Today I had 4 errands to run in order to get ready to go to Utah:
1. FedEx a broken toner cartridge back to the online store so they can send me a new one
2. Drop off paperwork for school with a friend so she can turn them in for me on Thursday when we're out of town.
3. Buy snacks for the trip.
4. Buy a part for the car.
Easy-peasy, right?
Here's how it went:
I told the kids I was leaving and they could stay home with Caleb if they wanted.
Four kids wanted to come with me to the FedEx shop because they'd never seen a print shop before. One wanted to come to the auto store and, since it's close to home, I promised to pick her up I FedExed my box so she could see the auto parts store but not have to come to the FedEx shop.
So went to send the box. Easy and I found the paper I want for the covers of a little book series I'm working on (60lb cover stock, just for reference).
Then back home and picked up Anda.
Then to the auto store. Benji invited himself into the employees only section in the back to look around and we didn't know it until he reappeared (no wonder we couldn't find him). I notice there that one kid is wearing oversized cowboy boots and another is wearing oversized snowboots--and it's hot hot hot outside! No wonder they're all sweating. So five kids and I buy the car part we need.
Then two kids decided they'd rather not come to the other errands, so I take them home. But they add one errand to the list: "Mom, can you drop this off at the library? I forgot to turn it in when we took the books back last night."
Off to a store to buy snacks. But the store is closed. They went out of business this week and closed 3 days earlier than I thought they would. Of course I didn't notice this until I had taken 3 kids out of the car. Back into the car and we're all hot.
So off to the library. Drop the book off (refusing to let Benj go in). Benji wilts and asks to go home.
So I take him home.
When I drop him off, two more kids pop up and say they want to come to the store after all!
So we load up, and Benji brings me a cup of cold water (ahhh--melt my heart that he's so thoughtful!) and I give him popsicles and we're off again, only Benji stays home.
So I'm heading off to the store with four kids and me, just like we started, but it's a different four kids. (!)
We drop off the paperwork with a friend and I dont' even turn the car off because if anyone gets out, we'll never get home because we'll stay to play.
Then we shop for a long time buying snacks and still forget that we're out of mayonnaise (good thing we won't need it for a couple of weeks!).
FINALLY get home and the kids say, "Oh, but we wanted pizza for dinner! Can you go buy some?"
Aaaaargh!
45 minutes of errands took well over 2 hours. And that was with no meltdowns except Jack (and you kind of expect that from a baby after they've been in a car seat for over an hour).
Monday, August 19, 2013
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Making a spectacle of myself....by buying groceries.
I went shopping tonight. Lots of food on sale--good sales--at various stores around town, but I needed to refill Caleb's asthma prescription, so I went to WalMart and decided to match all the ads there.
So I loaded up one cart with tired preschoolers (3 kids and the oldest is 4--the rest stayed home), and one cart with:
32 lbs of strawberries
20 lbs of peaches
25 ears of corn
5 lb of bananas
5 lbs of pears
5 lbs of nectarines
5 lbs of grapes
1 large watermelon
1 package of cardstock
1 refilled asthma prescription (10 minutes flat to refill it--they did really well this time!)
At that point, Jack's diaper started leaking AND he had a melt down (I didn't let him eat the plastic he ripped off the bag of nectarines while he was trying to get at the nectarines, and apparently that's the end of the world when you're 7 months old and hungry). So I stopped shopping and decided to get milk and mayonnaise and snacks for our upcoming trip to Utah at another time.
I took my two full carts to the checkout, still juggling the screaming baby, and started matching ads.
That's when the lady came up and asked if she could take a picture of my cart full of strawberries. I said yes. She said her dad would get a kick out of it because he's 81 and she hates strawberries. Okay?
It was a good thing she thought it was funny and liked the kids even though Jack was screaming and the other two were quite literally running in circles, because after I matched all those ads to get all that food (for $65--they were good sales), the computer rejected it. Said that the difference between the sales items I claimed and WalMart's prices were too great, and a manager had to come over. I learned a long time ago that even though WalMart can't require you to produce the actual ads in order to match them (their own policy), it's a really good idea to have them on hand and show the cashiers while you match the ads. That was a lifesaver this time. The cashier had to call the manager because the computer was accusing me of lying, but she could vouch for every single ad price I gave them, so they had to do some kind of rigamarole with managers keys and secret codes typed into the computers and they finally let me pay for everything.
"Is it fun to have three boys?" the cashier asked as Jack finally calmed down. I guess she couldn't see that his leaking diaper had soaked the front of my shirt with pee? I know she could see the little ones running in circles, though.
"I have six boys," I answered absently. Then I kicked myself. The right answer was, "Yes!" I didn't need to make myself more of a spectacle!
The cashier said, "Six boys and one girl?" And I couldn't figure out how she knew that one girl part. Maybe I was babbling earlier and mentioned that? Probably. I talk to cashiers. Anyway, they kept insisting I needed help out to the car, and I kept insisting I didn't, even when the cashier ran after me and Jack started screaming again and I was juggling two full carts.... I never want people to help me out to the car because I don't really need them looking into the back of the van, where I have a bin of coats and blankets (for hiking), a double stroller that isn't folded because why go to the trouble when it fits, three baby backpacks, two camp chairs, and a giant rock Benji rescued from the river. It's kind of a tetris game to get the groceries in safely where nothing will fall on them, and I don't like to play that with someone standing there waiting to "help"--it just means I can't work slowly and put the kids in the car first, and I always feel guilty about feeding them unwashed grapes to keep them quiet while I load the groceries, and it really is just easier for me to do it myself at my own speed and in my own way.
Then on the way out to the car, the people who parked next to our big old van asked if I was a canner? (Uh--have you EVER seen someone can strawberries?!). No. She always wanted a big family, she said, and she saw all those berries and thought I must have a big family and then she saw the van, and she knew, but her husband won't let her have a big family (he was quietly loading the groceries into his car and nodded vigorously at that)...
And I realized everywhere I turned in the store, people were looking at me and my cart full of strawberries.
Next time I'll just wear a sign that says, "I have seven kids and they eat this much." Or maybe "I freeze them and use them instead of popsicles for my kids."
32 lbs of strawberries isn't so much. I've bought 50 lbs before. And I regularly buy 25-lb boxes of peaches and nectarines. And 25 ears of corn isn't SO many. Is it? I mean, we ate them all for dinner. That seems a pretty reasonable amount for 9 people.
One more reason to shop in the middle of the night: I'm a person then, not a circus sideshow.
So I loaded up one cart with tired preschoolers (3 kids and the oldest is 4--the rest stayed home), and one cart with:
32 lbs of strawberries
20 lbs of peaches
25 ears of corn
5 lb of bananas
5 lbs of pears
5 lbs of nectarines
5 lbs of grapes
1 large watermelon
1 package of cardstock
1 refilled asthma prescription (10 minutes flat to refill it--they did really well this time!)
At that point, Jack's diaper started leaking AND he had a melt down (I didn't let him eat the plastic he ripped off the bag of nectarines while he was trying to get at the nectarines, and apparently that's the end of the world when you're 7 months old and hungry). So I stopped shopping and decided to get milk and mayonnaise and snacks for our upcoming trip to Utah at another time.
I took my two full carts to the checkout, still juggling the screaming baby, and started matching ads.
That's when the lady came up and asked if she could take a picture of my cart full of strawberries. I said yes. She said her dad would get a kick out of it because he's 81 and she hates strawberries. Okay?
It was a good thing she thought it was funny and liked the kids even though Jack was screaming and the other two were quite literally running in circles, because after I matched all those ads to get all that food (for $65--they were good sales), the computer rejected it. Said that the difference between the sales items I claimed and WalMart's prices were too great, and a manager had to come over. I learned a long time ago that even though WalMart can't require you to produce the actual ads in order to match them (their own policy), it's a really good idea to have them on hand and show the cashiers while you match the ads. That was a lifesaver this time. The cashier had to call the manager because the computer was accusing me of lying, but she could vouch for every single ad price I gave them, so they had to do some kind of rigamarole with managers keys and secret codes typed into the computers and they finally let me pay for everything.
"Is it fun to have three boys?" the cashier asked as Jack finally calmed down. I guess she couldn't see that his leaking diaper had soaked the front of my shirt with pee? I know she could see the little ones running in circles, though.
"I have six boys," I answered absently. Then I kicked myself. The right answer was, "Yes!" I didn't need to make myself more of a spectacle!
The cashier said, "Six boys and one girl?" And I couldn't figure out how she knew that one girl part. Maybe I was babbling earlier and mentioned that? Probably. I talk to cashiers. Anyway, they kept insisting I needed help out to the car, and I kept insisting I didn't, even when the cashier ran after me and Jack started screaming again and I was juggling two full carts.... I never want people to help me out to the car because I don't really need them looking into the back of the van, where I have a bin of coats and blankets (for hiking), a double stroller that isn't folded because why go to the trouble when it fits, three baby backpacks, two camp chairs, and a giant rock Benji rescued from the river. It's kind of a tetris game to get the groceries in safely where nothing will fall on them, and I don't like to play that with someone standing there waiting to "help"--it just means I can't work slowly and put the kids in the car first, and I always feel guilty about feeding them unwashed grapes to keep them quiet while I load the groceries, and it really is just easier for me to do it myself at my own speed and in my own way.
Then on the way out to the car, the people who parked next to our big old van asked if I was a canner? (Uh--have you EVER seen someone can strawberries?!). No. She always wanted a big family, she said, and she saw all those berries and thought I must have a big family and then she saw the van, and she knew, but her husband won't let her have a big family (he was quietly loading the groceries into his car and nodded vigorously at that)...
And I realized everywhere I turned in the store, people were looking at me and my cart full of strawberries.
Next time I'll just wear a sign that says, "I have seven kids and they eat this much." Or maybe "I freeze them and use them instead of popsicles for my kids."
32 lbs of strawberries isn't so much. I've bought 50 lbs before. And I regularly buy 25-lb boxes of peaches and nectarines. And 25 ears of corn isn't SO many. Is it? I mean, we ate them all for dinner. That seems a pretty reasonable amount for 9 people.
One more reason to shop in the middle of the night: I'm a person then, not a circus sideshow.
Thursday, August 01, 2013
Advantages of Night
We're shifting our schedules forward again, much to my dismay. I tried everything I could for a month to shift back to a normal time, and it didn't work. But school is starting, and we have a trip to Utah coming up, and we want to be daytime people for those.
I hate hate hate shifting the schedule forward, though. It's so disorienting. We have nobody sleeping at the same times, and nobody knows what day it is, let alone which meal we're supposed to be eating or when.
Plus it doesn't work any more. Last time we shifted forward, within a week we were back going to bed at 4:00 am. Even with trying to stick to a normal schedule, if one little thing comes up that lasts more than 2 nights keeping me awake past bedtime, the schedule is shot. (Last time, the kids got sick.) I think it's all part of fibro--I MUST have enough sleep in order to function with fibro, so if I go to bed late, I have to just keep sleeping until I've slept enough. I can't just go without like most women do for a day or two and then catch up.
Anyway, this time, I've noticed that I don't even like being awake during the day.
For one thing, it's much, much too hot and muggy. Nights are cool and drier.
For another, day is noisy. Night is quiet and fairly still--no visual or auditory noise on our busy, busy street.
Also, people! Oh my! People come out en masse during the day. I know you're probably laughing at me. Don't get me wrong--I like people. I chat with grocery store clerks and people at bus stops. I'm not really an extrovert, but I'm not really an introvert, either. But there are certain advantages to being out when most of the people are not out.
For example, I never have to stand in line for anything ever. Not at the library, not at the grocery store, not anywhere. Two days in a row we've gone out at noon, and I had to stand in line everywhere I went. Lines and fibro are very much not friends. I hate lines. I can't stand in them. And I can't stand still and wait for someone to finish doing something--getting peaches, reading ads, whatever. It hurts to wait for someone to get out of my way, so I don't like to have to wait.
I also never find myself in anyone's way, even with 7 kids around me, when we go out at night. And the kids never bother anyone, even if they sit on the floor or get loud. And they're easier to spot if they drift (or run) away from me a little because there isn't anyone else around at night.
Plus I can work at my own speed at night. If I feel like going fast, nobody is in the way. If I want to mosey, I'm not in anyone else's way.
It was quite a shock to go the library in the middle of the day and find it crammed full of families. I'm used to taking my kids to the library from 8-9 pm (every week, even)--and nobody is there. They get to play with the legos by themselves. They can sit and look for books without getting anyone's way. They can play the puppet stage or watch the model trains or use the felt friends or sit in the beanbag sea (yes, we have a very cool library for a small town) without waiting for someone else to get done. And, more importantly, the kids can approach the librarians themselves and get the help they need without standing in line, without the phones ringing, without being hurried along so the next person can get help. We can stand and chat with the librarians, and it's okay because nobody is waiting and nobody is breaking the rules. The little ones (even Elijah) can get themselves on the kids' computers and nobody cares if they used them for half an hour or 45 minutes because nobody is waiting.
A lot of our stores put out the discount and scratch-and-dent things as the night shift starts (like 10:30 or 11 pm), so I always get first go at those things. And, because they stock at night, the open-all-night stores have all the things that are on sale right there in stock when I go. (And, obviously, I'm less likely to go to a store that isn't open all night!). During the day, I often find sale items are out of stock, but in the night, I rarely find empty shelves.
The night staff at stores is much nicer than the day staff. Less stressed, less busy, more inclined to chat, nicer to the kids. They remember, too, what we talked about last time and ask about things. The night staff is less stressed, under less pressure, and less likely to be overworked. Plus they get paid more, so they seem happier to be working.
Traffic during the day is not fun. At night, at least in our town, they turn a lot of the lights to flashing yellow lights, so getting around town is super easy. During the day? Not so much.
Plus, nighttime is full of beauty and stillness and mystery and creativity. The day time is hot and noisy and smoggy and full of everyone's problems. Night is full of everyone's dreams.
Day is convenient. And day is right in a lot of ways.
But I do love the night.
I hate hate hate shifting the schedule forward, though. It's so disorienting. We have nobody sleeping at the same times, and nobody knows what day it is, let alone which meal we're supposed to be eating or when.
Plus it doesn't work any more. Last time we shifted forward, within a week we were back going to bed at 4:00 am. Even with trying to stick to a normal schedule, if one little thing comes up that lasts more than 2 nights keeping me awake past bedtime, the schedule is shot. (Last time, the kids got sick.) I think it's all part of fibro--I MUST have enough sleep in order to function with fibro, so if I go to bed late, I have to just keep sleeping until I've slept enough. I can't just go without like most women do for a day or two and then catch up.
Anyway, this time, I've noticed that I don't even like being awake during the day.
For one thing, it's much, much too hot and muggy. Nights are cool and drier.
For another, day is noisy. Night is quiet and fairly still--no visual or auditory noise on our busy, busy street.
Also, people! Oh my! People come out en masse during the day. I know you're probably laughing at me. Don't get me wrong--I like people. I chat with grocery store clerks and people at bus stops. I'm not really an extrovert, but I'm not really an introvert, either. But there are certain advantages to being out when most of the people are not out.
For example, I never have to stand in line for anything ever. Not at the library, not at the grocery store, not anywhere. Two days in a row we've gone out at noon, and I had to stand in line everywhere I went. Lines and fibro are very much not friends. I hate lines. I can't stand in them. And I can't stand still and wait for someone to finish doing something--getting peaches, reading ads, whatever. It hurts to wait for someone to get out of my way, so I don't like to have to wait.
I also never find myself in anyone's way, even with 7 kids around me, when we go out at night. And the kids never bother anyone, even if they sit on the floor or get loud. And they're easier to spot if they drift (or run) away from me a little because there isn't anyone else around at night.
Plus I can work at my own speed at night. If I feel like going fast, nobody is in the way. If I want to mosey, I'm not in anyone else's way.
It was quite a shock to go the library in the middle of the day and find it crammed full of families. I'm used to taking my kids to the library from 8-9 pm (every week, even)--and nobody is there. They get to play with the legos by themselves. They can sit and look for books without getting anyone's way. They can play the puppet stage or watch the model trains or use the felt friends or sit in the beanbag sea (yes, we have a very cool library for a small town) without waiting for someone else to get done. And, more importantly, the kids can approach the librarians themselves and get the help they need without standing in line, without the phones ringing, without being hurried along so the next person can get help. We can stand and chat with the librarians, and it's okay because nobody is waiting and nobody is breaking the rules. The little ones (even Elijah) can get themselves on the kids' computers and nobody cares if they used them for half an hour or 45 minutes because nobody is waiting.
A lot of our stores put out the discount and scratch-and-dent things as the night shift starts (like 10:30 or 11 pm), so I always get first go at those things. And, because they stock at night, the open-all-night stores have all the things that are on sale right there in stock when I go. (And, obviously, I'm less likely to go to a store that isn't open all night!). During the day, I often find sale items are out of stock, but in the night, I rarely find empty shelves.
The night staff at stores is much nicer than the day staff. Less stressed, less busy, more inclined to chat, nicer to the kids. They remember, too, what we talked about last time and ask about things. The night staff is less stressed, under less pressure, and less likely to be overworked. Plus they get paid more, so they seem happier to be working.
Traffic during the day is not fun. At night, at least in our town, they turn a lot of the lights to flashing yellow lights, so getting around town is super easy. During the day? Not so much.
Plus, nighttime is full of beauty and stillness and mystery and creativity. The day time is hot and noisy and smoggy and full of everyone's problems. Night is full of everyone's dreams.
Day is convenient. And day is right in a lot of ways.
But I do love the night.
Friday, July 19, 2013
The Time Capsule Amusement Park
Every year, for the summer reading program at the library, the kids earn free tickets to Lakeside Amusement Park in Denver.
The last couple of years, Tim took the big kids only.
This year, we all went.
Oh. My. Goodness.
That place is heaven for people like me, who love all things cultural history and old.
The amusement park has been in the same place since 1908. It has grown over the years, but only in adding things, not in remodeling or remaking or replacing things. The result is a fantastic, mostly unrestored museum of amusement park history, with signs, rides, and ticket booths highlighting different eras in design and history.
Many of the rides appear to be vintage. At least one is a non-functioning antique that has been there so long the trees have grown up into the ride. Even the kiddie rides appear to be vintage--car racers, chrome-and-steel roller coaster, 40's style bombers. There are some awesome art deco things going on there--a "Whip" ride that is all chrome-and-deco. Ticket booths that are quintessential art deco. There are some very very 60s color-block buildings and signs, some oh-so-50s "future world" kinds of signs. Fountains hidden in bushes because they changed things up. 1920s once-fountains that are now planters scattered around, the lion heads on the sides still painted gold.
The place is a treasure!
My favorite parts were the 100+ year old carousel and the defunct mini-train that used to circle the lake.
The carousel is AMAZING. It has all original, antique wooden animals. The horses still have real horsehair tails! Seriously. I couldn't believe they let people ride these old, collectible horses, but we went round and round, up and down, riding horses, pigs, rabbits, zebras, gazelle. It was gorgeous and amazing, all at once. I hear it's the oldest continuously-functioning carousel in the US, but I don't remember where I heard that. It was amazing, though (and the girl who ran it, Mariah, was super awesome). I still can't believe that people are allowed to touch that thing. It should be in the Smithsonian.
Anyway, the little railway line had two trains--a very Disneyland-style little open train like they have at a lot of zoos (and Disneyland), and a mini chrome-plated art deco train that was unbelievably cool. The tracks went around the lake, and past a vintage grandstand that was all in disarray that looked over the lake. Tim told me they used to have speed boats on the lake as part of the park. The dock is still there, but the little walking bridges that go over the train tracks are falling apart, so you can't get to the dock. And the boats are gone.
There is also a early 1900s white wooden roller coaster. And an old ferris wheel. Both still functioning, of course.
Oh, and next to the parking lot is an old wooden "Speedway". It's closed, and we didn't try to get inside even though I really, really wanted to. I could see from the parking lot, though, that trees were growing up through the grandstand seating area, so I'm guessing it hasn't been used in well over 50 years. I want to go inside and look around, though. Wouldn't that be the coolest thing? I just want to go explore and excavate the history! It's so incredible. All of it was.
The whole place was really amazing. You could trace the growth of the park by looking at the lamp posts. As they added new sections, they made no efforts to make the lamp posts match the rest of the park. Instead, they added newest-latest-coolest lampposts. So you can walk through the park and see lampposts from the 1900s, and the 1930s, and the 1950s...it's super amazingly cool.
I would pay to park there and not have any rides--just walk around and enjoy the old stuff.
What I think they should do with that place is put a little money into restoring it, and then open it as a living history amusement park. I don't think there are any of those around. I've never heard of one. So you let people ride the rides still, but you put the ride operators in vintage costumes (if they'd go for it--mostly they had teens trying to make a buck on a summer job running things). And you put up displays, signs, etc identifying the history, the historical design elements, talking about how people had fun through the ages, etc. The thing this place has that other places don't have is a handful of vintage rides from each of the major eras (note that we didn't see much from the 40s--wartime materials shortages would have prevented them from building new stuff, I imagine), so you could have a wonderful walk through history where people could actually still ride and try and experience the history instead of just gaze and ask questions.
As it is, if you don't want to try the rides--if you just want to see--it costs $2.50 per person to go in. Very reasonable for a museum, even if they think they're an amusement park. And super cool.
They just need signs on all those exhibits....
The last couple of years, Tim took the big kids only.
This year, we all went.
Oh. My. Goodness.
That place is heaven for people like me, who love all things cultural history and old.
The amusement park has been in the same place since 1908. It has grown over the years, but only in adding things, not in remodeling or remaking or replacing things. The result is a fantastic, mostly unrestored museum of amusement park history, with signs, rides, and ticket booths highlighting different eras in design and history.
Many of the rides appear to be vintage. At least one is a non-functioning antique that has been there so long the trees have grown up into the ride. Even the kiddie rides appear to be vintage--car racers, chrome-and-steel roller coaster, 40's style bombers. There are some awesome art deco things going on there--a "Whip" ride that is all chrome-and-deco. Ticket booths that are quintessential art deco. There are some very very 60s color-block buildings and signs, some oh-so-50s "future world" kinds of signs. Fountains hidden in bushes because they changed things up. 1920s once-fountains that are now planters scattered around, the lion heads on the sides still painted gold.
The place is a treasure!
My favorite parts were the 100+ year old carousel and the defunct mini-train that used to circle the lake.
The carousel is AMAZING. It has all original, antique wooden animals. The horses still have real horsehair tails! Seriously. I couldn't believe they let people ride these old, collectible horses, but we went round and round, up and down, riding horses, pigs, rabbits, zebras, gazelle. It was gorgeous and amazing, all at once. I hear it's the oldest continuously-functioning carousel in the US, but I don't remember where I heard that. It was amazing, though (and the girl who ran it, Mariah, was super awesome). I still can't believe that people are allowed to touch that thing. It should be in the Smithsonian.
Anyway, the little railway line had two trains--a very Disneyland-style little open train like they have at a lot of zoos (and Disneyland), and a mini chrome-plated art deco train that was unbelievably cool. The tracks went around the lake, and past a vintage grandstand that was all in disarray that looked over the lake. Tim told me they used to have speed boats on the lake as part of the park. The dock is still there, but the little walking bridges that go over the train tracks are falling apart, so you can't get to the dock. And the boats are gone.
There is also a early 1900s white wooden roller coaster. And an old ferris wheel. Both still functioning, of course.
Oh, and next to the parking lot is an old wooden "Speedway". It's closed, and we didn't try to get inside even though I really, really wanted to. I could see from the parking lot, though, that trees were growing up through the grandstand seating area, so I'm guessing it hasn't been used in well over 50 years. I want to go inside and look around, though. Wouldn't that be the coolest thing? I just want to go explore and excavate the history! It's so incredible. All of it was.
The whole place was really amazing. You could trace the growth of the park by looking at the lamp posts. As they added new sections, they made no efforts to make the lamp posts match the rest of the park. Instead, they added newest-latest-coolest lampposts. So you can walk through the park and see lampposts from the 1900s, and the 1930s, and the 1950s...it's super amazingly cool.
I would pay to park there and not have any rides--just walk around and enjoy the old stuff.
What I think they should do with that place is put a little money into restoring it, and then open it as a living history amusement park. I don't think there are any of those around. I've never heard of one. So you let people ride the rides still, but you put the ride operators in vintage costumes (if they'd go for it--mostly they had teens trying to make a buck on a summer job running things). And you put up displays, signs, etc identifying the history, the historical design elements, talking about how people had fun through the ages, etc. The thing this place has that other places don't have is a handful of vintage rides from each of the major eras (note that we didn't see much from the 40s--wartime materials shortages would have prevented them from building new stuff, I imagine), so you could have a wonderful walk through history where people could actually still ride and try and experience the history instead of just gaze and ask questions.
As it is, if you don't want to try the rides--if you just want to see--it costs $2.50 per person to go in. Very reasonable for a museum, even if they think they're an amusement park. And super cool.
They just need signs on all those exhibits....
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Did I just read that?
First line of an article in the New York Times (especially confusing because I thought I was reading the Deseret News: "Across the street from Tiffany and other luxury stores at the City Creek Center, the Salt Lake Temple stands as a symbol of the commercial investment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/10/realestate/commercial/mormon-backed-mall-breathes-life-into-salt-lake-city.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
I'm not sure that's what they meant to say. The temple isn't a symbol of commercial ANYTHING.
Monday, July 08, 2013
Did I just read that?
Homeless woman knives subway rider...
Knifes....knives.....what's the difference, right? Oh, wait...I get it. We can never have twenty knifes because that's bad grammar, so obviously, we have to use "knives" for everything. Kind of like "and I"--it's the only way to say it.
("Gibberish!" says my 11 yo).
Drudge Report tried to correct it: Homeless woman steak-knifes subway rider...
Knifes....knives.....what's the difference, right? Oh, wait...I get it. We can never have twenty knifes because that's bad grammar, so obviously, we have to use "knives" for everything. Kind of like "and I"--it's the only way to say it.
("Gibberish!" says my 11 yo).
Drudge Report tried to correct it: Homeless woman steak-knifes subway rider...
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Did I just read that?
Google likes to transcribe my voicemail messages for me. Sometimes they get it right. Today? They said the topic for the Primary Scripture tomorrow at church is "Whenever you can't, I can be forgiven."
Saturday, June 22, 2013
New blog, just for ice cream experiments
http://beccasicecreamshop.blogspot.com/
It's not pretty yet. My thinking is First get the ideas down before I forget what we've tried and how it came out, Then worry about the pictures.
Also, start taking pictures of the ice creams I make.
But at least I'm getting the recipes down before I forget!
It's not pretty yet. My thinking is First get the ideas down before I forget what we've tried and how it came out, Then worry about the pictures.
Also, start taking pictures of the ice creams I make.
But at least I'm getting the recipes down before I forget!
Did I just read that?
From Foxnews.com: "Man shoots pictures of wolf chasing him on motorcycle in Canada"
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/21/man-shoots-pictures-wolf-chasing-him-on-motorcycle-in-canada/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2WwMtm1M
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/21/man-shoots-pictures-wolf-chasing-him-on-motorcycle-in-canada/?intcmp=obinsite#ixzz2WwMtm1M
If a wolf were on a motorcycle, I'd take pictures, too. Even if he wasn't chasing me!
I guess Canadian wolves are more talented than our local wolves here in Colorado.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Ribose and Fibromyalgia
My mom and sister bought me ribose to try as a fibro treatment. Normally, I do nothing for my fibro because I've never heard anyone say something really actually worked.
But my mom tried this, and her sister did, and it worked for both of them.
I was still skeptical, but since Mom and Beth actually had the stuff sent to my house, I figured I had to try it.
When I was in first grade, I remember looking at the trees along the very top of the mountain ridge and thinking they looked like they were trekking along up there, like a pioneer train. By the time I was in sixth grade, I had forgotten I'd ever thought that. Had it even occurred to me, I might have thought I was mistaken. But the next year, in 8th grade, I got glasses. And then I could see the trees up there on their everlasting pioneer trek across the mountain ridges, and I remembered that I used to delight in looking at them. I had forgotten they existed because I couldn't see them anymore.
Taking ribose has been like that.
Just like I didn't know I couldn't see, I didn't know I didn't have any energy.
I had defined having energy as the opposite of being tired. And I knew how I felt when I woke up and I knew it took all day to get tired, and I didn't wake up tired or feel tired or sleepy all day. And my limbs weren't weary like they are after I go hiking or lift a lot of boxes, so I wasn't that kind of tired either. So it never occurred to me that I was lacking in energy.
But then I took ribose.
And--oh! This is what normal people feel like? You mean moms take their kids places and do stuff on purpose because they want to, not because they have to? Oh! I remember feeling like this! No wonder I could walk 10 miles a day in Europe without blinking. And go hiking with my friends. And play ultimate frisbee. And have a job and, you know, do the job.
The first day, after just one dose, I got a headache. I had read this happens to some people, and to ignore it for the first 3 days. That night, when Tim came home, I was a little bouncy. I talked straight through, skipping from subject to subject, for at least an hour. Maybe two. He sat there a little stunned and then smiling and then just about laughing at me with a sparkle in his eye.
I haven't been hyperactive since then, though. No headache either. My body adjusted.
The first two weeks I took it, I took 1 tsp 3 times a day, stirred in water. I took it with food always to avoid the headache. And I had energy. Not buzzing with energy like the first night, but the ability to do work. The ability to engage my brain and have a conversation and get up and DO stuff. Any stuff. But I also couldn't settle in and go to sleep at bedtime. I just wasn't tired. And that pushed my bedtime later every night, so it was a good thing you only are supposed to take 3 doses for 2 weeks because I was going to bed long past dawn (like 9:00 am!) at the end of the first two weeks. And 3 doses made it so that I just couldn't wake up in the morning. I was so drugged, I couldn't shake it off, even after 10+ hours of sleep.
I seem to have hit a sweet spot with 2 doses a day, taken at breakfast and at lunch or between lunch and dinner with a snack. One dose and I spend a long time just sitting in my chair all evening, and I can't get the kids to bed on time because I don't have the energy to get up and do the work it takes. Two doses makes me feel like a normal person, energy-wise, though. I feel like I did in college, before my mission (which is when the fibro struck). I did stuff then. Took dance classes. Worked. Walked everywhere. My mind was engaged and curious and questioning and active.
Tim noticed. He noticed that I took the kids hiking with him. All the kids--all 7 of them. And I talk to him. And I'm up doing stuff with the kids. We made a goal to make every kind of cookie in our cookie cook book this year--and we're actually working on it steadily. We planted a freakin' garden. Seriously. A garden! I actually wrestled with Benji on the bed on purpose and was glad afterward. I smile more. We shook cream in jars to make homemade butter and I made not one but two lumps worth. I shook a jar for 20 minutes! Twice! And was glad afterward! I made 10 dozen chocolate chip cookies, 12 dozen snickerdoodles, a double batch of lemon bars, and 4 dozen orange cookies in 2 days for a party. And it didn't kill me! Or even phase me. The kids noticed that I talk to them more and for longer periods of time. I can engage with them more. There is no brain fog. Ever. Any time during any day.
Also, amazingly, I don't crave sugar anymore. I actually crave the kinds of foods I used to want to eat when I was a kid (apples!).
The downside, other than figuring out the doses so I can get the right sleep at the right hours, has been pain. I am feeling more fibro pain more often. I think that's because I moved around as little as possible for many years, and my body isn't used to moving around. At first, I felt a lot of pain every day. Now I feel less than I did at first--I don't know if that's because I added magnesium to my daily vitamins or because I'm adjusting to having energy. I'm hoping my body adjusts and that, as I have more energy, I can get more gentle exercise and that will help with the pain and movement. I certainly have had to learn how to treat my body gently even when I have energy. Before, I didn't have the option to not be gentle--I didn't have enough energy to not be gentle with myself. Now I have to choose gentle--and the pain is there to remind me when I miss the mark. It is pain without brain fog to numb it, too, so I notice it more acutely. But it's not unbearable pain. And it's not a new thing. This is my old familiar fibro pain. I know this pain, and I know enough not to be distressed by it because I know it is liar pain, not indicating my body is damaged or in danger, much like PMS is liar emotion, caused by hormones instead of human experience that needs to be processed and dealt with. Liar pain and liar emotion can safely be ignored, even though it's real. But the pain does still stop me from cleaning the house, even though now I have the energy to do it.
Is it worth it to gain more energy and pay by gaining more pain at the same time?
Are you kidding? Is there even a question?
Suddenly, out of the blue, I feel human again. And I didn't even know I lost that. I feel like a capable person who can do amazing things, think amazing thoughts, raise amazing kids, finish things, start things, dream things, make things, solve problems...Live.
I don't feel like superwoman. But I do feel like me again--a me I forgot existed.
What a lovely blessing. Who knew that a little box, ordered by my mom and sister, had a new life for me inside it--one that I didn't even know I wanted or needed.
Of course it's worth it.
But my mom tried this, and her sister did, and it worked for both of them.
I was still skeptical, but since Mom and Beth actually had the stuff sent to my house, I figured I had to try it.
When I was in first grade, I remember looking at the trees along the very top of the mountain ridge and thinking they looked like they were trekking along up there, like a pioneer train. By the time I was in sixth grade, I had forgotten I'd ever thought that. Had it even occurred to me, I might have thought I was mistaken. But the next year, in 8th grade, I got glasses. And then I could see the trees up there on their everlasting pioneer trek across the mountain ridges, and I remembered that I used to delight in looking at them. I had forgotten they existed because I couldn't see them anymore.
Taking ribose has been like that.
Just like I didn't know I couldn't see, I didn't know I didn't have any energy.
I had defined having energy as the opposite of being tired. And I knew how I felt when I woke up and I knew it took all day to get tired, and I didn't wake up tired or feel tired or sleepy all day. And my limbs weren't weary like they are after I go hiking or lift a lot of boxes, so I wasn't that kind of tired either. So it never occurred to me that I was lacking in energy.
But then I took ribose.
And--oh! This is what normal people feel like? You mean moms take their kids places and do stuff on purpose because they want to, not because they have to? Oh! I remember feeling like this! No wonder I could walk 10 miles a day in Europe without blinking. And go hiking with my friends. And play ultimate frisbee. And have a job and, you know, do the job.
The first day, after just one dose, I got a headache. I had read this happens to some people, and to ignore it for the first 3 days. That night, when Tim came home, I was a little bouncy. I talked straight through, skipping from subject to subject, for at least an hour. Maybe two. He sat there a little stunned and then smiling and then just about laughing at me with a sparkle in his eye.
I haven't been hyperactive since then, though. No headache either. My body adjusted.
The first two weeks I took it, I took 1 tsp 3 times a day, stirred in water. I took it with food always to avoid the headache. And I had energy. Not buzzing with energy like the first night, but the ability to do work. The ability to engage my brain and have a conversation and get up and DO stuff. Any stuff. But I also couldn't settle in and go to sleep at bedtime. I just wasn't tired. And that pushed my bedtime later every night, so it was a good thing you only are supposed to take 3 doses for 2 weeks because I was going to bed long past dawn (like 9:00 am!) at the end of the first two weeks. And 3 doses made it so that I just couldn't wake up in the morning. I was so drugged, I couldn't shake it off, even after 10+ hours of sleep.
I seem to have hit a sweet spot with 2 doses a day, taken at breakfast and at lunch or between lunch and dinner with a snack. One dose and I spend a long time just sitting in my chair all evening, and I can't get the kids to bed on time because I don't have the energy to get up and do the work it takes. Two doses makes me feel like a normal person, energy-wise, though. I feel like I did in college, before my mission (which is when the fibro struck). I did stuff then. Took dance classes. Worked. Walked everywhere. My mind was engaged and curious and questioning and active.
Tim noticed. He noticed that I took the kids hiking with him. All the kids--all 7 of them. And I talk to him. And I'm up doing stuff with the kids. We made a goal to make every kind of cookie in our cookie cook book this year--and we're actually working on it steadily. We planted a freakin' garden. Seriously. A garden! I actually wrestled with Benji on the bed on purpose and was glad afterward. I smile more. We shook cream in jars to make homemade butter and I made not one but two lumps worth. I shook a jar for 20 minutes! Twice! And was glad afterward! I made 10 dozen chocolate chip cookies, 12 dozen snickerdoodles, a double batch of lemon bars, and 4 dozen orange cookies in 2 days for a party. And it didn't kill me! Or even phase me. The kids noticed that I talk to them more and for longer periods of time. I can engage with them more. There is no brain fog. Ever. Any time during any day.
Also, amazingly, I don't crave sugar anymore. I actually crave the kinds of foods I used to want to eat when I was a kid (apples!).
The downside, other than figuring out the doses so I can get the right sleep at the right hours, has been pain. I am feeling more fibro pain more often. I think that's because I moved around as little as possible for many years, and my body isn't used to moving around. At first, I felt a lot of pain every day. Now I feel less than I did at first--I don't know if that's because I added magnesium to my daily vitamins or because I'm adjusting to having energy. I'm hoping my body adjusts and that, as I have more energy, I can get more gentle exercise and that will help with the pain and movement. I certainly have had to learn how to treat my body gently even when I have energy. Before, I didn't have the option to not be gentle--I didn't have enough energy to not be gentle with myself. Now I have to choose gentle--and the pain is there to remind me when I miss the mark. It is pain without brain fog to numb it, too, so I notice it more acutely. But it's not unbearable pain. And it's not a new thing. This is my old familiar fibro pain. I know this pain, and I know enough not to be distressed by it because I know it is liar pain, not indicating my body is damaged or in danger, much like PMS is liar emotion, caused by hormones instead of human experience that needs to be processed and dealt with. Liar pain and liar emotion can safely be ignored, even though it's real. But the pain does still stop me from cleaning the house, even though now I have the energy to do it.
Is it worth it to gain more energy and pay by gaining more pain at the same time?
Are you kidding? Is there even a question?
Suddenly, out of the blue, I feel human again. And I didn't even know I lost that. I feel like a capable person who can do amazing things, think amazing thoughts, raise amazing kids, finish things, start things, dream things, make things, solve problems...Live.
I don't feel like superwoman. But I do feel like me again--a me I forgot existed.
What a lovely blessing. Who knew that a little box, ordered by my mom and sister, had a new life for me inside it--one that I didn't even know I wanted or needed.
Of course it's worth it.
Tuesday, May 28, 2013
Had a good laugh tonight
We had a good laugh tonight remembering the time, 8 or 9 years ago, when Caleb and his cousin Beth-el had a knock-down, drag-out fight about whether it's a hyphen or a dash in the middle of Beth-el's name.
They were only 3 or 4 years old!
We were astonished back then. Now, looking back, it's even more astonishing.
Ah...funny times.
They were only 3 or 4 years old!
We were astonished back then. Now, looking back, it's even more astonishing.
Ah...funny times.
Saturday, May 25, 2013
Things I've been pondering lately
For most of my life, my brain has been able to puzzle through things I'm interested in learning without too much trouble. If I had something academic I was pondering, it was usually humanities-based or macro-science based (health, general biology, etc), and I could figure out the answers or find them in an easily-digested format. I guess I was (and am) interested in gathering information but otherwise not a particularly curious person. And not particularly interested in working hard to understand things or gather knowledge. I just like to know a lot about a lot. I don't want to work hard to learn it. Usually. I guess I'm what you might call a lazy learner, even though I'm a hungry learner.
Because of that, one subject that has always hung me up is energy.
Learning about energy drives me nuts. The quantum physics section of AP Chemistry nearly did me in in high school, and I refused to take any physics classes at all. See, I got as far as, "The ball wants to fall..." or "The object at rest wants to stay at rest..." and I would throw my hands up and give up. A ball can't want anything. Nor can any object. They have no will, and therefore no desires. We spend so much time explaining chemistry, molecular biology, physics, and like sciences in terms of wants and needs, but the subjects at hand can't "want" or "need" anything, so the explanations simply confused me then and confuse me now. (Once a teacher explained a biological process all the way down to the atoms--the positive and negative charges--and I was so thrilled. I finally understood how it worked and why! About ten years later, though, I started asking myself, "But why do the positive and negative charges 'want' to come together and the like charges 'want' to repel each other?" and I was back at square one.)
I thought, at the time, that I must be dumb in science because everyone around me seemed to get it and be perfectly content that the electrons 'want' to move to a certain quantum level in the atoms (or whatever else the teacher was explaining) and I really couldn't grasp that (how and why? Electrons can't want!). But now as an adult, I find I really enjoy reading about science--more than about the humanities, which was always my field--so I'm wondering if maybe I'm not dumb at science, but simply needed more or different.
Mostly, I needed to know how to ask my questions (the one time I tried, "Uh, teacher? I don't think the sodium and the potassium can want to trade places," he either didn't understand my question or else didn't want to confuse the rest of the class, who seemed to be getting it even though I wasn't, because he said, "They just do."). And I needed time to think of them. Often, I understood perfectly in class what the teacher had presented, and it wasn't until later--sometimes much later--that I realized there was something more I wanted to know about. Anyway, by the time I reached high school and college, I wasn't used to having to ask questions. I didn't know how to formulate questions or pursue them until I found answers--I knew how to extract information from teachers and texts, solve the kinds of problems they modeled, and pass tests. I'd never had a real question before! School, for me, was about learning ideas as they were presented, not exploring them as they exist in the wide, wild world. I learned how to find and absorb information, but not how to create new questions that forced me to find new information that wasn't on the syllabus. It's like being able to copy any painted masterwork in any museum but not being able to create your own original composition even on a rudimentary level.
So, back to energy. Energy is always described as "the ability to do work." But then we talk about energy as though it's an object, not an ability. You cannot substitute the definition given for the word and have the sentences make sense. I could never "get" what they meant, exactly, by ability and by work. And what exactly were they measuring when measuring energy? The ability or the amount of work? And it wasn't until the last 5 years or so that I realized that potential energy means just that--not real energy, but energy that might exist in the future--Potentially. And that people like to try to measure this, but they're actually measuring something that doesn't exist yet (whoa). And that kinetic energy is activity. I figured that out after watching kinetic sculptures and understanding that kinetic sculptures are sculptures that move, so maybe kinetic energy is movement? Energy that's doing something? But when someone says, "If I raise this ball above my head, it has _____ much potential energy," I still start to panic--what does that mean? So much potential ability to do work? But what work is bouncing? And how can it lose energy as it bounces lower and lower? It can do less work bouncing lower? Where did the lost energy go? Into the floor, you say? How did that work? How did it transfer--on a molecular level? But the floor has no more potential to do work than it did before, so surely you are lying that it took that energy and "absorbed" it because that indicates it's total energy increased, so it should be able to do more work.....
You see? I just don't get it. It's so confusing. And I usually handle confusing things by refusing to think about them, not by working at it until I get it.
I also just don't get forces, which are related to energy somehow. (You mean to tell me the floor is pushing up on the chair with a force equal to the chair pushing down on the floor, or else the chair would fall through the floor....and when I sit on the chair, increasing the amount of force pushing down, the floor somehow magically conjurs up more force to push up against me and the chair? What the what? I no speak-a your language.)
But thinking about all that last month, I realized I wanted to know how, on a molecular level, bouncing works. I understand material's compression and tension and its 'desire' (there we go again!) to return to its natural shape...but why?! Why does the rubber molecule act that way? And why only when it impacts certain surfaces? It has to hit a surface that distorts its shape in order to bounce (a pillow distorts instead of the ball distorting, so no bounce.) Why do the molecules act like that? What makes them 'want' to go back to their natural shape when they are forced to distort in a bounce? How do they distort when some objects break instead? How does elasticity work? (All of this came up because someone said on a kids' science show that pingpong balls have a superior bounce because of their superior elasticity, but celluloid, the material ping pong balls are made of, is not particularly elastic...so something else had to be responsible for making them bounce. And they don't bounce well when they have a hole in them, so that's curious, isn't it? And suddenly I needed to know how non-elastic things can display traditionally elastic qualities--like bouncing when they are non-elastic, brittle substances, for example. Like why does a glass bowl sometimes bounce and sometimes shatter?)
I told Tim all that, and he (Brilliant soul that he is) thought about it for a minute and then explained it to me. I was satisfied. I can't remember all of his explanation now, though. I guess I would get this stuff better if my retention was better. (Maybe I "get" humanities so well because my retention there is fantastic.
But I'm not done thinking about materials.
I read about the history of the word 'diaper' and how the fabric used to be for elite clothing, and then for table cloths, but the weave of the cotton was discovered to be superior in both softness and absorbency, so now the same fabric is used for diapers. I totally know how that transition worked--homemakers would cut up their old, worn out or stained tablecloths and use the "rags" to diaper babies, and it worked so well they started making diaper fabric into baby bum-cloths up front, without going through the tablecloth-rag cycle. And now ironically, moms often say that the best rags are made from old cloth diapers....and that the best new-fangled diapers are made of that micro-whatever-fabric that grabs at your fingers that people use as cleaning rags...so fascinating how things evolve, especially in the domestic sphere. Anyway, the humanities portion I just get.
But the science? Now I'm wondering about the nature of wetness, on a molecular level.
How does cotton absorb water--on a molecular level? Why do certain cotton weaves absorb more or less than other weaves of the same material, and also why do identical weaves of other fabrics absorb less (or absorb more)? Why (molecularly) is an identical weave of hemp so thirsty, cotton sorta thirsty, and nylon so water-repellant? Why does natural fabric absorb water but not bond to the water--it lets it go again and gets dry and returns to the way it was before/ And why does the process not change the nature of the material (fabric, and also skin and hair, actually), when it does change the nature of other materials, like paper a little bit, and other materials, like whatever they make cell phones out of, apparently a lot, and other materials, like flour, dramatically.
And, since I'm just learning how to ask these kinds of questions, how do I find the answers--and find them in a format I can understand and remember? Slow and easy, with enough background initially to make up for the fact that I never took the right classes for questions like this, and deep enough that in the end I'm satisfied?
Can anyone explain wetness to me? Molecularly....
Because of that, one subject that has always hung me up is energy.
Learning about energy drives me nuts. The quantum physics section of AP Chemistry nearly did me in in high school, and I refused to take any physics classes at all. See, I got as far as, "The ball wants to fall..." or "The object at rest wants to stay at rest..." and I would throw my hands up and give up. A ball can't want anything. Nor can any object. They have no will, and therefore no desires. We spend so much time explaining chemistry, molecular biology, physics, and like sciences in terms of wants and needs, but the subjects at hand can't "want" or "need" anything, so the explanations simply confused me then and confuse me now. (Once a teacher explained a biological process all the way down to the atoms--the positive and negative charges--and I was so thrilled. I finally understood how it worked and why! About ten years later, though, I started asking myself, "But why do the positive and negative charges 'want' to come together and the like charges 'want' to repel each other?" and I was back at square one.)
I thought, at the time, that I must be dumb in science because everyone around me seemed to get it and be perfectly content that the electrons 'want' to move to a certain quantum level in the atoms (or whatever else the teacher was explaining) and I really couldn't grasp that (how and why? Electrons can't want!). But now as an adult, I find I really enjoy reading about science--more than about the humanities, which was always my field--so I'm wondering if maybe I'm not dumb at science, but simply needed more or different.
Mostly, I needed to know how to ask my questions (the one time I tried, "Uh, teacher? I don't think the sodium and the potassium can want to trade places," he either didn't understand my question or else didn't want to confuse the rest of the class, who seemed to be getting it even though I wasn't, because he said, "They just do."). And I needed time to think of them. Often, I understood perfectly in class what the teacher had presented, and it wasn't until later--sometimes much later--that I realized there was something more I wanted to know about. Anyway, by the time I reached high school and college, I wasn't used to having to ask questions. I didn't know how to formulate questions or pursue them until I found answers--I knew how to extract information from teachers and texts, solve the kinds of problems they modeled, and pass tests. I'd never had a real question before! School, for me, was about learning ideas as they were presented, not exploring them as they exist in the wide, wild world. I learned how to find and absorb information, but not how to create new questions that forced me to find new information that wasn't on the syllabus. It's like being able to copy any painted masterwork in any museum but not being able to create your own original composition even on a rudimentary level.
So, back to energy. Energy is always described as "the ability to do work." But then we talk about energy as though it's an object, not an ability. You cannot substitute the definition given for the word and have the sentences make sense. I could never "get" what they meant, exactly, by ability and by work. And what exactly were they measuring when measuring energy? The ability or the amount of work? And it wasn't until the last 5 years or so that I realized that potential energy means just that--not real energy, but energy that might exist in the future--Potentially. And that people like to try to measure this, but they're actually measuring something that doesn't exist yet (whoa). And that kinetic energy is activity. I figured that out after watching kinetic sculptures and understanding that kinetic sculptures are sculptures that move, so maybe kinetic energy is movement? Energy that's doing something? But when someone says, "If I raise this ball above my head, it has _____ much potential energy," I still start to panic--what does that mean? So much potential ability to do work? But what work is bouncing? And how can it lose energy as it bounces lower and lower? It can do less work bouncing lower? Where did the lost energy go? Into the floor, you say? How did that work? How did it transfer--on a molecular level? But the floor has no more potential to do work than it did before, so surely you are lying that it took that energy and "absorbed" it because that indicates it's total energy increased, so it should be able to do more work.....
You see? I just don't get it. It's so confusing. And I usually handle confusing things by refusing to think about them, not by working at it until I get it.
I also just don't get forces, which are related to energy somehow. (You mean to tell me the floor is pushing up on the chair with a force equal to the chair pushing down on the floor, or else the chair would fall through the floor....and when I sit on the chair, increasing the amount of force pushing down, the floor somehow magically conjurs up more force to push up against me and the chair? What the what? I no speak-a your language.)
But thinking about all that last month, I realized I wanted to know how, on a molecular level, bouncing works. I understand material's compression and tension and its 'desire' (there we go again!) to return to its natural shape...but why?! Why does the rubber molecule act that way? And why only when it impacts certain surfaces? It has to hit a surface that distorts its shape in order to bounce (a pillow distorts instead of the ball distorting, so no bounce.) Why do the molecules act like that? What makes them 'want' to go back to their natural shape when they are forced to distort in a bounce? How do they distort when some objects break instead? How does elasticity work? (All of this came up because someone said on a kids' science show that pingpong balls have a superior bounce because of their superior elasticity, but celluloid, the material ping pong balls are made of, is not particularly elastic...so something else had to be responsible for making them bounce. And they don't bounce well when they have a hole in them, so that's curious, isn't it? And suddenly I needed to know how non-elastic things can display traditionally elastic qualities--like bouncing when they are non-elastic, brittle substances, for example. Like why does a glass bowl sometimes bounce and sometimes shatter?)
I told Tim all that, and he (Brilliant soul that he is) thought about it for a minute and then explained it to me. I was satisfied. I can't remember all of his explanation now, though. I guess I would get this stuff better if my retention was better. (Maybe I "get" humanities so well because my retention there is fantastic.
But I'm not done thinking about materials.
I read about the history of the word 'diaper' and how the fabric used to be for elite clothing, and then for table cloths, but the weave of the cotton was discovered to be superior in both softness and absorbency, so now the same fabric is used for diapers. I totally know how that transition worked--homemakers would cut up their old, worn out or stained tablecloths and use the "rags" to diaper babies, and it worked so well they started making diaper fabric into baby bum-cloths up front, without going through the tablecloth-rag cycle. And now ironically, moms often say that the best rags are made from old cloth diapers....and that the best new-fangled diapers are made of that micro-whatever-fabric that grabs at your fingers that people use as cleaning rags...so fascinating how things evolve, especially in the domestic sphere. Anyway, the humanities portion I just get.
But the science? Now I'm wondering about the nature of wetness, on a molecular level.
How does cotton absorb water--on a molecular level? Why do certain cotton weaves absorb more or less than other weaves of the same material, and also why do identical weaves of other fabrics absorb less (or absorb more)? Why (molecularly) is an identical weave of hemp so thirsty, cotton sorta thirsty, and nylon so water-repellant? Why does natural fabric absorb water but not bond to the water--it lets it go again and gets dry and returns to the way it was before/ And why does the process not change the nature of the material (fabric, and also skin and hair, actually), when it does change the nature of other materials, like paper a little bit, and other materials, like whatever they make cell phones out of, apparently a lot, and other materials, like flour, dramatically.
And, since I'm just learning how to ask these kinds of questions, how do I find the answers--and find them in a format I can understand and remember? Slow and easy, with enough background initially to make up for the fact that I never took the right classes for questions like this, and deep enough that in the end I'm satisfied?
Can anyone explain wetness to me? Molecularly....
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Elijah says....
Elijah and I were singing the Bob the Builder song the other day. I abhor Bob the Builder, but someone checked out the video at the library and Jack loves it. And that means I can get stuff done while he watches TV. So I learned the song by osmosis.
Anyway, the lyrics are, "Bob the Builder. Can we fix it? Yes we can!"
Elijah and I sang it a couple of times while I was changing diapers, and then I changed it to "Mom the Builder. Can I fix it?"
He popped in, "No You Can't!"
I stopped singing. "What? Why can't I fix it?"
He said, "Cause you a MOM, not a builder."
Haha!
I guess he hasn't noticed that more often than not, when he brings someone a screwdriver, the person who needs it is ME.
Later that day, we fixed the bathroom door because the hinges had come loose.
Because Mom the Builder CAN fix it. Yes I Can.
Anyway, the lyrics are, "Bob the Builder. Can we fix it? Yes we can!"
Elijah and I sang it a couple of times while I was changing diapers, and then I changed it to "Mom the Builder. Can I fix it?"
He popped in, "No You Can't!"
I stopped singing. "What? Why can't I fix it?"
He said, "Cause you a MOM, not a builder."
Haha!
I guess he hasn't noticed that more often than not, when he brings someone a screwdriver, the person who needs it is ME.
Later that day, we fixed the bathroom door because the hinges had come loose.
Because Mom the Builder CAN fix it. Yes I Can.
Sunday, May 19, 2013
The Modesty Question--a really long post.
I've not been writing everything I'm thinking lately because the shift key on my computer is going out and that annoys me so much when I'm writing that I just don't do it more often than not.
Anyway, this one issue I kept trying to Not Write About, but I can't let it go, so I'm going to write about it.
The latest "in" complaint coming from certain segments of the population is to condemn the church for "the way they teach modesty." And this, apparently consists entirely and exclusively of teaching girls (only--not boys) that they have to cover their bodies so that boys don't have bad thoughts, and that there are arbitrary lines drawn on our bodies and crossing those lines is being immodest. What's wrong with these teachings, according to those who are complaining? They say that boys should take responsibility for their thoughts--if they see a girl and have bad thoughts, it's their own fault; and that arbitrary lines lead people to judge and condemn others unfairly--especially children--and that is bullying and not a good idea; and, finally, that teaching girls to cover their bodies introduces them to sexuality far too early and trains them to see themselves as sexual objects rather than people.
As usual, I don't disagree with everything they are saying.
But the whole thing really grates on me. I don't even know where to start, there's so much here that's close but not quite right.
First of all, while I have heard both arbitrary lines and dress so boys don't have bad thoughts in church, I've never heard them taught as canon. It's a mistake to assume that because culturally in Utah those things are taught or presented in a particular way, that it's endorsed by--or dictated by--"the church." Everything in the church is done by lay teachers. What they say, they heard before more often than not. When they teach stupid or false things, like "chocolate is against the word of wisdom" or "you can't feel the Spirit in a messy house" or "If you show your upper arms, that's immodest," it should be pointed out--in an appropriate way--that those things are not doctrine. It should not be assumed that every word that slips out of someone's mouth in a meeting is 'the way the Church teaches_______'. It might be the way people in the church have taught whatever it is, but it's likely not The Church. I hear people say (and, quite frankly, I have said) well-intentioned but flawed (and sometimes outright dumb) things in church all the time--ever hear someone say that Alma compared faith to a seed? Yeah--he never said that. It doesn't mean the church as a whole is teaching faith wrong, even if there are pervasive errors that get repeated often.
Not only do I take issue with the "how the church teaches" part, I also take issue with the "teaches modesty" part. Personally, I find their definition of 'how modesty is taught in church' to be a gross oversimplification.
For example, boys are taught modesty, too. My husband and brothers assure me of this. And, they have informed me, never are boys told that it's the girls' fault if they have bad thoughts. They are taught that they are responsible for themselves and shouldn't indulge in sin and blame it on other people. They are also taught that they are human and are wired to notice women's bodies, and taught to not dwell on the bad thoughts that come. And, if I'm not mistaken, they are taught to respect girls as daughters of God, not treat them as fresh meat, even if the girls act like it.
When I was a teenager, looking at boys' bodies did nothing to me. Nothing. I was totally clueless that boys seeing my body might possibly do anything to them. Informing innocent girls that what they wear can have an effect on boys is not giving the girls responsibility for the boys' thoughts. Actually, it is the boys own fault if they dwell on bad thoughts or stare at half-naked girls, but seeing half-naked girls in the pews is going to give any hormonal teenage boy trouble focusing on the sacrament. Sure, the idea shouldn't be the entirety of modesty teaching, and it's not the girls' fault if the boys are staring, but it's fair to warn the girls that when boys see their cleavage, there's a good chance the boys are not thinking about what the girls are saying. It is not fair to give girls responsibility for the boys' righteousness or lack thereof, but it's fair to warn them that boys are different from girls, and there might be things going on that they hadn't considered. And yes, there are girls that are _that_ innocent in church. Keeping boys' thoughts clean is not the reason we girls should choose modesty (I agree that that is a dumb way of teaching it--but I've never once heard it taught that way). But mentioning men and women are different and that we should treat each other with respect--including not egging on the boys, trying to manipulate or exert control over them using sexuality, "teasing" them with immodest dress or behavior, or trying to get them to think of women as sex objects or body parts on purpose--is a fair thing to teach, just like teaching the men to focus on a girl's face and ideas and be sensitive to her emotions is a fair thing to teach.
As for the arbitrary lines, thing...well, God has drawn arbitrary lines for temple-going adults, so I have a hard time saying all arbitrary lines are bad. I do think that where the lines are taught for children should be up to the parents and kids to draw, not necessarily the teachers, but it's hard to argue that women should be allowed to wear anything at any time and that's okay because God made it clear that He prefers we cover our bodies--men and women--and he drew lines.
And if children are judging and bullying based on someone not 'being modest' according to these arbitrary lines, perhaps the right answer is not to abolish the lines, but teach the children to have charity. We don't throw out the standards to avoid offending people--we still say tobacco is against the Word of Wisdom, for example, even when that is sometimes very awkward, especially outside of Utah--but it is not our place to judge other people based on our own standards or the church's, and, in fact the Church has repeatedly asked us not to try to force others to follow our personal standards.
And, finally, I have never met a little girl who, introduced to the idea that her body is a special gift from Heavenly Father and it's good to keep it protected and covered modestly, immediately thinks about sex. Seriously. If their parents are teaching them about their bodies and modesty in a sexualized way, the parents have a problem, not the church. Also, we do have bodies. While I am so very, very opposed to all the body-hate garbage out there, and I think the things little girls learn from the media and their friends about their bodies are justification all by themselves for getting rid of all media and homeschooling, I don't think it's fair to say to women, "you exist entirely in your own mind. Your body is nothing." Our bodies are part of us. Teaching girls to take good care of that part and treat it like the sacred gift it is is not a bad or sexualizing thing. That doesn't turn us into objects. Modesty is about so much more than maintaining sexual purity and clean thoughts, and I never once heard it taught otherwise.
So, with all of that, there are a few more things that bother me about the discussion. One is that the women who are talking about this stuff are not giving a positive alternative. I keep watching for it, and I have seen here and there hints of it, but most of them instead of saying, 'fix this problem--here's one way to do it' seem to be saying, 'You're destroying people by teaching modesty. Stop teaching it.' As if church should be a slut walk, where we can wear anything we want and insist that people respect us anyway. (If you haven't heard of a slut walk, it's a parade of women dressed as prostitutes to drive home the point that dressing immodestly is not an invitation for sexual harassment, abuse, or rape.) The women who are going around spouting all this stuff do not seem to be in favor of teaching modesty at all. I might be wrong about that, but if so, they should watch how they are presenting themselves and make it more clear.
While there are things that need to be fixed (not making victims feel responsible for their abuse is a big deal, for example), you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Modesty is an important thing to teach.
For one thing, how we dress influences our feelings about ourselves. If we dress sexy and slutty, we are more likely to feel and therefore act immodestly (yes, most of the people in the church that I know do actually comprehend that immodesty reaches far beyond simply hemlines and how tight a shirt is). And that will affect our choices and how we feel about ourselves. The biggest danger is not the media or our peers objectifying us because of how we look--the danger is we, ourselves, objectifying us. And modest dressing actually helps us not treat ourselves as though our only value is as a warm, sexy body. It can help us see ourselves as children of God, and to feel like that.
Also, as much as everyone is opposed to everyone judging each other based on what we wear, it does happen. Why do you think they ask missionaries to wear business clothing? Or have everyone wear essentially the same thing in the temple? What we have on and what we see others wearing affects our vision. And, in fact, it can help protect our teenagers and children if they are able to identify what is modest (behavior and clothing) because what other people wear gives us a hint about the kind of person we're interacting with. Why else would gang members wear similar clothing? While it's wrong to condemn, judge, and bully people for their clothing choices, it's also a quick indicator of what kind of person we're looking at--are they someone we should get to know better, or are they someone likely to get us into trouble?
And it's important for people to know that other people are looking at them and making snap judgments based on their appearance. Whether that is right or wrong, it's real. And the guys in school looking for good, intellectual conversation are going to pick out different girls from the crowd than the guys looking to get laid--primarily, initially, by a girls' appearance. So if a girl or guy wants to be taken seriously, it behooves her or him to dress modestly, whether or not she or he thinks it's a good idea to judge people by their appearance instead of their insides. If a girl wants to attract the right kinds of friends, she has to choose to cover her body more because the right kinds of friends are doing likewise. You cannot dress like a slut and attract a nice, righteous boyfriend, even if you try to feel and act modestly in your immodest clothes (which is harder than feeling and acting modestly in modest clothing).
I realize people are opposed to this--they want all people to be judged by their hearts and minds. But we can't see people's hearts and minds, so we tend to judge by what we do see. Our clothes and appearance are an advertisement for our hearts and minds, and I can't see that any amount of counter programming is going to change that. Having a slut walk is not an effective way of getting people to take women seriously. So while we teach our kids to not judge, we also have to teach them to judge and be judged. It's totally unfair, but totally real.
The clothes might not make the man, but they do influence how he feels about himself and others, and how others feel about him, what they expect from him, etc.
There is a great deal of nuance in the modesty issue--and the way it's being taught in a lot of wards and classes--that we miss by zoning in on this one aspect of the teaching. Can that aspect be taught better? Yes. Absolutely. But the discussion is not talking about how to do better.
Once again, I don't get the idea that the people involved in this have any respect for men or the reality of male-ness, even while they are demanding that men comprehend and respect women and female-ness. They seem to assume that the male experience of mortality is identical to the female experience (or ought to be), and if it isn't, the men are just plain stupid and choosing to be male. (It's the female version of the male disdain for women's emotionalism.)
So, now I take a breath, and then...
to the real issue I have.
I can't stand to read this stuff any more. I'm tired of hearing that God obviously is inept unless his wife is holding his hand (so clearly when we read the word 'god' we're reading about a calling held jointly by a man and his wife). Tired of hearing that the church is run by stuffy old men who just don't get it. Tired of hearing that women need the priesthood because the men can't handle it. Or that women don't need the priesthood per se but just want to be allowed to have those callings. Tired of hearing that if women were in charge of the church, nobody would ever get offended (hahaha! really?). Tired of hearing this weird revisionist view of history that isn't backed up by the evidence when it's all fully considered. Tired of hearing that if you look at the role of the Holy Ghost, it becomes clear that the Holy Ghost is a woman (because apparently these people really believe that men are incapable of teaching, comforting, guiding, being gentle, or understanding people's pain.). Tired of this horrible, cruel disdain for men which they claim they don't have but which their words and ideas reveal. Tired of their power grabs, their insistence that God can do nothing without our permission, tired of reading again and again doctrines that don't make sense when you carry them to their logical conclusions. Tired of people doing deeply offensive things (like ordaining a woman to the priesthood and posting the video on YouTube) to prove some kind of a point. Tired of people saying things like, "I just can't believe..." as if belief is something that happens to you instead of a choice (I don't actually care if they choose not to believe--but presenting it as if there is no choice in the matter bothers me for some reason). Tired of people wresting incredible distortions out of the scriptures when, if they would just read them, they are perfectly clear and make sense (makes me want to ask them to try applying Occam's Razor to the scriptures--perhaps the simplest explanation actually is the right one even if you don't like it?--even though I realize it's the Spirit they should be applying to the scriptures). Tired of hearing people's explanations of what God is going to do in the future because they simply do not understand what He's doing now (and assume, therefore, that God must be wrong instead of entertaining the idea that perhaps we humans are incapable of understanding everything now). And, most of all, tired of these ideas being presented in a way that is not discussion- or faith-oriented, but partisan politicking and demeaning to those who don't agree.
When I hear about the stupid stuff people do--like male BYU law school students refusing to work with female students because "they took a spot meant for a man who will have to support his family" or "it's not righteous to work with women professionally--I might have an affair"--I understand the outrage. I'm totally opposed to stupidity. Totally, categorically opposed to false doctrine being taught in the church, especially to the children and youth and new members. Totally opposed to women being treated as second class citizens, being told to stay with abusive men, being denied blessings because they got divorced from a guy who molested their kids. There are real issues out there that need to be dealt with--and that are getting dealt with. I am absolutely in favor of people standing up for truth and right and goodness and fairness and all of that.
And I'm also in favor of people being nice because we all make mistakes and get to learn slowly. I certainly have made my own share of mistakes--even while teaching--in my life. Like Elder Holland said--God is okay working with imperfect people, so maybe we should be, too.
But I'm tired of the paradigm I'm seeing among smart people all around me. It's a whole lot of eye rolling, and a whole lot of assuming whatever comes out of SLC is wrong and oppressive even before they consider what was said--or even hear all of it. It's a whole lot of looking for the mistakes before you look for the truth. I know how this works--I do it in sacrament meetings any time I haven't slept enough and go to church anyway. I just have these glasses on that say 'it's all lies, everyone is stupid, and they're going to teach false doctrine'--and so that's what I see. More than once I've started dissecting a quote to show how absolutely stupid it is before it's even done, and then I discover it was Joseph Smith or President Hinckley who said it, and I have to go back and reconsider--perhaps I should have listened first?
It's that paradigm--that set of glasses, so to speak--that I'm most tired of. And I can't write a rebuttal argument to every thing people say that I think is misguided or too limited or from that paradigm. I'm not even sure I should. It might just add to the partisanship that this sister suggests is a problem: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2013/05/put-your-mormon-where-your-mouth-is-gender-sexuality-and-the-second-great-commandment/.
It doesn't mean I won't try again. Somehow, I get caught up in it all.
But from now on, if I know beforehand that an article was published on certain websites, I'm going to skip it. Even if it's hard for me to put my finger right on, I just can't take any more of that attitude.
Anyway, this one issue I kept trying to Not Write About, but I can't let it go, so I'm going to write about it.
The latest "in" complaint coming from certain segments of the population is to condemn the church for "the way they teach modesty." And this, apparently consists entirely and exclusively of teaching girls (only--not boys) that they have to cover their bodies so that boys don't have bad thoughts, and that there are arbitrary lines drawn on our bodies and crossing those lines is being immodest. What's wrong with these teachings, according to those who are complaining? They say that boys should take responsibility for their thoughts--if they see a girl and have bad thoughts, it's their own fault; and that arbitrary lines lead people to judge and condemn others unfairly--especially children--and that is bullying and not a good idea; and, finally, that teaching girls to cover their bodies introduces them to sexuality far too early and trains them to see themselves as sexual objects rather than people.
As usual, I don't disagree with everything they are saying.
But the whole thing really grates on me. I don't even know where to start, there's so much here that's close but not quite right.
First of all, while I have heard both arbitrary lines and dress so boys don't have bad thoughts in church, I've never heard them taught as canon. It's a mistake to assume that because culturally in Utah those things are taught or presented in a particular way, that it's endorsed by--or dictated by--"the church." Everything in the church is done by lay teachers. What they say, they heard before more often than not. When they teach stupid or false things, like "chocolate is against the word of wisdom" or "you can't feel the Spirit in a messy house" or "If you show your upper arms, that's immodest," it should be pointed out--in an appropriate way--that those things are not doctrine. It should not be assumed that every word that slips out of someone's mouth in a meeting is 'the way the Church teaches_______'. It might be the way people in the church have taught whatever it is, but it's likely not The Church. I hear people say (and, quite frankly, I have said) well-intentioned but flawed (and sometimes outright dumb) things in church all the time--ever hear someone say that Alma compared faith to a seed? Yeah--he never said that. It doesn't mean the church as a whole is teaching faith wrong, even if there are pervasive errors that get repeated often.
Not only do I take issue with the "how the church teaches" part, I also take issue with the "teaches modesty" part. Personally, I find their definition of 'how modesty is taught in church' to be a gross oversimplification.
For example, boys are taught modesty, too. My husband and brothers assure me of this. And, they have informed me, never are boys told that it's the girls' fault if they have bad thoughts. They are taught that they are responsible for themselves and shouldn't indulge in sin and blame it on other people. They are also taught that they are human and are wired to notice women's bodies, and taught to not dwell on the bad thoughts that come. And, if I'm not mistaken, they are taught to respect girls as daughters of God, not treat them as fresh meat, even if the girls act like it.
When I was a teenager, looking at boys' bodies did nothing to me. Nothing. I was totally clueless that boys seeing my body might possibly do anything to them. Informing innocent girls that what they wear can have an effect on boys is not giving the girls responsibility for the boys' thoughts. Actually, it is the boys own fault if they dwell on bad thoughts or stare at half-naked girls, but seeing half-naked girls in the pews is going to give any hormonal teenage boy trouble focusing on the sacrament. Sure, the idea shouldn't be the entirety of modesty teaching, and it's not the girls' fault if the boys are staring, but it's fair to warn the girls that when boys see their cleavage, there's a good chance the boys are not thinking about what the girls are saying. It is not fair to give girls responsibility for the boys' righteousness or lack thereof, but it's fair to warn them that boys are different from girls, and there might be things going on that they hadn't considered. And yes, there are girls that are _that_ innocent in church. Keeping boys' thoughts clean is not the reason we girls should choose modesty (I agree that that is a dumb way of teaching it--but I've never once heard it taught that way). But mentioning men and women are different and that we should treat each other with respect--including not egging on the boys, trying to manipulate or exert control over them using sexuality, "teasing" them with immodest dress or behavior, or trying to get them to think of women as sex objects or body parts on purpose--is a fair thing to teach, just like teaching the men to focus on a girl's face and ideas and be sensitive to her emotions is a fair thing to teach.
As for the arbitrary lines, thing...well, God has drawn arbitrary lines for temple-going adults, so I have a hard time saying all arbitrary lines are bad. I do think that where the lines are taught for children should be up to the parents and kids to draw, not necessarily the teachers, but it's hard to argue that women should be allowed to wear anything at any time and that's okay because God made it clear that He prefers we cover our bodies--men and women--and he drew lines.
And if children are judging and bullying based on someone not 'being modest' according to these arbitrary lines, perhaps the right answer is not to abolish the lines, but teach the children to have charity. We don't throw out the standards to avoid offending people--we still say tobacco is against the Word of Wisdom, for example, even when that is sometimes very awkward, especially outside of Utah--but it is not our place to judge other people based on our own standards or the church's, and, in fact the Church has repeatedly asked us not to try to force others to follow our personal standards.
And, finally, I have never met a little girl who, introduced to the idea that her body is a special gift from Heavenly Father and it's good to keep it protected and covered modestly, immediately thinks about sex. Seriously. If their parents are teaching them about their bodies and modesty in a sexualized way, the parents have a problem, not the church. Also, we do have bodies. While I am so very, very opposed to all the body-hate garbage out there, and I think the things little girls learn from the media and their friends about their bodies are justification all by themselves for getting rid of all media and homeschooling, I don't think it's fair to say to women, "you exist entirely in your own mind. Your body is nothing." Our bodies are part of us. Teaching girls to take good care of that part and treat it like the sacred gift it is is not a bad or sexualizing thing. That doesn't turn us into objects. Modesty is about so much more than maintaining sexual purity and clean thoughts, and I never once heard it taught otherwise.
So, with all of that, there are a few more things that bother me about the discussion. One is that the women who are talking about this stuff are not giving a positive alternative. I keep watching for it, and I have seen here and there hints of it, but most of them instead of saying, 'fix this problem--here's one way to do it' seem to be saying, 'You're destroying people by teaching modesty. Stop teaching it.' As if church should be a slut walk, where we can wear anything we want and insist that people respect us anyway. (If you haven't heard of a slut walk, it's a parade of women dressed as prostitutes to drive home the point that dressing immodestly is not an invitation for sexual harassment, abuse, or rape.) The women who are going around spouting all this stuff do not seem to be in favor of teaching modesty at all. I might be wrong about that, but if so, they should watch how they are presenting themselves and make it more clear.
Modesty is an important thing to teach.
For one thing, how we dress influences our feelings about ourselves. If we dress sexy and slutty, we are more likely to feel and therefore act immodestly (yes, most of the people in the church that I know do actually comprehend that immodesty reaches far beyond simply hemlines and how tight a shirt is). And that will affect our choices and how we feel about ourselves. The biggest danger is not the media or our peers objectifying us because of how we look--the danger is we, ourselves, objectifying us. And modest dressing actually helps us not treat ourselves as though our only value is as a warm, sexy body. It can help us see ourselves as children of God, and to feel like that.
Also, as much as everyone is opposed to everyone judging each other based on what we wear, it does happen. Why do you think they ask missionaries to wear business clothing? Or have everyone wear essentially the same thing in the temple? What we have on and what we see others wearing affects our vision. And, in fact, it can help protect our teenagers and children if they are able to identify what is modest (behavior and clothing) because what other people wear gives us a hint about the kind of person we're interacting with. Why else would gang members wear similar clothing? While it's wrong to condemn, judge, and bully people for their clothing choices, it's also a quick indicator of what kind of person we're looking at--are they someone we should get to know better, or are they someone likely to get us into trouble?
And it's important for people to know that other people are looking at them and making snap judgments based on their appearance. Whether that is right or wrong, it's real. And the guys in school looking for good, intellectual conversation are going to pick out different girls from the crowd than the guys looking to get laid--primarily, initially, by a girls' appearance. So if a girl or guy wants to be taken seriously, it behooves her or him to dress modestly, whether or not she or he thinks it's a good idea to judge people by their appearance instead of their insides. If a girl wants to attract the right kinds of friends, she has to choose to cover her body more because the right kinds of friends are doing likewise. You cannot dress like a slut and attract a nice, righteous boyfriend, even if you try to feel and act modestly in your immodest clothes (which is harder than feeling and acting modestly in modest clothing).
I realize people are opposed to this--they want all people to be judged by their hearts and minds. But we can't see people's hearts and minds, so we tend to judge by what we do see. Our clothes and appearance are an advertisement for our hearts and minds, and I can't see that any amount of counter programming is going to change that. Having a slut walk is not an effective way of getting people to take women seriously. So while we teach our kids to not judge, we also have to teach them to judge and be judged. It's totally unfair, but totally real.
The clothes might not make the man, but they do influence how he feels about himself and others, and how others feel about him, what they expect from him, etc.
There is a great deal of nuance in the modesty issue--and the way it's being taught in a lot of wards and classes--that we miss by zoning in on this one aspect of the teaching. Can that aspect be taught better? Yes. Absolutely. But the discussion is not talking about how to do better.
Once again, I don't get the idea that the people involved in this have any respect for men or the reality of male-ness, even while they are demanding that men comprehend and respect women and female-ness. They seem to assume that the male experience of mortality is identical to the female experience (or ought to be), and if it isn't, the men are just plain stupid and choosing to be male. (It's the female version of the male disdain for women's emotionalism.)
So, now I take a breath, and then...
to the real issue I have.
I can't stand to read this stuff any more. I'm tired of hearing that God obviously is inept unless his wife is holding his hand (so clearly when we read the word 'god' we're reading about a calling held jointly by a man and his wife). Tired of hearing that the church is run by stuffy old men who just don't get it. Tired of hearing that women need the priesthood because the men can't handle it. Or that women don't need the priesthood per se but just want to be allowed to have those callings. Tired of hearing that if women were in charge of the church, nobody would ever get offended (hahaha! really?). Tired of hearing this weird revisionist view of history that isn't backed up by the evidence when it's all fully considered. Tired of hearing that if you look at the role of the Holy Ghost, it becomes clear that the Holy Ghost is a woman (because apparently these people really believe that men are incapable of teaching, comforting, guiding, being gentle, or understanding people's pain.). Tired of this horrible, cruel disdain for men which they claim they don't have but which their words and ideas reveal. Tired of their power grabs, their insistence that God can do nothing without our permission, tired of reading again and again doctrines that don't make sense when you carry them to their logical conclusions. Tired of people doing deeply offensive things (like ordaining a woman to the priesthood and posting the video on YouTube) to prove some kind of a point. Tired of people saying things like, "I just can't believe..." as if belief is something that happens to you instead of a choice (I don't actually care if they choose not to believe--but presenting it as if there is no choice in the matter bothers me for some reason). Tired of people wresting incredible distortions out of the scriptures when, if they would just read them, they are perfectly clear and make sense (makes me want to ask them to try applying Occam's Razor to the scriptures--perhaps the simplest explanation actually is the right one even if you don't like it?--even though I realize it's the Spirit they should be applying to the scriptures). Tired of hearing people's explanations of what God is going to do in the future because they simply do not understand what He's doing now (and assume, therefore, that God must be wrong instead of entertaining the idea that perhaps we humans are incapable of understanding everything now). And, most of all, tired of these ideas being presented in a way that is not discussion- or faith-oriented, but partisan politicking and demeaning to those who don't agree.
When I hear about the stupid stuff people do--like male BYU law school students refusing to work with female students because "they took a spot meant for a man who will have to support his family" or "it's not righteous to work with women professionally--I might have an affair"--I understand the outrage. I'm totally opposed to stupidity. Totally, categorically opposed to false doctrine being taught in the church, especially to the children and youth and new members. Totally opposed to women being treated as second class citizens, being told to stay with abusive men, being denied blessings because they got divorced from a guy who molested their kids. There are real issues out there that need to be dealt with--and that are getting dealt with. I am absolutely in favor of people standing up for truth and right and goodness and fairness and all of that.
And I'm also in favor of people being nice because we all make mistakes and get to learn slowly. I certainly have made my own share of mistakes--even while teaching--in my life. Like Elder Holland said--God is okay working with imperfect people, so maybe we should be, too.
But I'm tired of the paradigm I'm seeing among smart people all around me. It's a whole lot of eye rolling, and a whole lot of assuming whatever comes out of SLC is wrong and oppressive even before they consider what was said--or even hear all of it. It's a whole lot of looking for the mistakes before you look for the truth. I know how this works--I do it in sacrament meetings any time I haven't slept enough and go to church anyway. I just have these glasses on that say 'it's all lies, everyone is stupid, and they're going to teach false doctrine'--and so that's what I see. More than once I've started dissecting a quote to show how absolutely stupid it is before it's even done, and then I discover it was Joseph Smith or President Hinckley who said it, and I have to go back and reconsider--perhaps I should have listened first?
It's that paradigm--that set of glasses, so to speak--that I'm most tired of. And I can't write a rebuttal argument to every thing people say that I think is misguided or too limited or from that paradigm. I'm not even sure I should. It might just add to the partisanship that this sister suggests is a problem: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peculiarpeople/2013/05/put-your-mormon-where-your-mouth-is-gender-sexuality-and-the-second-great-commandment/.
It doesn't mean I won't try again. Somehow, I get caught up in it all.
But from now on, if I know beforehand that an article was published on certain websites, I'm going to skip it. Even if it's hard for me to put my finger right on, I just can't take any more of that attitude.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Mother's Day
For a week, I've been wanting to write a post about mothers for Mother's Day.
I thought of finding all those pinterest pictures people collect that they confuse with motherhood, but really aren't motherhood. You know the ones--home decorating, food decorating, kid decorating, yard decorating, birthday decorating, card decorating, scrapbook decorating....It's as if people have confused showing other people that you raise kids with actually raising kids.
I can't think of anything to say that I haven't already said, though. So you can just read it from before.
This one: http://beccajones.blogspot.com/2013/01/pondering-motherhood.html and this one: http://beccajones.blogspot.com/2010/05/perfect-moms.html
Have a great Mother's Day!
I thought of finding all those pinterest pictures people collect that they confuse with motherhood, but really aren't motherhood. You know the ones--home decorating, food decorating, kid decorating, yard decorating, birthday decorating, card decorating, scrapbook decorating....It's as if people have confused showing other people that you raise kids with actually raising kids.
I can't think of anything to say that I haven't already said, though. So you can just read it from before.
This one: http://beccajones.blogspot.com/2013/01/pondering-motherhood.html and this one: http://beccajones.blogspot.com/2010/05/perfect-moms.html
Have a great Mother's Day!
Thursday, May 02, 2013
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Did I just read that?
Headline on Foxnews.com: "Disney parks to stay open 24 hours this summer" http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2013/04/26/disney-to-kick-off-summer-by-keeping-3-theme-parks-open-24-hours-on-may-24-in/?intcmp=features#ixzz2ReUPeb9d
24 hours in a block? or on 24 different days? I guess the lines will be REALLY long for those 24 hours, since the rest of the summer it sounds like they'll be closed?
24 hours in a block? or on 24 different days? I guess the lines will be REALLY long for those 24 hours, since the rest of the summer it sounds like they'll be closed?
Did I just read that?
"your hunger can dramatically increase as sleep depravation can offset your blood sugar." http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/04/25/3-zero-calorie-foods-that-could-keep-from-losing-weight/?intcmp=obnetwork#ixzz2ReT1to5n
My sleep is depraved.....
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Did I just read that?
"Among the speakers in Cambridge, just outside Boston, was Vice President Joe Biden, who condemned the bombing suspects as “two twisted, perverted, cowardly, knockoff jihadis.”" http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130424/WORLD/130429501/1002
Which implies that the "real' jihadis are not twisted, perverted, or cowardly. Nice one, Joe.
Which implies that the "real' jihadis are not twisted, perverted, or cowardly. Nice one, Joe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)