Yep, I went there...
Hello faithful readers!
I know this post title is likely going to get a lot of attention, turn a few heads and maybe cause a few jaws to drop, but I think it's a discussion that needs to be had and that people, far too often, shy away from. I want to talk about sex in terms of how its viewed in our society, and how it affects women by causing them mountains of self-doubt and shame. Because it's always the woman's fault...isn't it? Well, it is according to many in our culture and many others.
We're taught and told from a fairly young age that sex is forbidden (Equate also: scary, abnormal, wrong). Some parents can't even bring themselves to say the word 'sex' to their children. It's as though they are afraid the very word itself will unleash a terrible curse and plant an idea into their child's head, no matter the age, that they need to go out and have sex, right then! We avoid discussions of sex, sidestep our children's questions as they get older, and then, when they become of age, we fling them out into the world with no education whatsoever on the subject, figuring, we worked it out for ourselves, so will they. I honestly believe that this is doing our children a great disservice.
Now, my girls are young, my oldest are 12 and 10 respectively. Kaia (the ten year old) asked me what sex was when she was 7 because she'd heard about it from friends. So I told her what it was. I made sure to talk about it in terms of its something that happens when you are a grown-up, and that it can cause babies so you want to wait till you're settled in life. But I explained to her what physically happens when two people have sex. She knows what a penis is, she knows what a vagina is. She was, unsurprisingly given her age, grossed out by the whole conversation. But I was determined that my daughter would learn about sex from a reliable source, namely me, instead of from her peers who really have absolutely no clue whatsoever. Did I feel ready to have that conversation with her at the age of 7? God no!! But I did, because I felt that to do otherwise, would be wrong.
Because I'm currently pregnant we've also had a lot of discussions about our bodies, how babies are made and born, etc. They still get really grossed out when I use the word 'vagina' its pretty hilarious. :) But I know they are absorbing the info in their brains for later. That is good enough for me.
Our society seems to feel these days that we need to protect our children from all the things that are a part of life, but fails to prepare them to then deal with these very natural, normal things once they become of age. We don't just do it with sex. How many people don't teach their kids how to handle money and finances? How to keep a checking account balanced? How to pay your bills responsibly? Etc, etc. It's a list I could probably add to for hours, but it goes off topic and is a post for another day.
Many people subscribe to the theory that the more we tell kids about sex, the more they'll want to go out and do it, thereby causing more teen pregnancy and teen STD's, etc. But what I have found as a parent and even as just a normal twenty-something adult (when I was one...sigh) is that the more mysterious something is, the more people want to investigate it. If you take the mystery out of something it goes from something you obsess over to, "Oh, is that all?" It loses its allure.
I liken it to a silly game I play on my phone. The games pops up treasure chests from time to time. Sometimes they are free to open and sometimes you have to spend the game 'money' in order to open them. Often, the more you have to spend to open it, the less worth it your reward is. So you might spend 8K $ of the game money only to get back 4K...is that worth it? Nope! But I often open the chest anyway, even after I vowed not to, because what if that one time I might get 20K back? The allure and mystery of the chest is too much to resist. I think that's a great analogy for the mystery that we place around sex.
We don't teach kids the mechanics of sex, or of the mechanics of their bodies. I had no clue what arousal meant when I was a teenager and started going all crazy and hormonal and having these weird 'feelings' and not understanding what they were. In fact, it wasn't until I was older that I started researching about sex and about my body and really learned how to understand what sexual arousal and release meant and how to properly achieve it. It was so liberating to learn what sex was supposed to feel like. How to make it better for myself and my partner, and yes, even how to just pleasure myself. A surprising number of women don't know where their clitoris is, and it's a VERY important piece of the puzzle when it comes to orgasm!
But so many women don't do what I did. They hang on to that fear of sex that their own mothers may have instilled in them. Because their mothers also didn't know any better. Generations and generations of telling women that there is something wrong and shameful and yes, even sinful about the things their bodies make them feel has affected us still today. There are plenty of women out there today who know better, thank God for the sexual revolution, but there is still a high number of women who don't understand sex, even beyond just the basic 'Rod A is inserted into slot B...'. They know that much, but they don't know how to make it feel better for themselves so they lose interest. Then in steps the pharmaceutical companies...
I watched a terrific documentary called "Orgasm INC" talking about the myth of 'female sexual dysfunction'. The documentary offered some fairly convincing evidence that FSD is a 'disease' that has basically been made up by pharmaceutical companies in order to give them something to make a pill, or patch or cream for, in order to make money. I'm on the fence as to whether or not that is true. It seems to me, that the pharma companies figured if men can be helped by these sorts of drugs, then what about women? And then it sort of spiraled out of control. There is no doubt that some women do experience difficulty with sex, but there are a host of reasons why beyond just 'mechanics'.
Unlike with male 'erectile dysfunction' in which there is an obvious indicator that there is a problem, there is no way to measure or determine how a woman is having problems sexually. There are also many, many external factors that affect sex drive, arousal, ability to orgasm, etc. Such as relationship problems, work stress, kid stress, busy lives, age, etc. There is also the myth that all women should be able to achieve orgasm through sexual intercourse and if they don't there is something 'wrong' with them. (Note: Not wrong with the man...with them.) When the reality is that 70% of women need some other form of stimulation aside from or in conjunction with intercourse to achieve orgasm! Wait, what? So that means the 30% of women who can achieve orgasm through intercourse alone are the abnormal ones? Who knew!
It was amazing to me watching the movie what some women were willing to go through in order to achieve what they felt was a 'correct' sex life. They profiled an older women, maybe in her mid 50's, who felt that it was a problem that she couldn't achieve orgasm through intercourse. So she signed up for a clinical trial of a product called the 'Orgasmitron'. Scary right?! It was! The device is that you basically have a doctor insert an electrical probe into your spine that is connected to a remote. Supposedly setting the device was supposed to help you increase sexual arousal and have orgasm during intercourse. What did it do for this woman? It made her leg twitch...In her own words she said, "That's good if you get turned on by a good kick in the butt..." LOL! Oh my I laughed so hard when she said that. But this woman was willing to risk spinal injury in her quest for that elusive big O during sex. Even though she told the filmmaker that she had no problem achieving orgasm by other means. By the end of the movie the woman decided, she wasn't 'diseased' she was perfectly normal. Thank goodness for her! But so many women still feel like they are 'wrong' somehow.
For a long time women have had to rely on men to 'teach' them about sex. What does a man know about a woman's body? Admittedly there are exceptions, but many men don't know what to do with all those parts down there. Their own part is pretty easy to figure out. So why are we asking a bird to teach a fish to swim?
As with so many things in life, education is the key. As women we need to be responsible in not only working to learn about our own bodies, but also teaching our daughters about theirs as they get older. I would much rather my girls know what sex is, how to protect themselves (even if that means buying them condoms or putting them on the pill) than have them happily clueless until some boy comes along they are madly in love with and convinces them to have sex, which in turn might end up being a painful and/or humiliating experience that could end in having an STD or an unwanted pregnancy.
I've honestly never felt uncomfortable talking about sex. Sometimes the best way to learn about something is to talk with a close friend who is comfortable with the subject. Or even talk with your doctor, especially your Gyno. It might seem embarrassing at first, but once you learn some of this stuff, you'll be amazed at how quickly you get over the embarrassment and want to learn more! ;)
So that's it for my controversial topic for the day. I actually started this post a few weeks ago and got sidetracked and am only now just finishing it. Feel free to comment and let me know what you think!
Dawn :)
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Monday, March 18, 2013
Judgement
Hello readers!
Seems I'm a little more fired up about things than usual these days and felt like I needed to write another blog post. It is a very cathartic thing, to organize ones thoughts about something that makes you angry into a coherent and thought out document. It seems to clear the system of negative energy, so I'm glad to have the opportunity to do that for the few of you who actually read my blogs. :)
Let me start with an oft quoted bible verse...
Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven."
The part of that verse you hear most often is "Judge not, and you will not be judged..." It's a verse I've always liked but admit that at times I had a tough time living up to. I mean, come on, we all judge right? And my husband made a good point last night of saying that we should listen to our judgments sometimes, because they can keep us safe from harm. That's a good point. It's not unwise to cross the street when you see a creepy looking guy walking your way, even though he might be completely harmless. You don't want to judge but you want to be smart enough to keep yourself safe.
As I've gotten older, I have found that I am far less judgmental than I was as a young person. I'm not saying I don't judge at all, because I do. But I don't do it as much and I think more about things before I do make a judgement call about something.
So that's my background for what I want to talk about. Because lately I've come up against some of the most judgmental people I've ever seen in my life, and I just need to try and wrap my head around why these people are like this!
The worst of it I'm finding is on the RTV6 news Facebook page. I only started following them, to be honest, to try and win a contest, but I started reading their articles and the comments that inevitably follow, and this is where I've found this group of folks casting judgement around as if they were the hand of God or something. It's disturbing on so many levels. I want to tell you about a couple examples of why this makes me so angry.
The first was a few weeks ago, a story about a teen mother, homeless, with a four month old baby. She was helped out when a local organization that helps teen Mom's contacted a blogger with a large following in Florida to see if they could get the money raised to be able to take this girl in. They can only help so many girls and kids at a time, and didn't have the funding to help her. So this blogger took to the net and was able, in a very short amount of time, to raise over 85 thousand dollars which helped not only this girl but another who needed help as well. Heartwarming story right? Not to a lot of the people who follow RTV6 on facebook...
The picture posted with the article was a close up shot of a girl with her hands on her pregnant belly with pink painted fingernails. No face, nothing like that, just the belly and the hands. Instantly, people were ranting about her having a 4 month old and another on the way and why should we help someone who can't make good decisions. If she opens her legs she should face the consequences, how could she afford to get her nails done but not have a place to live... I could take up days of your time but that was the gist of most of the comments. My husband and I both ended up arguing with these people, many of whom had read ONLY the headline, and saw the picture. They hadn't read the article. Having worked at a newspaper for four years, I knew the look of a stock photo when I saw one, and so I contacted RTV6 both on Facebook and by email to find out if the picture was the actual girl, or if it was a stock photo. My suspicions were confirmed. It was merely a stock photo.
So, the girl wasn't pregnant with another child (the pic was at least a 5 month or more pregnant belly, she has a fourth month old child...I commented to folks, do the math) and no one knows whether or not this girl had her nails painted. So first of all people were making judgement over a picture that really had nothing to do with the story and was not a wise decision by those who decided to use it, and there was a complete lack of compassion for this girls situation. No matter what you feel about her decision making skills, should you not be happy a sweet, innocent four month old baby is off the streets and somewhere safe and warm?
Apparently not, they would rather just start a lynch mob for the poor kid who made a bad choice. We don't know this young woman, her circumstances, how she ended up where she is. All people cared about was that she was going to end up a drain on taxpayer dollars and oh we have to support her and her spawn...Really? I'm sorry, do you consider your grandchildren to be 'spawn'? What if your son loses his job and can't support his family and ends up on welfare?
Anyway, I won't go into that anymore, but it was one example of people with NO CLUE making judgement. The number of people that just go off the headline and don't read the articles before they start spouting off opinions just baffles my mind.
Another example is a very sad story that started last night when an infant was found in a creek. Today's update says that the infant was a newborn (no specified age, which could mean it's anywhere from a day old to 28 days old according to my research). There is no news yet on the baby's cause of death, how long it was in the creek, etc.
Of course I started reading the comments, and among the many sad condolences for this poor, sweet angel, there are just as many calls for the mother to 'face the consequences' and "How can someone do this to a baby I hope she rots in hell." and "Why couldn't she just take advantage of 'Safe Haven' laws and drop the baby off at a hospital." or "So many people wish desperately for a child, they would have loved to have this baby!" the list goes on and on.
I pointed out that no one knows anything about the baby's mother, nor about how the baby actually died. It could have been stillborn in a sudden home birth or died from SIDS and if the mother was a teen maybe she panicked and put the baby in the creek because she thought she'd be blamed. It could have been killed by an abusive father and dumped by him. The point being that we don't know what happened, and should we judge this mother before we have all the facts?
So someone comments back at me, "So you would dump a stillborn or unwanted baby in a creek if you were a teen?"
*crickets*
Seriously, this was a direct response to my remarks. Wow.
I've had to restate my remarks at this woman several times now because she just doesn't get it. She was called out by a couple others (for her politics actually for other remarks she'd made) and she says, "How is what I said about others defending what happened a political statement."
I was floored! She actually sees me as defending a child murderer. Seriously? Talk about taking remarks out of context. I have restated myself a couple times, saying I'm not defending anything because we don't know what happened. If it turns out the mother did indeed kill this child either on purpose or through severe neglect, then yes, I'll be as outraged as anyone. People that do that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But NO ONE knows what happened yet, so to cast judgement is simply foolish. I admit that in the majority of cases it turns out that it is the mother or both parents that are the cause of these sorts of things. But we don't know that yet in this case, and isn't everyone considered innocent until proven guilty?
My point in all this, is that we should be try to be more compassionate and that we should ALWAYS look at the facts before we make a judgement on something or someone. All those who act high and mighty now may fall someday, and who will be there to catch you? Probably some of the same people or organizations or the government that you once criticized.
I suppose some will say it's just human nature to be judgmental and perhaps it is. But as thinking, growing, changing human beings, we should try our best to rise above that. It just makes me so angry to see words thrown around, condemning speech, when there is no basis yet for the anger. In the case of that poor baby, we should be sad for him and his family until we find out what actually happened. But angry? No, save that until the case presents you with something to be angry about. Unnecessary anger is, to me, wasted brain cells.
So that is how I feel about judgement. Feel free to chime in with your own thoughts, stories or experiences.
Thanks for listening, as always,
Dawn
Seems I'm a little more fired up about things than usual these days and felt like I needed to write another blog post. It is a very cathartic thing, to organize ones thoughts about something that makes you angry into a coherent and thought out document. It seems to clear the system of negative energy, so I'm glad to have the opportunity to do that for the few of you who actually read my blogs. :)
Let me start with an oft quoted bible verse...
Luke 6:37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven."
The part of that verse you hear most often is "Judge not, and you will not be judged..." It's a verse I've always liked but admit that at times I had a tough time living up to. I mean, come on, we all judge right? And my husband made a good point last night of saying that we should listen to our judgments sometimes, because they can keep us safe from harm. That's a good point. It's not unwise to cross the street when you see a creepy looking guy walking your way, even though he might be completely harmless. You don't want to judge but you want to be smart enough to keep yourself safe.
As I've gotten older, I have found that I am far less judgmental than I was as a young person. I'm not saying I don't judge at all, because I do. But I don't do it as much and I think more about things before I do make a judgement call about something.
So that's my background for what I want to talk about. Because lately I've come up against some of the most judgmental people I've ever seen in my life, and I just need to try and wrap my head around why these people are like this!
The worst of it I'm finding is on the RTV6 news Facebook page. I only started following them, to be honest, to try and win a contest, but I started reading their articles and the comments that inevitably follow, and this is where I've found this group of folks casting judgement around as if they were the hand of God or something. It's disturbing on so many levels. I want to tell you about a couple examples of why this makes me so angry.
The first was a few weeks ago, a story about a teen mother, homeless, with a four month old baby. She was helped out when a local organization that helps teen Mom's contacted a blogger with a large following in Florida to see if they could get the money raised to be able to take this girl in. They can only help so many girls and kids at a time, and didn't have the funding to help her. So this blogger took to the net and was able, in a very short amount of time, to raise over 85 thousand dollars which helped not only this girl but another who needed help as well. Heartwarming story right? Not to a lot of the people who follow RTV6 on facebook...
The picture posted with the article was a close up shot of a girl with her hands on her pregnant belly with pink painted fingernails. No face, nothing like that, just the belly and the hands. Instantly, people were ranting about her having a 4 month old and another on the way and why should we help someone who can't make good decisions. If she opens her legs she should face the consequences, how could she afford to get her nails done but not have a place to live... I could take up days of your time but that was the gist of most of the comments. My husband and I both ended up arguing with these people, many of whom had read ONLY the headline, and saw the picture. They hadn't read the article. Having worked at a newspaper for four years, I knew the look of a stock photo when I saw one, and so I contacted RTV6 both on Facebook and by email to find out if the picture was the actual girl, or if it was a stock photo. My suspicions were confirmed. It was merely a stock photo.
So, the girl wasn't pregnant with another child (the pic was at least a 5 month or more pregnant belly, she has a fourth month old child...I commented to folks, do the math) and no one knows whether or not this girl had her nails painted. So first of all people were making judgement over a picture that really had nothing to do with the story and was not a wise decision by those who decided to use it, and there was a complete lack of compassion for this girls situation. No matter what you feel about her decision making skills, should you not be happy a sweet, innocent four month old baby is off the streets and somewhere safe and warm?
Apparently not, they would rather just start a lynch mob for the poor kid who made a bad choice. We don't know this young woman, her circumstances, how she ended up where she is. All people cared about was that she was going to end up a drain on taxpayer dollars and oh we have to support her and her spawn...Really? I'm sorry, do you consider your grandchildren to be 'spawn'? What if your son loses his job and can't support his family and ends up on welfare?
Anyway, I won't go into that anymore, but it was one example of people with NO CLUE making judgement. The number of people that just go off the headline and don't read the articles before they start spouting off opinions just baffles my mind.
Another example is a very sad story that started last night when an infant was found in a creek. Today's update says that the infant was a newborn (no specified age, which could mean it's anywhere from a day old to 28 days old according to my research). There is no news yet on the baby's cause of death, how long it was in the creek, etc.
Of course I started reading the comments, and among the many sad condolences for this poor, sweet angel, there are just as many calls for the mother to 'face the consequences' and "How can someone do this to a baby I hope she rots in hell." and "Why couldn't she just take advantage of 'Safe Haven' laws and drop the baby off at a hospital." or "So many people wish desperately for a child, they would have loved to have this baby!" the list goes on and on.
I pointed out that no one knows anything about the baby's mother, nor about how the baby actually died. It could have been stillborn in a sudden home birth or died from SIDS and if the mother was a teen maybe she panicked and put the baby in the creek because she thought she'd be blamed. It could have been killed by an abusive father and dumped by him. The point being that we don't know what happened, and should we judge this mother before we have all the facts?
So someone comments back at me, "So you would dump a stillborn or unwanted baby in a creek if you were a teen?"
*crickets*
Seriously, this was a direct response to my remarks. Wow.
I've had to restate my remarks at this woman several times now because she just doesn't get it. She was called out by a couple others (for her politics actually for other remarks she'd made) and she says, "How is what I said about others defending what happened a political statement."
I was floored! She actually sees me as defending a child murderer. Seriously? Talk about taking remarks out of context. I have restated myself a couple times, saying I'm not defending anything because we don't know what happened. If it turns out the mother did indeed kill this child either on purpose or through severe neglect, then yes, I'll be as outraged as anyone. People that do that should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But NO ONE knows what happened yet, so to cast judgement is simply foolish. I admit that in the majority of cases it turns out that it is the mother or both parents that are the cause of these sorts of things. But we don't know that yet in this case, and isn't everyone considered innocent until proven guilty?
My point in all this, is that we should be try to be more compassionate and that we should ALWAYS look at the facts before we make a judgement on something or someone. All those who act high and mighty now may fall someday, and who will be there to catch you? Probably some of the same people or organizations or the government that you once criticized.
I suppose some will say it's just human nature to be judgmental and perhaps it is. But as thinking, growing, changing human beings, we should try our best to rise above that. It just makes me so angry to see words thrown around, condemning speech, when there is no basis yet for the anger. In the case of that poor baby, we should be sad for him and his family until we find out what actually happened. But angry? No, save that until the case presents you with something to be angry about. Unnecessary anger is, to me, wasted brain cells.
So that is how I feel about judgement. Feel free to chime in with your own thoughts, stories or experiences.
Thanks for listening, as always,
Dawn
Friday, March 8, 2013
Hunger...An unacceptable and unnecessary problem
Hello readers!
As usual, I write a blog post when I get fired up about something, and I am tonight. Recently, my Pastor Cherie Isakson recommended a documentary. Now I'll tell you, I have become a documentary junkie in the last six months or so. I LOVE them! So I decided to check this one out. Never, in all the docs I've watched, have I been so emotionally wrung and so angry. So very, very angry.
The documentary is currently in theaters and is also available On Demand from Comast cable and it's called 'A Place at the Table' I watched it on my own yesterday and then again this evening with my husband. It is amazingly eye opening, well thought out, and very, very well done. One would have to be brain dead to not feel more strongly about the hunger issues facing our country today after watching this movie. If you are able to watch it, please do. It's not yet available on Netflix, but as they do have a great selection of documentaries hopefully they'll have it sometime in the future.
Hunger is an issue both my husband and I know very well. We both agreed that as children, we didn't face hunger. We both remember having enough to eat and having good food to eat. Vegetables, fruit, etc. But both of us faced hunger as young adults. When I first lived on my own, after my monthly expenses for housing, heat, electric, etc (and keep in mind I didn't have cable, cell phone, internet, etc at that time) I often had little money left for food. When I worked at McDonald's the free meal I got was often all I had that day.
Then, when I left McDonald's to work in telemarketing, was when I really felt the lack of food. I was making less money when I first started, working days. At one point, I stood in my kitchen with 10 cents in my pocket and half a box of spaghetti noodles in my cupboard (nothing in my fridge) and wondered how I was going to eat because I didn't get paid for a week or more yet. Luckily at the time my parents were able to come to my rescue and they showed up on my doorstep with 3 big bags of groceries. But other people aren't so lucky.
When my husband was young and in University in England, while his housing was paid for, he didn't have money for food and heat. So he allowed himself use of a heater only an hour or so an evening and ate one small personal pizza per day. He ended up with frostbite on the tips of his fingers and in hospital with malnutrition. So that gives you a little background of what both of us know of hunger.
Right now, over 50 million Americans suffer from hunger. When we began to watch the documentary though, Kevin said, "But these people don't look hungry." and I told him to wait, that it would be addressed. And it most certainly was. Hunger is at an all time high, but so is obesity. "What?" you say, "If people are obese they are obviously getting enough to eat!" WRONG! So much of it has to do with the quality of food that people have access to.
I used to think that farm subsidies were a good thing, when I was under the misapprehension that farm subsidies helped out the little guy. Hometown farmers out there working land they've had in their family for generations. I was very wrong. Farm subsidies now benefit huge agri-businesses, mega-farms, if you will, and they only subsidize foods that turn a high profit. Rice, corn, wheat, soy, and cotton were the biggies. What do we get from from these crops? Highly processed foods with little to no nutritional value.
Where are the subsidies for fruits, and vegetables like celery and carrots? They don't exist because they are produced in much smaller quantities and are less hardy and less likely to have good yields than the big cash crops. I was blown away.
I was also blown away by finding out that in the seventies, during the Nixon administration, we nearly eradicated hunger in America with programs designed to get people fed. Food stamps, WIC, elderly feeding programs, etc. Then the eighties, the decade of excess happened, and those programs began to be underfunded, and we now have the inefficient programs you see today that are extremely difficult to qualify for and don't do enough for those that do qualify.
I watched as they documented the fight in congress to increase spending on children's school lunches, only to not only take the president's recommendation of 10 billion over 10 years down to 4.5 billion, but they paid for it by cutting money for food stamps...Really? I mean really?!? Are you kidding me?! Those damn politicians were so smug about it too. What did the president want to do? Take away subsidies from rich (rich being the operative word) landowners to fund the program. That proposal died in less than 24 hrs...
I was astonished at the affect hunger and poor nutrition has on children. Not just physically, but their brain development. So what you have is kids whose brains don't develop properly because they are hungry when they are young, then they grow up unable to learn and with behavior issues their parents can't do anything about because it stems from brain issues, who then can't become functioning, tax paying, successful members of society. Who are then ridiculed, ostracized and picked on by conservatives who tout 'personal responsibility' as the most important virtue in life, and say "Oh why can't you go out and get a good job?"
The ONLY way we are going to end the cycle of poverty in this country and give our citizens a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding, is to start with the core problems. Social welfare isn't the problem. Corporate welfare is what is bankrupting our nation. The increase of 4.5 billion to the school lunch program (which translates to an increase of just .06 cents per child) is nothing compared to the 700 billion we paid to bail out the banks when they would have failed. Banks that are now making record profits and the dow jones is now higher than it has EVER BEEN!
We need to stop letting corporations support politicians that only have THEIR interests in mind. We need to put the money where it is needed most. To give people a chance to succeed. Kevin told me that in Britain they were able to lower the crime rate simply by providing free vitamins to people. Which enabled better nutrition, thereby better learning, thereby better citizens who could get jobs instead of turning to crime and ending up on the taxpayers dime by being in jail. Novel concept huh?
If our citizens had better nutrition and access to better quality food we could create citizens that could play a roll in building a better nation, a nation that COULD BE the greatest nation on earth. It certainly isn't now. I love Obama and support him wholeheartedly, but the section of the documentary that showed a snippet from one of his speeches where he said that was what we were, made me more angry than anything else in that documentary did. We ARE NOT the greatest nation on earth, and WILL NOT BE until we address the huge problems that face us. And the national debt and budget deficit pale in comparison to the ripple effect that hunger has on this nation.
If people had access to better food and more affordable healthcare, the costs would go down because people would be healthier. Rather than throwing money away on the end effects of hunger, combat the problem at the start. The effect on everything, INCLUDING the national debt and deficit, would be astonishing.
The worst thing about all this is the perception, created by conservatives who believe big government is evil, is that the poor deserve what happens to them. They deserve the struggles they endure because they are irresponsible and stupid. And what we have as a result of that, is a widening gap between the poor and the wealthy. A gap that will never get narrower if we continue to allow things to go on as they are. Not because the rich should give all their money to the poor, but if all those who were able gave a little, to lift up those who are poor and help those who can become productive citizens, then we could virtually eradicate hunger and poverty in this country. Not by making the government Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor. But by giving everyone an equal footing to succeed. That is something that does not exist in this country now.
And as I always say in these sort of posts, are there people who will game the system? Yep! Are there people who will try to take advantage and do what they can to not have to work? Yep again! But those people are not the majority, as conservatives would have you believe. Most people who need social welfare fight tooth and nail to stop from having to go on it, and then do so only as a last resort. I was one of those, working 40 hours a week, and still needing food stamps to feed my family. The movie covered this part of hunger as well, highlighting several people who worked hard, but still struggled to buy food to feed their kids.
It's unacceptable, in a country in which there is ENOUGH food, that people go hungry. That children go hungry. Let's work toward making this a country where there truly is opportunity for all, and not just the few, the rich and the privileged.
Thanks,
Dawn
As usual, I write a blog post when I get fired up about something, and I am tonight. Recently, my Pastor Cherie Isakson recommended a documentary. Now I'll tell you, I have become a documentary junkie in the last six months or so. I LOVE them! So I decided to check this one out. Never, in all the docs I've watched, have I been so emotionally wrung and so angry. So very, very angry.
The documentary is currently in theaters and is also available On Demand from Comast cable and it's called 'A Place at the Table' I watched it on my own yesterday and then again this evening with my husband. It is amazingly eye opening, well thought out, and very, very well done. One would have to be brain dead to not feel more strongly about the hunger issues facing our country today after watching this movie. If you are able to watch it, please do. It's not yet available on Netflix, but as they do have a great selection of documentaries hopefully they'll have it sometime in the future.
Hunger is an issue both my husband and I know very well. We both agreed that as children, we didn't face hunger. We both remember having enough to eat and having good food to eat. Vegetables, fruit, etc. But both of us faced hunger as young adults. When I first lived on my own, after my monthly expenses for housing, heat, electric, etc (and keep in mind I didn't have cable, cell phone, internet, etc at that time) I often had little money left for food. When I worked at McDonald's the free meal I got was often all I had that day.
Then, when I left McDonald's to work in telemarketing, was when I really felt the lack of food. I was making less money when I first started, working days. At one point, I stood in my kitchen with 10 cents in my pocket and half a box of spaghetti noodles in my cupboard (nothing in my fridge) and wondered how I was going to eat because I didn't get paid for a week or more yet. Luckily at the time my parents were able to come to my rescue and they showed up on my doorstep with 3 big bags of groceries. But other people aren't so lucky.
When my husband was young and in University in England, while his housing was paid for, he didn't have money for food and heat. So he allowed himself use of a heater only an hour or so an evening and ate one small personal pizza per day. He ended up with frostbite on the tips of his fingers and in hospital with malnutrition. So that gives you a little background of what both of us know of hunger.
Right now, over 50 million Americans suffer from hunger. When we began to watch the documentary though, Kevin said, "But these people don't look hungry." and I told him to wait, that it would be addressed. And it most certainly was. Hunger is at an all time high, but so is obesity. "What?" you say, "If people are obese they are obviously getting enough to eat!" WRONG! So much of it has to do with the quality of food that people have access to.
I used to think that farm subsidies were a good thing, when I was under the misapprehension that farm subsidies helped out the little guy. Hometown farmers out there working land they've had in their family for generations. I was very wrong. Farm subsidies now benefit huge agri-businesses, mega-farms, if you will, and they only subsidize foods that turn a high profit. Rice, corn, wheat, soy, and cotton were the biggies. What do we get from from these crops? Highly processed foods with little to no nutritional value.
Where are the subsidies for fruits, and vegetables like celery and carrots? They don't exist because they are produced in much smaller quantities and are less hardy and less likely to have good yields than the big cash crops. I was blown away.
I was also blown away by finding out that in the seventies, during the Nixon administration, we nearly eradicated hunger in America with programs designed to get people fed. Food stamps, WIC, elderly feeding programs, etc. Then the eighties, the decade of excess happened, and those programs began to be underfunded, and we now have the inefficient programs you see today that are extremely difficult to qualify for and don't do enough for those that do qualify.
I watched as they documented the fight in congress to increase spending on children's school lunches, only to not only take the president's recommendation of 10 billion over 10 years down to 4.5 billion, but they paid for it by cutting money for food stamps...Really? I mean really?!? Are you kidding me?! Those damn politicians were so smug about it too. What did the president want to do? Take away subsidies from rich (rich being the operative word) landowners to fund the program. That proposal died in less than 24 hrs...
I was astonished at the affect hunger and poor nutrition has on children. Not just physically, but their brain development. So what you have is kids whose brains don't develop properly because they are hungry when they are young, then they grow up unable to learn and with behavior issues their parents can't do anything about because it stems from brain issues, who then can't become functioning, tax paying, successful members of society. Who are then ridiculed, ostracized and picked on by conservatives who tout 'personal responsibility' as the most important virtue in life, and say "Oh why can't you go out and get a good job?"
The ONLY way we are going to end the cycle of poverty in this country and give our citizens a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding, is to start with the core problems. Social welfare isn't the problem. Corporate welfare is what is bankrupting our nation. The increase of 4.5 billion to the school lunch program (which translates to an increase of just .06 cents per child) is nothing compared to the 700 billion we paid to bail out the banks when they would have failed. Banks that are now making record profits and the dow jones is now higher than it has EVER BEEN!
We need to stop letting corporations support politicians that only have THEIR interests in mind. We need to put the money where it is needed most. To give people a chance to succeed. Kevin told me that in Britain they were able to lower the crime rate simply by providing free vitamins to people. Which enabled better nutrition, thereby better learning, thereby better citizens who could get jobs instead of turning to crime and ending up on the taxpayers dime by being in jail. Novel concept huh?
If our citizens had better nutrition and access to better quality food we could create citizens that could play a roll in building a better nation, a nation that COULD BE the greatest nation on earth. It certainly isn't now. I love Obama and support him wholeheartedly, but the section of the documentary that showed a snippet from one of his speeches where he said that was what we were, made me more angry than anything else in that documentary did. We ARE NOT the greatest nation on earth, and WILL NOT BE until we address the huge problems that face us. And the national debt and budget deficit pale in comparison to the ripple effect that hunger has on this nation.
If people had access to better food and more affordable healthcare, the costs would go down because people would be healthier. Rather than throwing money away on the end effects of hunger, combat the problem at the start. The effect on everything, INCLUDING the national debt and deficit, would be astonishing.
The worst thing about all this is the perception, created by conservatives who believe big government is evil, is that the poor deserve what happens to them. They deserve the struggles they endure because they are irresponsible and stupid. And what we have as a result of that, is a widening gap between the poor and the wealthy. A gap that will never get narrower if we continue to allow things to go on as they are. Not because the rich should give all their money to the poor, but if all those who were able gave a little, to lift up those who are poor and help those who can become productive citizens, then we could virtually eradicate hunger and poverty in this country. Not by making the government Robin Hood and steal from the rich to give to the poor. But by giving everyone an equal footing to succeed. That is something that does not exist in this country now.
And as I always say in these sort of posts, are there people who will game the system? Yep! Are there people who will try to take advantage and do what they can to not have to work? Yep again! But those people are not the majority, as conservatives would have you believe. Most people who need social welfare fight tooth and nail to stop from having to go on it, and then do so only as a last resort. I was one of those, working 40 hours a week, and still needing food stamps to feed my family. The movie covered this part of hunger as well, highlighting several people who worked hard, but still struggled to buy food to feed their kids.
It's unacceptable, in a country in which there is ENOUGH food, that people go hungry. That children go hungry. Let's work toward making this a country where there truly is opportunity for all, and not just the few, the rich and the privileged.
Thanks,
Dawn
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Socialism and Me.
Hello all!
It's been some time since I blogged, and I've noticed that I only tend to blog when something comes up that I feel strongly about. Tonight I posted a Facebook status that caused a bit of discussion. My point with this post tonight is not to try and 'convert' anyone to my way of thinking. Frankly, I know that that's impossible. Instead, I just want to explain what I believe and why I believe it. You can choose to take it or leave it, but I don't plan on getting into any incendiary discussions over it. It's what I believe, simple as that.
My adventure began tonight because I was a bit bothered about being attacked by someone on Facebook who doesn't know me, doesn't know anything about my beliefs other than that I agree with Liberals, and who felt the need to tell me to "Open my eyes." When I vented about that, it caused some discussion involving myself and my very liberal husband, and some extremely conservative friends and family.
A long time ago, I had a pretty small worldview. I believed the way many American's do and was somewhat on the conservative side. Then I did some traveling, visited other countries, and fell in love with a man from the UK. I learned that the "American Way" isn't all it's cracked up to be. I opened my eyes to social issues to see that many of my fellow American's are suffering and that a minority of very rich folk pay a lot of money to put people in office who keep it that way. My beliefs began to evolve and change as I looked around me and saw what was happening.
Before you say, "Well, your husband must have brain-washed you..." let me stop you right there. I have my own mind. All my husband did was help to open my eyes to what is there, and let me make my own decisions. That, and my own experiences as a member of the 'working poor'. Someone who worked very hard, but still needed to rely on welfare to survive. Yes, I admit that, and I'm not ashamed of it.
I have seen with my own eyes how socialism can work. Take the UK health service for example. My husband and I had to be apart for 4 years, and over that time period, particularly toward the end of our time apart, I saw my husband go through two major surgeries, both times he got six weeks off work with full pay (women on maternity leave get up to a year), as well as rehab for his shoulder, all free at point of service. Do people pay tax for it? Sure they do. He paid a decent portion of his wages in tax for medical, but that is no different than what we pay in insurance premiums. (and he didn't have to pay massive copays on top of it...) Anyone who works pays a fair amount, so that everyone benefits. They've developed a comprehensive system to eliminate wasteful spending, so that everyone can receive care. Not once did my husband have to wait an unreasonable amount of time for care, as so many people wrongly think, and he was treated well and they took excellent care of him.
Are there horror stories? Yes, I'm sure there are. Any medical system that huge is going to have it's fair share, just like the medical practices here in the US. There are going to be people unhappy with their service. But they are a very small minority compared to those who are successfully treated and who don't have to go bankrupt paying for medical bills.
All of that is mandated by the government, and it actually works. Businesses don't collapse because of mandated sick time, disability time, etc. They don't collapse by government controlling what is allowed in marketing. They profit, very well, and their employees are happier and more productive because they know they are taken care of.
Let me copy and paste some info here on two types of Socialist government that seem to work pretty well for the countries involved:
These governments and economies work. Perfectly? No, but they do work. And the people are happy for the most part.
A main motivation for me to believe in Socialism is the fact of it's inherent compassion. The belief that all people should have basic needs met and if they can't meet them themselves, then society should help them along. What is so repugnant about that? If I am doing well, then why shouldn't someone else be able to at least live?
Also, and this makes conservative Christians howl, Jesus was the ultimate Socialist. Don't believe me? Read the bible. There are tons of examples.
Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matthew 9:35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. (NIV)
Free health care anyone?
I'm sure that folks could find other verses that counteract these, but the very nature of the bible is contradictory. It's a reality that as Christians we choose what parts of the bible we believe, which is why women don't go around in braids and robes anymore, and we don't stone people for infidelity.
I could go on and on, but those are some reasons that I find Socialism appealing.
Are there people who abuse the system, both in our country and in Socialist countries? Yep! There will always be people like that. They are the way they are, but to me that doesn't make them 'undeserving'. Just sad, and they should be helped.
I don't believe that everyone should just live off the government. I believe that as part of entitlement programs we should also focus on educating the unskilled so that if they are able to learn they can go on to get off benefits and find gainful employment and contribute. What is most important is breaking the cycle of poverty and giving people who are capable a hand up and helping those who simply cannot help themselves to at least have a basic quality of life.
I know a lot of people will likely have counter arguments for what I've said here, but I feel strongly about what I believe and have not seen any evidence thus far in my own experience or in research to convince me that I should change what I believe. What I do know is that no system is perfect, and trying to reach for some sort of Utopia is impossible and absurd. I believe that a middle ground is what is needed, but I don't realistically seeing that happening in my lifetime. Perhaps in my children's or grandchildren's but not mine.
For now I'm happy though to go on believing what I do and while I don't agree with many people, I will respect your right to believe as you will. Please respect my right to believe as I do.
Thanks,
Dawn
It's been some time since I blogged, and I've noticed that I only tend to blog when something comes up that I feel strongly about. Tonight I posted a Facebook status that caused a bit of discussion. My point with this post tonight is not to try and 'convert' anyone to my way of thinking. Frankly, I know that that's impossible. Instead, I just want to explain what I believe and why I believe it. You can choose to take it or leave it, but I don't plan on getting into any incendiary discussions over it. It's what I believe, simple as that.
My adventure began tonight because I was a bit bothered about being attacked by someone on Facebook who doesn't know me, doesn't know anything about my beliefs other than that I agree with Liberals, and who felt the need to tell me to "Open my eyes." When I vented about that, it caused some discussion involving myself and my very liberal husband, and some extremely conservative friends and family.
A long time ago, I had a pretty small worldview. I believed the way many American's do and was somewhat on the conservative side. Then I did some traveling, visited other countries, and fell in love with a man from the UK. I learned that the "American Way" isn't all it's cracked up to be. I opened my eyes to social issues to see that many of my fellow American's are suffering and that a minority of very rich folk pay a lot of money to put people in office who keep it that way. My beliefs began to evolve and change as I looked around me and saw what was happening.
Before you say, "Well, your husband must have brain-washed you..." let me stop you right there. I have my own mind. All my husband did was help to open my eyes to what is there, and let me make my own decisions. That, and my own experiences as a member of the 'working poor'. Someone who worked very hard, but still needed to rely on welfare to survive. Yes, I admit that, and I'm not ashamed of it.
I have seen with my own eyes how socialism can work. Take the UK health service for example. My husband and I had to be apart for 4 years, and over that time period, particularly toward the end of our time apart, I saw my husband go through two major surgeries, both times he got six weeks off work with full pay (women on maternity leave get up to a year), as well as rehab for his shoulder, all free at point of service. Do people pay tax for it? Sure they do. He paid a decent portion of his wages in tax for medical, but that is no different than what we pay in insurance premiums. (and he didn't have to pay massive copays on top of it...) Anyone who works pays a fair amount, so that everyone benefits. They've developed a comprehensive system to eliminate wasteful spending, so that everyone can receive care. Not once did my husband have to wait an unreasonable amount of time for care, as so many people wrongly think, and he was treated well and they took excellent care of him.
Are there horror stories? Yes, I'm sure there are. Any medical system that huge is going to have it's fair share, just like the medical practices here in the US. There are going to be people unhappy with their service. But they are a very small minority compared to those who are successfully treated and who don't have to go bankrupt paying for medical bills.
All of that is mandated by the government, and it actually works. Businesses don't collapse because of mandated sick time, disability time, etc. They don't collapse by government controlling what is allowed in marketing. They profit, very well, and their employees are happier and more productive because they know they are taken care of.
Let me copy and paste some info here on two types of Socialist government that seem to work pretty well for the countries involved:
In the UK, the Labour Party was influenced by the British social reformer William Beveridge, who had identified five "Giant Evils" afflicting the working class of the pre-war period: "want" (poverty), disease, "ignorance" (lack of access to education), "squalor" (poor housing), and "idleness" (unemployment).[117] Unemployment benefits, national insurance and state pensions were introduced by the 1945 Labour government. Aneurin Bevan, who had introduced the Labour Party's National Health Service in 1948, criticised the Attlee government for not progressing further, demanding economic planning and criticising the implementation of nationalisation for not empowering the workers with democratic control of operations.
The UK Labour Government nationalised major public utilities such as mines, gas, coal, electricity, rail, iron, steel, and the Bank of England. British Petroleum, privatised in 1987, was officially nationalised in 1951,[118] and there was further government intervention during the 1974–79 Labour Government[119] Anthony Crosland said that in 1956, 25 per cent of British industry was nationalised, and that public employees, including those in nationalised industries, constituted a similar percentage of the country's total employed population.[120] The Labour government, however, did not seek to end capitalism, and the "government had not the smallest intention of bringing in the 'common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange'",[121]Labour re-nationalised steel (1967, British Steel) after the Conservatives denationalised it, and nationalised car production (1976, British Leyland).[122] In 1977, major aircraft companies and shipbuilding were nationalised.
The National Health Service provided taxpayer-funded health care to everyone, free at the point of service.[123] Working-class housing was provided in council housing estates, and university education became available via a school grant system. Ellen Wilkinson, Minister for Education, introduced taxpayer-funded milk in schools, saying, in a 1946 Labour Party conference: "Free milk will be provided in Hoxton and Shoreditch, in Eton and Harrow. What more social equality can you have than that?" Clement Attlee's biographer argued that this policy "contributed enormously to the defeat of childhood illnesses resulting from bad diet. Generations of poor children grew up stronger and healthier, because of this one, small, and inexpensive act of generosity, by the Attlee government".[124]
The "Nordic model"
Main article: Nordic model
The Nordic model refers to the economic and social models of the Nordic countries (Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Sweden and Finland). This particular adaptation of the mixed market economy is characterised by more generous welfare states (relative to other developed countries), which are aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy, ensuring the universal provision of basic human rights and stabilising the economy. It is distinguished from other welfare states with similar goals by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian and extensive benefit levels, large magnitude of redistribution, and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy.[125] This has included high degrees of labour union membership. In 2008, labour union density was 67.5% in Finland, 67.6% in Denmark, and 68.3% in Sweden. In comparison, union membership was 11.9% in the United States and 7.7% in France.[126] The Nordic Model, however, is not a single model with specific components or rules; each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours.
A main motivation for me to believe in Socialism is the fact of it's inherent compassion. The belief that all people should have basic needs met and if they can't meet them themselves, then society should help them along. What is so repugnant about that? If I am doing well, then why shouldn't someone else be able to at least live?
Also, and this makes conservative Christians howl, Jesus was the ultimate Socialist. Don't believe me? Read the bible. There are tons of examples.
Acts 4:32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.
Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."
Matthew 9:35 Jesus went through all the towns and villages, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom and healing every disease and sickness. (NIV)
Free health care anyone?
I'm sure that folks could find other verses that counteract these, but the very nature of the bible is contradictory. It's a reality that as Christians we choose what parts of the bible we believe, which is why women don't go around in braids and robes anymore, and we don't stone people for infidelity.
I could go on and on, but those are some reasons that I find Socialism appealing.
Are there people who abuse the system, both in our country and in Socialist countries? Yep! There will always be people like that. They are the way they are, but to me that doesn't make them 'undeserving'. Just sad, and they should be helped.
I don't believe that everyone should just live off the government. I believe that as part of entitlement programs we should also focus on educating the unskilled so that if they are able to learn they can go on to get off benefits and find gainful employment and contribute. What is most important is breaking the cycle of poverty and giving people who are capable a hand up and helping those who simply cannot help themselves to at least have a basic quality of life.
I know a lot of people will likely have counter arguments for what I've said here, but I feel strongly about what I believe and have not seen any evidence thus far in my own experience or in research to convince me that I should change what I believe. What I do know is that no system is perfect, and trying to reach for some sort of Utopia is impossible and absurd. I believe that a middle ground is what is needed, but I don't realistically seeing that happening in my lifetime. Perhaps in my children's or grandchildren's but not mine.
For now I'm happy though to go on believing what I do and while I don't agree with many people, I will respect your right to believe as you will. Please respect my right to believe as I do.
Thanks,
Dawn
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Compassion
Me and my nine year old daughter Kaia have something in common.
We both like Sardines...
Yes I know, not the bombshell you were expecting, but let me explain. Kaia asked me to buy Sardines while we were out shopping last night. This morning she wanted them for breakfast but I had already fixed her breakfast and suggested she take them to school for lunch.
Kaia was genuinely worried about the other kids thinking she was 'weird' for liking sardines. I sent them with her, but also a peanut butter sandwich, so she could make the most comfortable choice for herself. I sincerely hope she eats the sardines.
I have tried the entire time I've been a parent to instill in my children a high level of compassion and tolerance. To not fear the man in the wheelchair with the amputated leg, the little boy with scars on his face because he was burned in a fire, the person of a different race, culture, religion, or sexual orientation.
So it upsets me that my daughter should fear bringing an unusual food to school because she would be picked on for eating it. Shame on parents who cannot be bothered to teach their child compassion, yet would expect retribution to anyone who picked on THEIR child!
People need to wake up, look at the global melting pot society we ALL live in and learn to respect, try to understand and have compassion for all the unique, amazing people we have in this world.
So I will proudly eat my sardines, sushi, and anything else that anyone else thinks is gross, and I just won't care. I just hope I can teach my daughter to do the same!
Okay, off my soapbox now!
Saturday, October 20, 2012
How I feel about Gay Rights
Hello all!
This started out to be a facebook status post, but after I started typing I realized that perhaps my blog, which I haven't written on in some time, would give me more room to express my thoughts on this particular topic.
My husband and I took our eleven year old daughter to the library today, and while browsing the 'new arrivals' section, I came across a book by a man named Paul Vitagliano called "Born This Way, Real Stories of Growing Up Gay." I was intrigued, and decided to pick it up and bring it home.
I just finished reading the book "Red Letter Christians" by Tony Campolo (A book I highly recommend, by the way) and gay rights issues were addressed in that book and very much in the forefront of my mind, as they are in the media these days and in the lead up to the presidential election to take place only next month.
Born This Way was fascinating to me. It included snapshots of gay individuals as children, from the ages of 1 or 2 to as old as 13-15. Included with the snapshots were very short stories, sometimes only a collection of a few sentences or even just one sentence, that summed up for the person in the photograph what it had been like to 'grow up gay'. The stories were laid out in chronological order, spanning decades from the 1950's all the way to the 2000's. It included people we know now as celebrities, as well as regular, every day folks. There were both gay men, and lesbian women.
Some of the stories were heartwarming, others heartbreaking. Some had supportive and loving families who accepted them no matter what their orientation, and others spoke of being 'disowned' by their relatives, or having their gayness simply 'swept under the rug' and not talked about, as if not talking about it made it untrue.
One of the phrases I found most interesting in the book, was when these folks talked about "coming out to themselves" before coming out to friends and family. Admitting to themselves that they were gay, that they were different than most people, was often just as much if not more of a struggle than telling their loved ones, who almost always suspected or knew before the person came out to them.
So one gets to thinking about what kind of society we live in, where someone has to be afraid to admit, even to themselves, that they are gay.
I'm as straight as it gets, perfectly in love with my husband. I'm also a Christian, and very involved in my church. For most of my life, I never thought about gay rights, or even really knew any gay people. I just didn't live in a place where I came into contact with it. As I got older, and I started learning a little more about the world, I don't ever remember feeling anything negative about gay people, even once I became a Christian and starting attending church regularly. And I went to a baptist church where homosexuality is considered a terrible sin. I remember thinking, when I would hear people condemn it, "What is so bad about loving, and wanting to be loved, even by someone of the same gender?"
I've heard the arguments for why the bible says its wrong. And we all pick and choose which parts of the bible we ascribe to, (I don't wear robes and braid my hair after all) and the thing that I keep coming back to is that Jesus told us the greatest commandment was to Love. Love your enemies, show mercy. All of us are God's children, and should be treated as brothers and sisters. Jesus loved everyone the same, and we should too. I've always been a 'love everybody' kind of person, and try to always find the good in people.
My husband and I had a great discussion about what makes someone gay, and he asked me what a good argument would be against someone who tried to classify being gay as a mental illness. My own argument would be that mental illness is, to me, defined as something that harms either the individual, or others around them or both. Gayness doesn't harm anyone.
The human brain and systems are far more complex that any of us could ever begin to understand. The sheer number of people who identify as gay, for me, makes it seem that it is a born trait no different than having naturally curly hair or being left handed. It's simply a genetic reality, not a disorder and certainly not a choice. Genetics are responsible for so many different combinations of how we operate as human beings. Does it not then make sense to assume that being gay is simply another one of those genetic traits that occur?
I had the wonderful privilege of getting to work for a few months with a young man who is gay and out and proud of it. I'll never forget the day he and I discussed 'levels of gayness' and he said on a scale of one meaning you are a 'little gay' and 10 your 'pooping rainbows' he's about a 15 :) He is a great young man and to my mind very brave to come and live and work in an area that is very religiously and socially conservative and just be who he is. He is a sweetheart and if he reads this I just want to say "Nick, thank you for being a small part of my life and I admire you more than you know." (I also miss chatting about fashion and project runway with you!!)
So I guess my point to all this is that gay people are just...people. No different than you or me and who should be afforded the sames rights we all enjoy by virtue of being heterosexual. Do I think that churches who don't agree should be forced to accept gay marriage? No, we do have freedom of religion in this country and if they want to be intolerant then fine, though I will try to persuade them with just arguments. But if we are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country, then I say that conservative church views on homosexuality should stay out of whether they are granted the ability to marry and enjoy things that I get to enjoy as a married person. I don't ever have to worry about someone denying me access to my husband if he's in hospital, or denying me coverage on his health insurance policy, or deny allowing us to adopt a child, simply because we're straight. Gay people should have those same rights.
So think about those things, when you go to vote in a few weeks. Think about what the candidates views are on these issues. Even if you disagree with me, go out and voice it by voting, and not standing silent.
And to anyone out there who is gay, or who may be struggling with coming out as gay, I love you, and Jesus loves you, just as you are. Be who you are, and lets work together to teach our fellow man some tolerance and hope that in our grandchildren's day this gay rights argument will just be another entry in a history book, like the civil rights movement of the 1960's.
Thanks,
Dawn
This started out to be a facebook status post, but after I started typing I realized that perhaps my blog, which I haven't written on in some time, would give me more room to express my thoughts on this particular topic.
My husband and I took our eleven year old daughter to the library today, and while browsing the 'new arrivals' section, I came across a book by a man named Paul Vitagliano called "Born This Way, Real Stories of Growing Up Gay." I was intrigued, and decided to pick it up and bring it home.
I just finished reading the book "Red Letter Christians" by Tony Campolo (A book I highly recommend, by the way) and gay rights issues were addressed in that book and very much in the forefront of my mind, as they are in the media these days and in the lead up to the presidential election to take place only next month.
Born This Way was fascinating to me. It included snapshots of gay individuals as children, from the ages of 1 or 2 to as old as 13-15. Included with the snapshots were very short stories, sometimes only a collection of a few sentences or even just one sentence, that summed up for the person in the photograph what it had been like to 'grow up gay'. The stories were laid out in chronological order, spanning decades from the 1950's all the way to the 2000's. It included people we know now as celebrities, as well as regular, every day folks. There were both gay men, and lesbian women.
Some of the stories were heartwarming, others heartbreaking. Some had supportive and loving families who accepted them no matter what their orientation, and others spoke of being 'disowned' by their relatives, or having their gayness simply 'swept under the rug' and not talked about, as if not talking about it made it untrue.
One of the phrases I found most interesting in the book, was when these folks talked about "coming out to themselves" before coming out to friends and family. Admitting to themselves that they were gay, that they were different than most people, was often just as much if not more of a struggle than telling their loved ones, who almost always suspected or knew before the person came out to them.
So one gets to thinking about what kind of society we live in, where someone has to be afraid to admit, even to themselves, that they are gay.
I'm as straight as it gets, perfectly in love with my husband. I'm also a Christian, and very involved in my church. For most of my life, I never thought about gay rights, or even really knew any gay people. I just didn't live in a place where I came into contact with it. As I got older, and I started learning a little more about the world, I don't ever remember feeling anything negative about gay people, even once I became a Christian and starting attending church regularly. And I went to a baptist church where homosexuality is considered a terrible sin. I remember thinking, when I would hear people condemn it, "What is so bad about loving, and wanting to be loved, even by someone of the same gender?"
I've heard the arguments for why the bible says its wrong. And we all pick and choose which parts of the bible we ascribe to, (I don't wear robes and braid my hair after all) and the thing that I keep coming back to is that Jesus told us the greatest commandment was to Love. Love your enemies, show mercy. All of us are God's children, and should be treated as brothers and sisters. Jesus loved everyone the same, and we should too. I've always been a 'love everybody' kind of person, and try to always find the good in people.
My husband and I had a great discussion about what makes someone gay, and he asked me what a good argument would be against someone who tried to classify being gay as a mental illness. My own argument would be that mental illness is, to me, defined as something that harms either the individual, or others around them or both. Gayness doesn't harm anyone.
The human brain and systems are far more complex that any of us could ever begin to understand. The sheer number of people who identify as gay, for me, makes it seem that it is a born trait no different than having naturally curly hair or being left handed. It's simply a genetic reality, not a disorder and certainly not a choice. Genetics are responsible for so many different combinations of how we operate as human beings. Does it not then make sense to assume that being gay is simply another one of those genetic traits that occur?
I had the wonderful privilege of getting to work for a few months with a young man who is gay and out and proud of it. I'll never forget the day he and I discussed 'levels of gayness' and he said on a scale of one meaning you are a 'little gay' and 10 your 'pooping rainbows' he's about a 15 :) He is a great young man and to my mind very brave to come and live and work in an area that is very religiously and socially conservative and just be who he is. He is a sweetheart and if he reads this I just want to say "Nick, thank you for being a small part of my life and I admire you more than you know." (I also miss chatting about fashion and project runway with you!!)
So I guess my point to all this is that gay people are just...people. No different than you or me and who should be afforded the sames rights we all enjoy by virtue of being heterosexual. Do I think that churches who don't agree should be forced to accept gay marriage? No, we do have freedom of religion in this country and if they want to be intolerant then fine, though I will try to persuade them with just arguments. But if we are supposed to have separation of church and state in this country, then I say that conservative church views on homosexuality should stay out of whether they are granted the ability to marry and enjoy things that I get to enjoy as a married person. I don't ever have to worry about someone denying me access to my husband if he's in hospital, or denying me coverage on his health insurance policy, or deny allowing us to adopt a child, simply because we're straight. Gay people should have those same rights.
So think about those things, when you go to vote in a few weeks. Think about what the candidates views are on these issues. Even if you disagree with me, go out and voice it by voting, and not standing silent.
And to anyone out there who is gay, or who may be struggling with coming out as gay, I love you, and Jesus loves you, just as you are. Be who you are, and lets work together to teach our fellow man some tolerance and hope that in our grandchildren's day this gay rights argument will just be another entry in a history book, like the civil rights movement of the 1960's.
Thanks,
Dawn
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Fifty shades of amazing!
Hello faithful readers!
Well, those of you who might actually read this. It's been nearly a year since I last blogged, but I read something recently that compelled me to write something much longer than the average facebook post, so this seemed like the best place to do it :)
So, anyhow, I just finished the book "Fifty Shades of Grey" by British author E. L. James. There are two other books in the series, and I've already started the second one. The books have caused quite a sensation, and mention of them is all over the internet. I admit, when I read that they began as "Twilight" fan fiction, I was unsure what all the fuss was about. I borrowed the first "Twilight" book from a friend, and I couldn't get past the first five or so pages, the writing was so contrite, and really downright horrid. So I had no desire, at first, to read something spawned of that drivel. But friends and family were raving about "Fifty Shades" on facebook and I became intrigued. I downloaded a sample on my kindle and began to read, and by the time I got to the end of my sample, I was hungry for more.
****************SPOILER ALERT***************'
So what is all the fuss about? The books have taken Erotica and BDSM style sex to the mainstream masses. I'm a complete romance junkie, normally of the British, period variety, Victorian era or Georgian. So I was amazed when I found myself hooked on a modern, erotic romance. But hooked I am and only the desire to write this blog post is keeping me from picking it back up to read some more.
I've read several articles about the books, and also unearthed a spoiler today from book three :( But it is interesting to see all the different comments on the books. The reviews I saw on Amazon were terrible, many people who made fun of the books, the writing, the story, etc. So what is making it so appealing to so many if there are that many that have read and then disliked it?
I've read a lot in my time, from romance, to epic fantasy, to mystery to horror. I've always had pretty eclectic tastes. So I will remark that the writing isn't the best I've seen but it isn't the worst either. *cough*Twilight*cough* There are even some quirks that people seem to complain about that I liked. I enjoyed the email exchanges between the main characters, right down to showing the actual email format. That is how many of us communicate these days, so why not? It brings reality and a relatable quality to the story. The emails are witty, fun and give excellent insight into the characters. There are things that are easier for us to say when typing from behind a computer screen and I think those exchanges free the characters to show us something deeper about themselves.
Some folks complain about the constant inner dialogue of the heroine, calling it 'tortuous'. I liked it, because again, it gives you an insight into what she's thinking. Who wants only action in a story? I like hearing about the thoughts and fears of a character.
Yet another trait, and one which I noticed because I am married to a British man, is the smattering of British vernacular in the language of what should be a complete American character. Most people aren't going to notice it, because most people have no idea how British people talk. So what's the big deal? Books don't have to be 100% accurate to be enjoyable.
Of course, the thing that people want to talk most about is the kinky sex. Oh My! lol, really, we're all adults here people. What I read in that first book, is mild compared to what can be found on the internet with a simple search. Not that I look up that kind of thing, but I've stumbled across it and there is some scary stuff out there. Christian Grey's 'Red Room of Pain' so dubbed by Miss Steele, is mild compared to what is out there.
But when you read the books, the tortured past of the hero, and the heroines valiant effort to bring him from the dark to the light, is what stands out to me far more than the sex. Do I enjoy the sex scenes? Yep! I'm not a nun! ;) But what I look forward to most is the interaction between the main characters, the arguments, the deep discussions, the slow and agonizing process of drawing the demons out of Christian. The love. I'm a hopelessly incurable romantic. And I'm a sucker for a good love story. And this is a good love story. There are many ways of falling in love, both the long, slow, getting to know one another process, and the hard, fast, head over heels crazy falling in love. Both have validity, and both are equally interesting to me.
So I guess my point is this, don't go into reading these books, if you choose to do so, with a preconceived notion of what to expect. I started reading it expecting it to be all sex and no substance, but boy was I wrong! I also never believe reviews until I've read or seen something myself. I know what I like, and I'll make my own decisions, thank you very much. I don't need the masses, or worse yet, the critics to tell me what I should and shouldn't like.
If you've read the books you're probably smiling and nodding your head right now, if you haven't, I'm sorry if I spoiled anything for you, but I did warn you! Not my fault if you kept reading ;)
Well it's late folks, and I think I had better get off to bed. Please feel free to comment here or on my facebook page (I'm more likely to see it on facebook) and start a discussion. I'm very curious to see what my fellow Grey fans think as well. Who can't wait for the movie? Me!! :)
Goodnight folks!
Well, those of you who might actually read this. It's been nearly a year since I last blogged, but I read something recently that compelled me to write something much longer than the average facebook post, so this seemed like the best place to do it :)
So, anyhow, I just finished the book "Fifty Shades of Grey" by British author E. L. James. There are two other books in the series, and I've already started the second one. The books have caused quite a sensation, and mention of them is all over the internet. I admit, when I read that they began as "Twilight" fan fiction, I was unsure what all the fuss was about. I borrowed the first "Twilight" book from a friend, and I couldn't get past the first five or so pages, the writing was so contrite, and really downright horrid. So I had no desire, at first, to read something spawned of that drivel. But friends and family were raving about "Fifty Shades" on facebook and I became intrigued. I downloaded a sample on my kindle and began to read, and by the time I got to the end of my sample, I was hungry for more.
****************SPOILER ALERT***************'
So what is all the fuss about? The books have taken Erotica and BDSM style sex to the mainstream masses. I'm a complete romance junkie, normally of the British, period variety, Victorian era or Georgian. So I was amazed when I found myself hooked on a modern, erotic romance. But hooked I am and only the desire to write this blog post is keeping me from picking it back up to read some more.
I've read several articles about the books, and also unearthed a spoiler today from book three :( But it is interesting to see all the different comments on the books. The reviews I saw on Amazon were terrible, many people who made fun of the books, the writing, the story, etc. So what is making it so appealing to so many if there are that many that have read and then disliked it?
I've read a lot in my time, from romance, to epic fantasy, to mystery to horror. I've always had pretty eclectic tastes. So I will remark that the writing isn't the best I've seen but it isn't the worst either. *cough*Twilight*cough* There are even some quirks that people seem to complain about that I liked. I enjoyed the email exchanges between the main characters, right down to showing the actual email format. That is how many of us communicate these days, so why not? It brings reality and a relatable quality to the story. The emails are witty, fun and give excellent insight into the characters. There are things that are easier for us to say when typing from behind a computer screen and I think those exchanges free the characters to show us something deeper about themselves.
Some folks complain about the constant inner dialogue of the heroine, calling it 'tortuous'. I liked it, because again, it gives you an insight into what she's thinking. Who wants only action in a story? I like hearing about the thoughts and fears of a character.
Yet another trait, and one which I noticed because I am married to a British man, is the smattering of British vernacular in the language of what should be a complete American character. Most people aren't going to notice it, because most people have no idea how British people talk. So what's the big deal? Books don't have to be 100% accurate to be enjoyable.
Of course, the thing that people want to talk most about is the kinky sex. Oh My! lol, really, we're all adults here people. What I read in that first book, is mild compared to what can be found on the internet with a simple search. Not that I look up that kind of thing, but I've stumbled across it and there is some scary stuff out there. Christian Grey's 'Red Room of Pain' so dubbed by Miss Steele, is mild compared to what is out there.
But when you read the books, the tortured past of the hero, and the heroines valiant effort to bring him from the dark to the light, is what stands out to me far more than the sex. Do I enjoy the sex scenes? Yep! I'm not a nun! ;) But what I look forward to most is the interaction between the main characters, the arguments, the deep discussions, the slow and agonizing process of drawing the demons out of Christian. The love. I'm a hopelessly incurable romantic. And I'm a sucker for a good love story. And this is a good love story. There are many ways of falling in love, both the long, slow, getting to know one another process, and the hard, fast, head over heels crazy falling in love. Both have validity, and both are equally interesting to me.
So I guess my point is this, don't go into reading these books, if you choose to do so, with a preconceived notion of what to expect. I started reading it expecting it to be all sex and no substance, but boy was I wrong! I also never believe reviews until I've read or seen something myself. I know what I like, and I'll make my own decisions, thank you very much. I don't need the masses, or worse yet, the critics to tell me what I should and shouldn't like.
If you've read the books you're probably smiling and nodding your head right now, if you haven't, I'm sorry if I spoiled anything for you, but I did warn you! Not my fault if you kept reading ;)
Well it's late folks, and I think I had better get off to bed. Please feel free to comment here or on my facebook page (I'm more likely to see it on facebook) and start a discussion. I'm very curious to see what my fellow Grey fans think as well. Who can't wait for the movie? Me!! :)
Goodnight folks!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)