to it, it just takes it. human life seems fragile but in reality it is difficult to die by lifestyle (even if it is becoming more prevalent). when i'm home and i look in the mirror, i see that my body is a war zone but i also see that it is beautiful and good. i always tell myself it is not so bad, and i mean it. but then i go to the store or the movies or somewhere in public and see the size everyone else is. it is, weirdly, encouraging. it helps me keep perspective and understand that it's good to appreciate my body but that i need to be realistic about what is normal or not.
i've won the mind games before, and i lost a lot of weight. the habit of exercising was so instinctual and bodily. i really did do it for the hormones and how good it felt. i was honestly not doing it to lose weight, it wasn't even a thought. but, not having exercised in more than a year, i don't have bodily memory of what that felt like, and i can't seem to get myself going.
my dad and i text jokes back and forth to each other. one day he started making up his own--there were a lot about byu football. then he sends this one:
"what happens when you put a ring on the finger of a byu undergrad?"
"she blows up like a balloon."
i was so shocked. my dad has NEVER said a word against me, and while we disagree about a lot of things (like the constitution and mitt romney and welfare), i cannot even imagine having a contentious relationship with him and have never, ever felt looked down upon by him. i was shocked. in his defense, he was probably on A LOT of drugs, but i just couldn't believe it.
this past weekend we saw all of my family for a farewell. it's ironic, but going around my family makes me feel worse about my body than anything else in my life. my mom and her sisters have all gained a healthy amount of weight from having kids, but other than that the only other overweight person on either side of my family is my aunt carrie (who everyone thinks is a joke, sadly). they are all skinny and good looking and wonderful. i hadn't seen most of them in a long time and as they filed past me in church and said hi i could see that look on their eyes of, 'whoa, what happened to her?'
i have a lot of feelings about weight gain. i've often wondered if growing up with brothers gave me a misconception about my metabolism and therefore caused me to overeat. or if what my mom ate during her pregnancy causes me to eat more / crave more than other people. or if i have depression. or if other people just eat nothing, all the time. or if their bodies just handle it better.
i love my body. i'm amazed with the shit it puts up with. i'm amazed that it will continue to function and grow through all i put it through. whatever you do to it, it just takes it. human life seems fragile but in reality it is difficult to die by lifestyle (even if it is becoming more prevalent). when i'm home and i look in the mirror, i see that my body is a war zone but i also see that it is beautiful and good. i always tell myself it is not so bad, and i mean it. but then i go to the store or the movies or somewhere in public and see the size everyone else is. it is, weirdly, encouraging. it helps me keep perspective and understand that it's good to appreciate my body but that i need to be realistic about what is normal or not.
i've won the mind games before, and i lost a lot of weight. the habit of exercising was so instinctual and bodily. i really did do it for the hormones and how good it felt. i was honestly not doing it to lose weight, it wasn't even a thought. but, not having exercised in more than a year, i don't have bodily memory of what that felt like, and i can't seem to get myself going.
noisy
even with my struggles with wymount culture, i have really loved our apartment. it is definitely our home. but i don't know what it is this last week... i hear crying babies / kids literally hours of every day. it doesn't help that the people below us have a brand new baby. (they had a new baby last summer too...) i have always disliked those people who complain about kids making noise in restaurants, stores, etc. kids are loud. parenting is loud. i feel like that should be ok. but hearing crying children all the time isn't making me feel more creative / more driven / sexier / more motivated / more willing to spend time on the hard stuff. it makes me feel tired.
the first year of marriage was so difficult and so rewarding. sam and i both have lots of dreams and things we want to do. we have been unbelievably blessed, including through living in this location. and i don't think that not being ready for kids means i should / can dislike everyone else for having kids, especially living somewhere built for those people. but i feel trapped here, and i feel like it's ok for us to not be ready to have kids but that maybe we are not spending that time wisely. i feel like we are living in a place that represents where we want to be in five or ten years, and that it's preventing us from living fully in the moment. even if i can get over being bugged by the noise, it's very psychological.
if i didn't hate moving, i would move.
the first year of marriage was so difficult and so rewarding. sam and i both have lots of dreams and things we want to do. we have been unbelievably blessed, including through living in this location. and i don't think that not being ready for kids means i should / can dislike everyone else for having kids, especially living somewhere built for those people. but i feel trapped here, and i feel like it's ok for us to not be ready to have kids but that maybe we are not spending that time wisely. i feel like we are living in a place that represents where we want to be in five or ten years, and that it's preventing us from living fully in the moment. even if i can get over being bugged by the noise, it's very psychological.
if i didn't hate moving, i would move.
bladders, cups, management vent
i once spent an entire staff meeting sharing what i felt was valuable information with my employees. i tried to engage them, tried to share exciting and even confidential info with them where appropriate, tried to kick their motivation and drive on. i felt good. i felt on. i felt like i was relatable and professional. but at the end when i asked if they had questions or comments about where our team was going, they wanted to know why i had taken the cups out of the supply cupboard. these girls had been using so many cups that it was essentially costing us hundreds of dollars per month, and there were never supplies for when the department actually needed them. i had moved the cup stash to a place less at their disposal, leaving a package in the cupboard for their use with the idea that when they ran out, they ran out, until i replenished them when we reordered cups. i explained that we simply could not afford for them to use so many cups, to which one girl replied, "well, it's fine, i found them and put them in the cupboard so they're there now." i could not believe they were livid about cups. i couldn't believe that after a productive meeting of the highest quality i could put on, they wanted to argue about cups. something in me died a little that day.
maybe this is just management. maybe there will always be employees who only care about unlimited access to free cups (so much so that they were search the building and take it in their own hands). but i was frustrated that i had failed to inspire them and frustrated that i continued to feel like i was babysitting.
the same girl who looked for the cups literally uses the bathroom 4 - 8 times every day during her 4 hour shift. as a manager, this is infuriating. her whole job is to watch the desk, answer every phone call, and hold down the fort. i can't trust her to do this. i have calmly explained to her that it is her job to cover the desk and that if there isn't anyone else there, there is simply not an option to go off and use the bathroom. she was unresponsive. in fact, shortly after that she asked a random employee who knows nothing about her job to cover the desk while she went to the bathroom. ...really? you couldn't hold it for one hour? i understand that everyone goes to the bathroom, and in an emergency or even once in a while i'd be happy to cover for her. but she is unresponsive to constructive criticism and the fact that i need to do my job. she drinks water incessantly and is not helping herself.
i am embarrassed that this infuriates me. i am embarrassed for her. am i seriously going to have to sit down in her performance review and talk to her about her bladder? ask her why she can't wait to drink water until business allows or she is at home? i am embarrassed for them that they are grown ass women and they can't control their bladders. i am embarrassed for myself that i spend 40 hours a week babysitting.
is this just what management is?
maybe this is just management. maybe there will always be employees who only care about unlimited access to free cups (so much so that they were search the building and take it in their own hands). but i was frustrated that i had failed to inspire them and frustrated that i continued to feel like i was babysitting.
the same girl who looked for the cups literally uses the bathroom 4 - 8 times every day during her 4 hour shift. as a manager, this is infuriating. her whole job is to watch the desk, answer every phone call, and hold down the fort. i can't trust her to do this. i have calmly explained to her that it is her job to cover the desk and that if there isn't anyone else there, there is simply not an option to go off and use the bathroom. she was unresponsive. in fact, shortly after that she asked a random employee who knows nothing about her job to cover the desk while she went to the bathroom. ...really? you couldn't hold it for one hour? i understand that everyone goes to the bathroom, and in an emergency or even once in a while i'd be happy to cover for her. but she is unresponsive to constructive criticism and the fact that i need to do my job. she drinks water incessantly and is not helping herself.
i am embarrassed that this infuriates me. i am embarrassed for her. am i seriously going to have to sit down in her performance review and talk to her about her bladder? ask her why she can't wait to drink water until business allows or she is at home? i am embarrassed for them that they are grown ass women and they can't control their bladders. i am embarrassed for myself that i spend 40 hours a week babysitting.
is this just what management is?
medicaid
the same girl in my office who bitched the whole election that all democrats are on welfare and ruining the country = she, and her husband, just got approved for medicaid (she will tell anyone who even brushes the topic).
i couldn't care less, but i hope she knows she should be eating her words.
i couldn't care less, but i hope she knows she should be eating her words.
the only time i have been mad at god
i am not someone who is often asking myself, 'why would god do this?' of the 'why do bad things happen to good people?' variety. that has never really been my faith crisis, and i've always been willing to suspend conclusion and keep looking for an answer that fits the personality of what i believe is a teaching, compassionate god with interworking plans that span world history. but last year when i got married i was having a really hard time. female sexuality is not talked about by the lds community. after being married, i was quickly becoming a more involved feminist, and sex was not helping. the thing that really killed me is that sex seemed to end with male orgasm. when the man is done, it is done with, no matter where the woman is at. i found this highly unfair and besides trying to figure out sex in the first place, i was struggling with added feelings that this only reaffirms the attitude some church members have about chastity (sex is dirty; desire should be strongly tethered and sexual exploration, even in marriage, can be devastating and therefore should be avoided to also avoid the chance) and what sex is for (making babies, right?? so who cares of women are satisfied?). i was furious about this. i was mad at heavenly father. looking back, maybe this is unfair, because while he has a body, i don't believe he designed our bodies--i assume he got his from parents that looked like him as well, and that the body is a long perfected design. but it deepened my fears that women's individuation (especially in stride with the individuation of men), to use a jungian term, is not important to eternity, heaven, or to god. having biology and eternal design against you are pretty hefty set backs.
i really believe the lds community could benefit from discussion and from women coming out and talking about these issues. i also realize that unhealthy beliefs of what a wife owes her husband, of what sex should be like for a wife, etc, are not (one blessing of the digital age is that women are talking on these discussions and initiating them themselves.) sex is a reflection of marriage which, with an lds perspective, is a reflection of eternity, which is why i was so torn apart. for me, the gospel is true, but there is a point where church and especially its culture need to stop and psychology, biology, and the experience of the individual (after all, god gave us our bodies, brains, and lives) need to start doing the explaining. my relationship with my husband has grown unbelievably, and working through frustration has made us both better spouses. maybe this happens naturally in marriages, as it has for us, and then couples are just private about it. but for me, it was a source of agony and a big learning experience. mostly i have learned that if your marriage is happy and committed, it will have the spirit in it and it's hard to believe heavenly father would be upset with it.
i really believe the lds community could benefit from discussion and from women coming out and talking about these issues. i also realize that unhealthy beliefs of what a wife owes her husband, of what sex should be like for a wife, etc, are not (one blessing of the digital age is that women are talking on these discussions and initiating them themselves.) sex is a reflection of marriage which, with an lds perspective, is a reflection of eternity, which is why i was so torn apart. for me, the gospel is true, but there is a point where church and especially its culture need to stop and psychology, biology, and the experience of the individual (after all, god gave us our bodies, brains, and lives) need to start doing the explaining. my relationship with my husband has grown unbelievably, and working through frustration has made us both better spouses. maybe this happens naturally in marriages, as it has for us, and then couples are just private about it. but for me, it was a source of agony and a big learning experience. mostly i have learned that if your marriage is happy and committed, it will have the spirit in it and it's hard to believe heavenly father would be upset with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)