This post was written as a response to a facebook post. It may not make sense right away.
For many women, time at work is balanced with their time to be a mom. That is what they want. For some, it's a necessity for them to work, and for others it's just what they want. The Odom on factor is that they all want to be with their kids. Men want to be with their kids too, of course. But it's a social norm that dads generally don't take time off of work ****because***** it is generally accepted that mom will. Many women accept this. And it affects their pay. Women are seen as "less focused" on the career track, and therefore less qualified. It doesn't have anything to do with their intelligence or ability. It has everything to do with their commitment to kids first over job. I'm not saying that men out their jobs over their kids. Just that, when a man has the option of giving the kids' mom the responsibility of being the "go to" parent, then dad can focus on what he sees as his duty with regard to the family: providing the main financial support. I think, for feminists, the idea is that women ***should **** be independent and equal in that same way that men are. If the woman is serious about her career, then she *should* have the option of sharing the care of the children with her husband, so they both take time off work when the kids need care and it's not just her career that "suffers", but his as well. I think feminists see that men resist this idea, and they are saying it isn't right. For a mom who believes that its better for women to be home with her kids, the argument is silly. Why is the mom working at all? Why would she be serious about a career if she wasn't serious about having children? If there is no financial *need* (not want) for her to work, why would she choose that? So the feminist argument in that case has zero relevance to them. But for many recognize that they have skills and talents that they see as valuable and *necessary* to bring to the workplace. Men just don't have the same qualities as women. They would agree wholeheartedly with the "different but equal" idea. And those differences are what will help our society become healthy again. They think what they're doing is her best way. My question is --- what other way, besides having a job or being a government representative (which would also take moms away from home for a long time) can women make significant impact on the society? Yes, I know raising children will. As king as the woman raises the child with a knowledge of what needs to change in society. And for a woman to have that knowledge, she needs Ron be educated -- not necessarily with a degree or diploma (though that helps tremendousl), but by being involved in the community. By learning about what people's concerns are, what the laws are, etc. I know women *can* learn these things and gain this education in a variety of ways besides having s job. In fact, having a job might prevent the women from learning as much as she needs to know about her community to know where best to focus her attention as she is teaching her children. And the woman needs to be well educated enough to be able to think critically, think through different arguments, and think outside of the box, and know how to influence people in a way that she will effectively lead them to elevate their dreams and their behavior. It's a pretty tall order. It's what motherhood is meant to be. And many women are not capable of this ideal, because they don't have the education, or they have to work at a low paying job, and they have kids, and they live in a society or community that is less than ideal for raising children and getting kids good education and adequate health care and nutrition. More and more women are becoming aware of the need to raise their vision and "up their game" as mothers, but they have circumstances that make it challenging to achieve those goals. I believe feminists wants to help with that endeavor. They may Be going about it not exactly in th best way. and the everyday woman who doesn't identify with feminism could help feminism by understanding what they're really trying to do (I don't mean extremist feminists) and sharing ideas for how to achieve the goals in a way that isn't outside of the "man's world" solution, i.e., working at a job or being a government representative.
Sunday, February 19, 2017
Tuesday, February 7, 2017
A Culture of Victimhood
After the 2016 election results, I listened to a podcast about the effect that the election had on Clinton supporters. I listened carefully to the women's concerns. I didn't understand the emotions these women were having. I wanted to understand them. I can sympathize with the feelings they professed. I have these feelings myself. Yet I could not connect emotionally, though I bent my mind to it and searched my heart to discover the tender feelings of sympathy with one who has been wronged.
Then the podcast host told the story of a woman in Utah. I live in Utah. I grew up here, moved away after college, and recently returned. I had heard of the woman being interviewed. I was sure she was truly concerned about the status of women in our culture.
Then the host said some things that turned a key in my mind. I don't care to recall the exact words, as I do not care to cite the podcast. The idea being put forth was that women in Utah are oppressed by a patriarchal society and an oppressive religious majority that limits women's freedoms.
Whether or not those claims are true is not my current focus.
The key that turned in my head was that the podcast producers had designed their stories to garner sympathy for victims of oppressive male domination. As a woman living in Utah, having received a modest college education, having traveled the world and around the United States, and then having returned to the state of Utah, I am assured that I am not a victim. Nor do many of my fellow women living here feel like victims. Even those who agree that we live in a paternalistic, oppressive, religiously-dominated culture do not feel like victims.
Why, I questioned, were the podcast hosts, not to mention the feminist-minded women in Utah, trying to make victims out of people who do not feel like victims? Do they believe that the rest of us educated, world-travelled women are blind to our victimhood? What do they hope that we will gain by accepting that we are victims?
I wrote an email to this effect to the general email listed on the homepage for the podcast. I didn't expect to hear back from them, and I moved on.
Today, however, I read something that brought my previous experience into a little clearer focus. The article was about women who claim they have been raped, their cases have been evaluated, and their claims of rape have been dismissed. Here's one of the author's conclusions:
"The damaged credibility of fake victims tends to undermine the credibility of real victims."
This is relevant to how I felt about the post-election podcast. I am not a victim of a paternalistic religion. Trying to make me into one is damaging to those women who actually are.
At the end of the article, the author theorized that some of these "fake victims" are influenced by people with an "anti-rape culture" agenda. The conclusion of the article could be the conclusion of my own experience with the podcast:
"It’s a system which systematically preys on and exploits the emotional vulnerability of young women in order to use them as publicity fodder for an ideological agenda."
Quotes from "'Rape Culture' and Feminism's Sexual Exploitation of Women" by Robert Tracinski. http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/10/rape-culture-and-feminisms-sexual-exploitation-of-women/
Another view of this situation:
"I agree with William Layne that broader societal trends shouldn’t excuse what is often, plain and simple, malicious behavior. He is certainly correct that false accusers are not “cogs in a cultural machine.” They are individuals with agency—whether they admit it or not—with a wide range of complex motivations. However, I do think the larger sexual confusion on campus causes young women to engage in an activity they truly are not ready for and, even worse, don’t fully comprehend, with disastrous results." -- Heather Wilhelm, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/feminism-and-rape-culture/
Then the podcast host told the story of a woman in Utah. I live in Utah. I grew up here, moved away after college, and recently returned. I had heard of the woman being interviewed. I was sure she was truly concerned about the status of women in our culture.
Then the host said some things that turned a key in my mind. I don't care to recall the exact words, as I do not care to cite the podcast. The idea being put forth was that women in Utah are oppressed by a patriarchal society and an oppressive religious majority that limits women's freedoms.
Whether or not those claims are true is not my current focus.
The key that turned in my head was that the podcast producers had designed their stories to garner sympathy for victims of oppressive male domination. As a woman living in Utah, having received a modest college education, having traveled the world and around the United States, and then having returned to the state of Utah, I am assured that I am not a victim. Nor do many of my fellow women living here feel like victims. Even those who agree that we live in a paternalistic, oppressive, religiously-dominated culture do not feel like victims.
Why, I questioned, were the podcast hosts, not to mention the feminist-minded women in Utah, trying to make victims out of people who do not feel like victims? Do they believe that the rest of us educated, world-travelled women are blind to our victimhood? What do they hope that we will gain by accepting that we are victims?
I wrote an email to this effect to the general email listed on the homepage for the podcast. I didn't expect to hear back from them, and I moved on.
Today, however, I read something that brought my previous experience into a little clearer focus. The article was about women who claim they have been raped, their cases have been evaluated, and their claims of rape have been dismissed. Here's one of the author's conclusions:
"The damaged credibility of fake victims tends to undermine the credibility of real victims."
This is relevant to how I felt about the post-election podcast. I am not a victim of a paternalistic religion. Trying to make me into one is damaging to those women who actually are.
At the end of the article, the author theorized that some of these "fake victims" are influenced by people with an "anti-rape culture" agenda. The conclusion of the article could be the conclusion of my own experience with the podcast:
"It’s a system which systematically preys on and exploits the emotional vulnerability of young women in order to use them as publicity fodder for an ideological agenda."
Quotes from "'Rape Culture' and Feminism's Sexual Exploitation of Women" by Robert Tracinski. http://thefederalist.com/2015/02/10/rape-culture-and-feminisms-sexual-exploitation-of-women/
Another view of this situation:
"I agree with William Layne that broader societal trends shouldn’t excuse what is often, plain and simple, malicious behavior. He is certainly correct that false accusers are not “cogs in a cultural machine.” They are individuals with agency—whether they admit it or not—with a wide range of complex motivations. However, I do think the larger sexual confusion on campus causes young women to engage in an activity they truly are not ready for and, even worse, don’t fully comprehend, with disastrous results." -- Heather Wilhelm, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/feminism-and-rape-culture/
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Steam of consciousness - follow the prophet
following the prophet doesn't mean I blindly give my allegiance to him and do everything he asks without question.
It simply is a disposition. I am disposed to give the prophet the benefit of the doubt. Upon my own searching and prayer, I will then take action.
What we are taught as Church members is that, if you search and pray, you will find the same answers that the prophet has given.
What happens when you don't get those same answers?
Implication is you need to wait for a time. you need to trust in the Lord. Perhaps there is something in your life that is not in line with the commandments? This is where the difficulty arises.
If I am not living the commandments, the Church says my understanding of God's word to me may be influenced by my unrighteous thinking or actions. Like looking through a dirty lens.
On the other hand, if I feel that my actions are not sinful, then I may question the validity of the prophet. I think this is where many people are at today. They do not see how their actions are sins. They think their ideas are good, they are right, and it is the prophet and apostles who are living in a false tradition that has passed out of fashion.
What about me? I believe that God speaks to me. There are many habits and attitudes that I believe would be healthy for me to live, that I do not live. I then question my ability to judge the rightness or wrongness of what the prophet says is a good way to live. Until I can live in the way my conscience tells me I should live, I feel unqualified to make a judgment on anyone else's life or ideas.
But I give the prophet the benefit of the doubt. I lean towards the side of believing the prophet.
It simply is a disposition. I am disposed to give the prophet the benefit of the doubt. Upon my own searching and prayer, I will then take action.
What we are taught as Church members is that, if you search and pray, you will find the same answers that the prophet has given.
What happens when you don't get those same answers?
Implication is you need to wait for a time. you need to trust in the Lord. Perhaps there is something in your life that is not in line with the commandments? This is where the difficulty arises.
If I am not living the commandments, the Church says my understanding of God's word to me may be influenced by my unrighteous thinking or actions. Like looking through a dirty lens.
On the other hand, if I feel that my actions are not sinful, then I may question the validity of the prophet. I think this is where many people are at today. They do not see how their actions are sins. They think their ideas are good, they are right, and it is the prophet and apostles who are living in a false tradition that has passed out of fashion.
What about me? I believe that God speaks to me. There are many habits and attitudes that I believe would be healthy for me to live, that I do not live. I then question my ability to judge the rightness or wrongness of what the prophet says is a good way to live. Until I can live in the way my conscience tells me I should live, I feel unqualified to make a judgment on anyone else's life or ideas.
But I give the prophet the benefit of the doubt. I lean towards the side of believing the prophet.
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Saying how you feel is different than saying what you think.
That's what I'm learning lately.
Until recently, I've always told people about my thoughts. I experience a feeling. Then I examine my thoughts. Then I talk about how my thoughts are connected to the feeling. But I'm not really talking about the feeling itself.
I've lived a lot of my life with the idea that feelings are caused by what happens to me. If someone does something I don't like, then I feel uncomfortable or angry or frustrated.
So then I tell someone that what they did was wrong because it resulted in me feeling badly. And that doesn't usually go over well with people. So. When I tell people just a simple emotion that I'm feeling, the outcome is different.
For example, if I open with, "You did 'x' and I'm angry about that," then people get defensive. It's not the words that I use. It's an attitude: the attitude of "you were wrong to do 'x'."
If I say, "I'm angry," then I'm not starting the conversation with a judgment. And then people around me can respond sympathetically, which allows me to focus on my feelings, instead of on what the other person did.
That's what I'm learning lately.
Until recently, I've always told people about my thoughts. I experience a feeling. Then I examine my thoughts. Then I talk about how my thoughts are connected to the feeling. But I'm not really talking about the feeling itself.
I've lived a lot of my life with the idea that feelings are caused by what happens to me. If someone does something I don't like, then I feel uncomfortable or angry or frustrated.
So then I tell someone that what they did was wrong because it resulted in me feeling badly. And that doesn't usually go over well with people. So. When I tell people just a simple emotion that I'm feeling, the outcome is different.
For example, if I open with, "You did 'x' and I'm angry about that," then people get defensive. It's not the words that I use. It's an attitude: the attitude of "you were wrong to do 'x'."
If I say, "I'm angry," then I'm not starting the conversation with a judgment. And then people around me can respond sympathetically, which allows me to focus on my feelings, instead of on what the other person did.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Mystified Gratitude
Adara broke her arm on Halloween day. Today I called to find the latest total for the three appointments she had. I was surprised to learn my balance was zero, as I had not submitted it to my healthcare ministry.
Medicaid paid the bill in full. I don't know why. We used a Medicaid from October 2015 to April 2016 because a jon had been fired from his job. I don't know why, 6 months after our eligibility ended, they paid the bill. I am happy they did.
Adding to the mystery is that the same child saw a doctor in June for a ruptured eardrum. We paid out of pocket for that (our insurance at that time was mostly catastrophic insurance). Why would Medicaid pay the broken arm but not the burst eardrum? Again, I don't really care about the reason.
Medicaid paid the bill in full. I don't know why. We used a Medicaid from October 2015 to April 2016 because a jon had been fired from his job. I don't know why, 6 months after our eligibility ended, they paid the bill. I am happy they did.
Adding to the mystery is that the same child saw a doctor in June for a ruptured eardrum. We paid out of pocket for that (our insurance at that time was mostly catastrophic insurance). Why would Medicaid pay the broken arm but not the burst eardrum? Again, I don't really care about the reason.
Friday, January 6, 2017
2017 Goals
1. Diet
Feeling: Feed my body like it was a newborn baby body.
***Practice: Find one new vegetable, or a new method or recipe that maximizes nutrition, tastes pretty good, is on the easy-ish side to prepare and keep on-hand, and is sustainable over several months of eating.
****Easy, one-time goal -- get a good multivitamin routine started
(Also - supplements that support healthy hair)
***Deadline: April 30, 2017
2. Exercise
****Feeling: My mind and body are healthy when I'm happy with what I'm doing
****Practice: Find fun ways to move my body with my kids. YouTube videos on dance, martial arts, balance balls, yoga. Swimming, biking, gymnastics, roller blading. Hiking, rock climbing, weight lifting, pilates ...
(Also - look for how to tone abdominal muscles)
****Deadline -- Do activity with kids at least 2 times each week, before Saturday
3. Relationships
****See the world with mindful energy (that light in your eyes when you're doing something you love) in day-to-day tasks, including and especially, in my interactions with children and husband, and also with people in general.
ALSO -- the more energy you put into life, the more energy you have.
Feeling: Feed my body like it was a newborn baby body.
***Practice: Find one new vegetable, or a new method or recipe that maximizes nutrition, tastes pretty good, is on the easy-ish side to prepare and keep on-hand, and is sustainable over several months of eating.
****Easy, one-time goal -- get a good multivitamin routine started
(Also - supplements that support healthy hair)
***Deadline: April 30, 2017
2. Exercise
****Feeling: My mind and body are healthy when I'm happy with what I'm doing
****Practice: Find fun ways to move my body with my kids. YouTube videos on dance, martial arts, balance balls, yoga. Swimming, biking, gymnastics, roller blading. Hiking, rock climbing, weight lifting, pilates ...
(Also - look for how to tone abdominal muscles)
****Deadline -- Do activity with kids at least 2 times each week, before Saturday
3. Relationships
****See the world with mindful energy (that light in your eyes when you're doing something you love) in day-to-day tasks, including and especially, in my interactions with children and husband, and also with people in general.
ALSO -- the more energy you put into life, the more energy you have.
****Practice: Read with kids. Play puzzles. Singing / playing piano. Pattern games, math games coloring together as a family. Sewing. Drawing. Art time. Science games. strategy games .... find ways to enjoy one another that everyone is happy with, and doesn't involve just "watching t.v."
****Deadline -- Do at least ONE of this type of activity every week. Perhaps on Sunday morings. Or Monday evening?
Thursday, January 5, 2017
Equality and Relativism. Mormonism and Atheism
Rough Draft -- thoughts after reading this article:
http://happiness-seekers.com/2017/01/02/the-alarming-truth-behind-anti-mormonism/
The question of equality is one that particularly has concerned me. This issue first came to my awareness when I was studying the Civil Rights movement. I'm still exploring the ideas of equality, but one thing you said was helpful. "Simply put, society will be governed completely by what individuals think they want and need—as opposed to a sense of duty and obligation to some higher truth about good and evil or directives from Heaven."
I've heard this basic idea from my atheist friends. "Social rules are the result of human evolution" is how I understand it. That, of course, means that social rules are subjective. And that means the rules can change. So, for example, with the abolition of slavery, we changed the rules. That's a good thing. Women having more equal treatment. Also good. Disabled people, LGBT, different religions -- all are alike. This is an idea from scripture that we believe is true. Only in scripture the idea is that all are alike unto God. Which means there is a standard. God is the standard. If people decide what the standard is ... I'm pretty sure I don't trust any one person, or any group of people, to create a better standard than the one God has made. If they try to reinvent God's standard, well, okay, except for people tend to get distracted, especially over long periods of time. I just don't trust people. I guess I don't understand why atheists do?
I do believe people can improve, they can grow and become more gentle, patient, just and merciful at once. And I believe they become such by following the standard of conduct decreed by the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. I guess I don't see how humankind, as a whole, will ever agree to a common standard of conduct that will bring people to ever greater fulfillment .
http://happiness-seekers.com/2017/01/02/the-alarming-truth-behind-anti-mormonism/
The question of equality is one that particularly has concerned me. This issue first came to my awareness when I was studying the Civil Rights movement. I'm still exploring the ideas of equality, but one thing you said was helpful. "Simply put, society will be governed completely by what individuals think they want and need—as opposed to a sense of duty and obligation to some higher truth about good and evil or directives from Heaven."
I've heard this basic idea from my atheist friends. "Social rules are the result of human evolution" is how I understand it. That, of course, means that social rules are subjective. And that means the rules can change. So, for example, with the abolition of slavery, we changed the rules. That's a good thing. Women having more equal treatment. Also good. Disabled people, LGBT, different religions -- all are alike. This is an idea from scripture that we believe is true. Only in scripture the idea is that all are alike unto God. Which means there is a standard. God is the standard. If people decide what the standard is ... I'm pretty sure I don't trust any one person, or any group of people, to create a better standard than the one God has made. If they try to reinvent God's standard, well, okay, except for people tend to get distracted, especially over long periods of time. I just don't trust people. I guess I don't understand why atheists do?
I do believe people can improve, they can grow and become more gentle, patient, just and merciful at once. And I believe they become such by following the standard of conduct decreed by the Supreme Ruler of the Universe. I guess I don't see how humankind, as a whole, will ever agree to a common standard of conduct that will bring people to ever greater fulfillment .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)