This video about marriage has been making the rounds.
I'm posting it here, in case anyone wants to discuss it with me...
(For a few of my own thoughts on love and marriage, check out "Modern Marriage," and "Gritting My Teeth..." or browse through the "Confessions" tab at the top of the page.)
Friday, January 27, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
I Skimmed It
I volunteer in a pregnancy center, which--like most medical establishments--handles a lot of paperwork. One of the very first things I ask clients is whether they had a chance to read and sign the liability release.
The release includes information such as "we report cases of rape to authorities" and "you should consult your primary physician regarding major medical decisions," written in elaborate legalize and taking up half a page in very small font. It's a lot to get through, I know. So it's not surprising most women tell me:
"Well, I skimmed it."
All of us do it. When we're downloading software, we skim the licensing agreement before checking the "accept" box and moving on. We skim our Facebook newsfeed for information about people we're stalking--ignoring ads, game requests, etc.
In the store, we "browse."
Using the radio, we "seek."
With TV and the web, we "surf."
We've gotten adept at receiving, judging, and discarding information in a matter of seconds. Considering all the forms, contracts, and status updates thrown at us, this isn't always bad. It's a survival mechanism.
But I wonder, amidst all that skimming, when was the last time you really digested something?
----
We've heard warning of society's waning attention span, and more than one writer has explored the topic. (After all, the writer's product suffers most when audiences prefer images and bumper-stickers rather than tackling a bulky article.) I, too, worry that people will ignore what I have to say because I rarely express myself in 200 characters or less.
But--putting aside that bias as much as possible--the subject is dear to my heart because I strongly believe Truth requires studying... consideration... meditation... And, to find a piece of truth, we must slow down and think about what we're reading or hearing for more than a second!
----
In a post about the time Joy Behar refused to let Joel Osteen defend his stance against homosexuality, I suggested she simply didn't have the time to go back-and-forth in a fair manner. When we discuss things with friends, we can listen better than someone trying to entertain viewers with a half-hour show. I said: "[Finding] truth may require extra digging and can't be rushed...truth isn't sound-bite friendly....it doesn't fit nicely between commercial breaks."
It'd be great if we could make all of our points with a single, clever line; but this doesn't always work.
For this reason, I get frustrated with those digital posters being shared like crazy on Pinterest and Facebook. You know, the ones intended to be inspirational? (Although I'd bet many creators spend more time picking fonts and backgrounds than considering the message of the quote...) Occasionally, these "sound bites" of wisdom do offer good advice. But, if we stopped to unpack them--maybe wrote a responsive essay, using plain old Times New Roman--we might find they aren't wise at all.
Here are some examples:
I'm not going to write the responsive critique I mentioned above. I only want to say: be wary when trying to summarize truth in a sentence. Jesus didn't say, "You'll find me if you search for 'quotes' on Google." :)
----
Full disclosure: the inspiration for this particular post comes from suggestions from several readers (including my husband) that I make future posts shorter. But I don't mean to sound like I'm angry at those who don't want to climb through my wordiness. Anyone who gets worn out trying to follow my thought processes has every right to stop reading. That's perfectly okay, really! (Unlike those people who keep reading and reading, then complain to me about how offensive I am. To them, I wrote the post "If You Don't Like My Teaching...")
But, I'm encouraging everyone to read something challenging each day--on this blog or another site--and practice critical thinking as often as possible. Consider the thing you read, whether it's 10 words or 10,000, And find a way to learn something from it.
My long blogs result directly from my learning process, and it takes me awhile to unpack the truth (or the lie) of a particular topic. I like to think of problems from every angle. I compare and contrast. I write to get all the nagging, swarming thoughts out of my head, coming from the reading I do. And I totally understand if you don't want to read those thoughts when they ramble.
But, please, take some time to work through the things you see each day...
If we resort to skimming everything, never reading...unpacking...chewing...we risk settling for the bumper-sticker version of truth.
The release includes information such as "we report cases of rape to authorities" and "you should consult your primary physician regarding major medical decisions," written in elaborate legalize and taking up half a page in very small font. It's a lot to get through, I know. So it's not surprising most women tell me:
"Well, I skimmed it."
All of us do it. When we're downloading software, we skim the licensing agreement before checking the "accept" box and moving on. We skim our Facebook newsfeed for information about people we're stalking--ignoring ads, game requests, etc.
In the store, we "browse."
Using the radio, we "seek."
With TV and the web, we "surf."
We've gotten adept at receiving, judging, and discarding information in a matter of seconds. Considering all the forms, contracts, and status updates thrown at us, this isn't always bad. It's a survival mechanism.
But I wonder, amidst all that skimming, when was the last time you really digested something?
----
We've heard warning of society's waning attention span, and more than one writer has explored the topic. (After all, the writer's product suffers most when audiences prefer images and bumper-stickers rather than tackling a bulky article.) I, too, worry that people will ignore what I have to say because I rarely express myself in 200 characters or less.
But--putting aside that bias as much as possible--the subject is dear to my heart because I strongly believe Truth requires studying... consideration... meditation... And, to find a piece of truth, we must slow down and think about what we're reading or hearing for more than a second!
----
In a post about the time Joy Behar refused to let Joel Osteen defend his stance against homosexuality, I suggested she simply didn't have the time to go back-and-forth in a fair manner. When we discuss things with friends, we can listen better than someone trying to entertain viewers with a half-hour show. I said: "[Finding] truth may require extra digging and can't be rushed...truth isn't sound-bite friendly....it doesn't fit nicely between commercial breaks."
It'd be great if we could make all of our points with a single, clever line; but this doesn't always work.
For this reason, I get frustrated with those digital posters being shared like crazy on Pinterest and Facebook. You know, the ones intended to be inspirational? (Although I'd bet many creators spend more time picking fonts and backgrounds than considering the message of the quote...) Occasionally, these "sound bites" of wisdom do offer good advice. But, if we stopped to unpack them--maybe wrote a responsive essay, using plain old Times New Roman--we might find they aren't wise at all.
Here are some examples:
----
Full disclosure: the inspiration for this particular post comes from suggestions from several readers (including my husband) that I make future posts shorter. But I don't mean to sound like I'm angry at those who don't want to climb through my wordiness. Anyone who gets worn out trying to follow my thought processes has every right to stop reading. That's perfectly okay, really! (Unlike those people who keep reading and reading, then complain to me about how offensive I am. To them, I wrote the post "If You Don't Like My Teaching...")
But, I'm encouraging everyone to read something challenging each day--on this blog or another site--and practice critical thinking as often as possible. Consider the thing you read, whether it's 10 words or 10,000, And find a way to learn something from it.
My long blogs result directly from my learning process, and it takes me awhile to unpack the truth (or the lie) of a particular topic. I like to think of problems from every angle. I compare and contrast. I write to get all the nagging, swarming thoughts out of my head, coming from the reading I do. And I totally understand if you don't want to read those thoughts when they ramble.
But, please, take some time to work through the things you see each day...
If we resort to skimming everything, never reading...unpacking...chewing...we risk settling for the bumper-sticker version of truth.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Moralistic Therapeutic Deism
Please read this article, and tell me if you agree or disagree that many of today's young adults subscribe to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism:"
"[The study showed] most religious teens in the U.S. had very little appreciation or regard for the theological and doctrinal particulars of their own religious traditions but did believe that God exists, loves them, wants them to follow the Golden Rule, and comforts them in the midst of the emotional ups and downs of adolescence... [They believe] all religious traditions are functionally equivalent, and that they provide spiritual succor, moral guidance, and emotional support in about equal measures."
"...a majority of the 30 percent of this cohort of emerging adults who are regular churchgoers are “selective adherents” who “believe and perform certain aspects of their religious traditions but neglect and ignore others.” ...When it comes to religion, this seems to be a generation of lukewarm believers."
Be sure to read the author's theory regarding why this trend occurs...
-----
Rather than writing a lengthy response of my own, I'd like to borrow a few quotes from commenters at the bottom of the linked article.
20-Something Wrote:
"As a member of what would be considered the "Emerging Adult" group, I must say Christian Smith is right on. . .and totally wrong. I agree with him on the fact that a large portion of adolescents and emerging adults ascribe to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism." I would, however, like to add that this is not a generation-specific phenomenon. Church goers of all ages have begun to adapt and edit the more traditional views of Christianity to accommodate their chosen lifestyles. As for those who fall into the adolescent category...in my opinion we are suffering the consequences of the sensationalism of churches in the 80's and 90's. (i.e. more show than substance). Things will turn around as soon as churches start preaching the unapologetic gospel again."
Julian Wrote:
"...Youth these days...are as ignorant about religion as they are about almost everything else except their particular line of specialty and pop culture. America has always had a pragmatic bent, but anti-intellectualism has reached its zenith under the modern image-based media domination... You cannot expect them to love and follow something they do not know. The Death of reading--serious intellectual reading--has profound consequences for society. The only real opportunity to get views other then the liberal and atheistic weltanschauung of the media and other elites, is to read, from every age, from every category, from everywhere. I am in my mid-20s. I find your assessment accurate. Humanity...[may] thrive in the sense of longevity, health, comfort, safety, freedom, and opportunities for work and pleasure. But very few will really live, rise above the constraints of social norms and pop culture, and the gratification of the senses and emotions..."
What do you think?
"[The study showed] most religious teens in the U.S. had very little appreciation or regard for the theological and doctrinal particulars of their own religious traditions but did believe that God exists, loves them, wants them to follow the Golden Rule, and comforts them in the midst of the emotional ups and downs of adolescence... [They believe] all religious traditions are functionally equivalent, and that they provide spiritual succor, moral guidance, and emotional support in about equal measures."
"...a majority of the 30 percent of this cohort of emerging adults who are regular churchgoers are “selective adherents” who “believe and perform certain aspects of their religious traditions but neglect and ignore others.” ...When it comes to religion, this seems to be a generation of lukewarm believers."
Be sure to read the author's theory regarding why this trend occurs...
-----
Rather than writing a lengthy response of my own, I'd like to borrow a few quotes from commenters at the bottom of the linked article.
20-Something Wrote:
"As a member of what would be considered the "Emerging Adult" group, I must say Christian Smith is right on. . .and totally wrong. I agree with him on the fact that a large portion of adolescents and emerging adults ascribe to "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism." I would, however, like to add that this is not a generation-specific phenomenon. Church goers of all ages have begun to adapt and edit the more traditional views of Christianity to accommodate their chosen lifestyles. As for those who fall into the adolescent category...in my opinion we are suffering the consequences of the sensationalism of churches in the 80's and 90's. (i.e. more show than substance). Things will turn around as soon as churches start preaching the unapologetic gospel again."
Julian Wrote:
"...Youth these days...are as ignorant about religion as they are about almost everything else except their particular line of specialty and pop culture. America has always had a pragmatic bent, but anti-intellectualism has reached its zenith under the modern image-based media domination... You cannot expect them to love and follow something they do not know. The Death of reading--serious intellectual reading--has profound consequences for society. The only real opportunity to get views other then the liberal and atheistic weltanschauung of the media and other elites, is to read, from every age, from every category, from everywhere. I am in my mid-20s. I find your assessment accurate. Humanity...[may] thrive in the sense of longevity, health, comfort, safety, freedom, and opportunities for work and pleasure. But very few will really live, rise above the constraints of social norms and pop culture, and the gratification of the senses and emotions..."
What do you think?
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Safe Sex and Comprehensive Education
The only problem I have with the state's version of "sex education" is the use of terms like "safe sex" and "comprehensive education."
#1. All sexual experiences carry risks. The safest form of sex occurs within one, monogamous, life-long relationship, but even married partners are vulnerable, both spiritually and emotionally. (Personally, I think emotional consequences of sex are far scarier than the physical ones.) But, even if you believe humans are nothing but "bodies" and sex is just recreational, don't forget that pills and shots and condoms don't protect us 100%. It worries me that parents feel comfortable their teens are being "safe," because they've learned about "safe sex" in school...
#2. I strongly question the impact of a "comprehensive" course which omits instructions from the Creator of sex.
When I was growing up, I was taught God's command to keep the marriage bed pure, and I heard that self-control was a virtue for all ages. Now, however, parents seem to think their teens are crazy, clueless masses of hormone, at the mercy of their own sex drives. "Young people will experiment with sex, no matter what, so the best we can do is prepare them."
I believe this approach needs serious reconsideration. This attitude, held by parents and teachers alike, makes teen sex "normal." So, although I don't have a problem telling kids about penises, gonnorhea, the NuvaRing, menstruation, Syphilis, and really anything, there is a huge difference between teaching facts "in theory" and expecting kids to use their new information.
I think the situation is similar to a conversation I had with a 6-year-old at the daycare regarding "how to rob an office building."
Boy: What's that flashy light on the wall?
Me: That's the alarm system. It keeps people from coming in here at night when the daycare is closed.
Boy: Why do people want to come here at night?
Me: Most of the time, they want to steal money and computers and telephones.
Boy: Does the light lock the door?
Me: Actually, it calls the police if somebody opens the door or breaks a window.
Boy: (wicked grin*) I would just hit that light with a baseball bat!
Me: Sorry, but that calls the police, too...and then they take the burglars to jail.
(And so, the chat continued until his bus came to pick him up)
I was willing to answer all of his questions, hypothetically. But I wasn't preparing him for a life of breaking-and-entering. In fact, a few minutes into our talk, I told him plainly I would be very disappointed if he ever tried taking something which wasn't his.
That little disclaimer makes all the difference between informing and condoning.
Frankly, I think schools can try whatever version of sex ed they want (and I'll even tolerate the term "comprehensive" despite ignoring the spiritual side of a person's health). But they can NOT tell me those classes are necessary to keep teens "safe," when they go through their "inevitable" sexual experiences. I was a teen who waited until marriage, and I have many friends who did as well. All of our questions were answered about body mechanics, STD's, and contraceptives, but there was an important disclaimer at the end:
----
A couple days ago, I asked my Christian readers, what would make you remove your kids from the public school system? Is the state-version of sex ed a problem for some of you? In my opinion, go ahead and give the kids all the facts they want, but don't normalize teen sex. What do you think?
#1. All sexual experiences carry risks. The safest form of sex occurs within one, monogamous, life-long relationship, but even married partners are vulnerable, both spiritually and emotionally. (Personally, I think emotional consequences of sex are far scarier than the physical ones.) But, even if you believe humans are nothing but "bodies" and sex is just recreational, don't forget that pills and shots and condoms don't protect us 100%. It worries me that parents feel comfortable their teens are being "safe," because they've learned about "safe sex" in school...
#2. I strongly question the impact of a "comprehensive" course which omits instructions from the Creator of sex.
When I was growing up, I was taught God's command to keep the marriage bed pure, and I heard that self-control was a virtue for all ages. Now, however, parents seem to think their teens are crazy, clueless masses of hormone, at the mercy of their own sex drives. "Young people will experiment with sex, no matter what, so the best we can do is prepare them."
I believe this approach needs serious reconsideration. This attitude, held by parents and teachers alike, makes teen sex "normal." So, although I don't have a problem telling kids about penises, gonnorhea, the NuvaRing, menstruation, Syphilis, and really anything, there is a huge difference between teaching facts "in theory" and expecting kids to use their new information.
I think the situation is similar to a conversation I had with a 6-year-old at the daycare regarding "how to rob an office building."
Boy: What's that flashy light on the wall?
Me: That's the alarm system. It keeps people from coming in here at night when the daycare is closed.
Boy: Why do people want to come here at night?
Me: Most of the time, they want to steal money and computers and telephones.
Boy: Does the light lock the door?
Me: Actually, it calls the police if somebody opens the door or breaks a window.
Boy: (wicked grin*) I would just hit that light with a baseball bat!
Me: Sorry, but that calls the police, too...and then they take the burglars to jail.
(And so, the chat continued until his bus came to pick him up)
I was willing to answer all of his questions, hypothetically. But I wasn't preparing him for a life of breaking-and-entering. In fact, a few minutes into our talk, I told him plainly I would be very disappointed if he ever tried taking something which wasn't his.
That little disclaimer makes all the difference between informing and condoning.
Frankly, I think schools can try whatever version of sex ed they want (and I'll even tolerate the term "comprehensive" despite ignoring the spiritual side of a person's health). But they can NOT tell me those classes are necessary to keep teens "safe," when they go through their "inevitable" sexual experiences. I was a teen who waited until marriage, and I have many friends who did as well. All of our questions were answered about body mechanics, STD's, and contraceptives, but there was an important disclaimer at the end:
Understanding all of these things does not mean you're prepared for "safe sex." You are spiritual beings, with a responsibility to control your urges until you find the safety of a marriage relationship. We will be disappointed if you do not wait.
----
A couple days ago, I asked my Christian readers, what would make you remove your kids from the public school system? Is the state-version of sex ed a problem for some of you? In my opinion, go ahead and give the kids all the facts they want, but don't normalize teen sex. What do you think?
Monday, January 16, 2012
Put Your Helmet On
This is, hands down, my favorite Pixar short. It gets me every time!
But, why does it bring out such strong emotions in me and probably a few others? ("Alright, Amanda, how are you going to stretch and twist this, to make it applicable on a blog about service?")
Personally, I think we find this story touching because humans respond at the soul-level to examples of true, stubborn, self-sacrificing love. Whether we're consciously aware or not, I think we recognize real love when we see it.
Nobody would have blamed that stork for finding another cloud partner. His farewell letter could have gone like this:
But, why does it bring out such strong emotions in me and probably a few others? ("Alright, Amanda, how are you going to stretch and twist this, to make it applicable on a blog about service?")
Personally, I think we find this story touching because humans respond at the soul-level to examples of true, stubborn, self-sacrificing love. Whether we're consciously aware or not, I think we recognize real love when we see it.
Nobody would have blamed that stork for finding another cloud partner. His farewell letter could have gone like this:
Old friend, it's not you...it's me! You have many great qualities, and I would never ask you to change for anyone, especially me! But, we simply don't work well together. There is another bird out there for you--I'm positive. The two of you will have more in common--he'll really enjoy being bitten by sharks--and then you'll see our separation is for the better. And I will always cherish the good times we had together. Love, Your Ex-Stork.
Can the stork really sign that note with "love?" I'm not so sure. Because 1 Corinthians says "love is patient" and "love never fails." Even more applicably, love "always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres..."
Of course, nobody likes being bitten by sharks. Which means, the next person to attempt a partnership with the thundercloud would encounter the same problems. If some issues need to be addressed eventually, why not work it out with his long-time buddy and avoid the painful break-up all together?
Let's not take this metaphor too far. I'm not suggesting that women (or men) in abusive relationships need to "hope, trust, and persevere" through pain and degradation. It isn't "selfish" to protect your life. Perhaps some people watch Pixar's "Partly Cloudy," and see a poor, co-dependent stork who can't get away from a terrible relationship, even after years of mistreatment. I could see the parallel.
But I don't see an evil or willfully-abusive cloud. I see the kind of pain and difficulty which come part and parcel to every close relationship in the world. For me, the story represents an elderly man, who feeds and clothes his wife long after Alzheimer's claims her mind, because he promised to love her until death. That's painful...but sometimes love is. Or, the stork could symbolize a mother, willing to sacrifice body and soundness of mind just to remain close to her child.
We're willing to take a lot of "abuse" from our kids. Being a parent hurts. But, out of love, we just put our helmets on, and go back for more.
My favorite part of the movie is when the helmet-clad stork puts his arms straight out and makes the "bring it on" motion with the tip of his wings. That 's love. And I believe we should have the same attitude of perseverance in all of our relationships. On-going abuse should not be tolerated. But understand: it hurts to be selfless.
----
Personally, I think the stork has every right to demand counseling with the cloud and ask, "Darling, is there any way you can give me something a little easier to work with, now and then?" This idea we shouldn't ask someone to change is absurd. We all can understand why the stork would appreciate a furry puppy or duckling once in a while. But, my point is, whether we feel our friends or children or spouses are doing their best to make our relationship work, we should display an attitude of love.
Sometimes, in love, you have to put on your helmet and go back for more.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
"Ya Guys Want Some Cookies?"
My mom brought this video to my attention a couple days ago. A 14-year-old named Taylor encourages fellow Girl Scouts to refuse selling cookies (and the rest of the public not to buy them) due to the parent organization's decision to allow transgendered scouts.
I encourage you to watch it very carefully--without allowing yourself to make premature judgements based on the hot-button word "transgender." If you praise or condemn this child without evaluating what she says, you have abandoned logic for emotionalism...
...like this blogger (and his many commenters).
"Taylor’s an idiot, but she’s also just a stupid kid. Her parents are the ones at fault here for raising such a petty, close-minded child."
"Sickening little twerp."
"She’s going to be one hell of a condescending, uptight lay when she’s of age."
"It’s quite transparent at this point that Judeo-Christian morality today is nothing more than an empty exercise in instilling our children with narcissistic personality disorders."
"Just another hater to hate on people. I hope that she gets kicked out of the Girl Scouts for this."
"...'What do YOU personally hope to gain from this?' That’s the question I think all intolerant people should ask themselves before they go on record with their tiny thoughts on YouTube."
Again, I encourage you to watch the video. Then, maybe you can help me understand what Taylor's "tiny," "intolerant," "hateful" thoughts are. She doesn't bring up Judeo-Christian morality. She doesn't even suggest that transgendered kids be "kicked out of Girl Scouts," as done to her.
She just says she contends with the statement, "Girl Scouts is an all-girl institution...without respect for gender." It's inconsistent. And, due to the mixed message, she wants the leaders to specify membership policies which seem to be changing. Taylor argues that admission of boys-who-feel-like-girls complicates Girls Scouts activities--which ought to be apparent to everybody! So, regardless of your feelings toward transgender individuals, we must admit troop dynamics WILL CHANGE, and Taylor wants leadership to address related concerns. We shouldn't be surprised when loyal (money-making) scouts want to be consulted about sudden, far-reaching decisions.
I just can't get over how quickly people play the "hater" card, when somebody says anything other than "transgender kids ought to rule the world." If she isn't singing the praises of the LGBT community, Taylor must be intolerant of them. As a society, we're losing the ability to hear stories with our emotion filters, and--fueled by the brainless mob around us--we trade logic for grotesque labeling and name-calling.
Further, this pack of wolves posted contact information for Taylor's mother (address, email, cell and land phone, Facebook page, everything) so the sweet, thoughtful opinions of the Anti-Taylor mob could be directed in mass, directly to her home.
Ridiculous.
So, what would somebody interested in discussion (rather than silencing opponents) say regarding this cookie-ban story? Here's where I think we should find common ground:
I encourage you to watch it very carefully--without allowing yourself to make premature judgements based on the hot-button word "transgender." If you praise or condemn this child without evaluating what she says, you have abandoned logic for emotionalism...
...like this blogger (and his many commenters).
"Taylor’s an idiot, but she’s also just a stupid kid. Her parents are the ones at fault here for raising such a petty, close-minded child."
"Sickening little twerp."
"She’s going to be one hell of a condescending, uptight lay when she’s of age."
"It’s quite transparent at this point that Judeo-Christian morality today is nothing more than an empty exercise in instilling our children with narcissistic personality disorders."
"Just another hater to hate on people. I hope that she gets kicked out of the Girl Scouts for this."
"...'What do YOU personally hope to gain from this?' That’s the question I think all intolerant people should ask themselves before they go on record with their tiny thoughts on YouTube."
Again, I encourage you to watch the video. Then, maybe you can help me understand what Taylor's "tiny," "intolerant," "hateful" thoughts are. She doesn't bring up Judeo-Christian morality. She doesn't even suggest that transgendered kids be "kicked out of Girl Scouts," as done to her.
She just says she contends with the statement, "Girl Scouts is an all-girl institution...without respect for gender." It's inconsistent. And, due to the mixed message, she wants the leaders to specify membership policies which seem to be changing. Taylor argues that admission of boys-who-feel-like-girls complicates Girls Scouts activities--which ought to be apparent to everybody! So, regardless of your feelings toward transgender individuals, we must admit troop dynamics WILL CHANGE, and Taylor wants leadership to address related concerns. We shouldn't be surprised when loyal (money-making) scouts want to be consulted about sudden, far-reaching decisions.
I just can't get over how quickly people play the "hater" card, when somebody says anything other than "transgender kids ought to rule the world." If she isn't singing the praises of the LGBT community, Taylor must be intolerant of them. As a society, we're losing the ability to hear stories with our emotion filters, and--fueled by the brainless mob around us--we trade logic for grotesque labeling and name-calling.
Further, this pack of wolves posted contact information for Taylor's mother (address, email, cell and land phone, Facebook page, everything) so the sweet, thoughtful opinions of the Anti-Taylor mob could be directed in mass, directly to her home.
Ridiculous.
So, what would somebody interested in discussion (rather than silencing opponents) say regarding this cookie-ban story? Here's where I think we should find common ground:
You can't question somebody's actions without examining their beliefs and getting involved in a whole-worldview debate. Unfortunately, it's easier to just throw mud and call names.
We probably will never know whether GSUSA was trying to deceive or sneak past their loyal members by admitting transgendered scouts without advanced notice. But, regardless, any shift they make toward political correctness (in favor of the GLBT group) is a shift away from traditional values. And this puts everybody's personal values at the center of a zero-sum game.
Somebody is going to have to sacrifice here.
Those who agree gender is a choice will approve of the policy-change completely. But I think many traditional-valued scouts will end up leaving all together. In fact, it's possible Girl Scouts of America will need to change its name to Transgendered Scouts of America eventually. My point is, if GSUSA allies with transgendered kids and allows boys-who-feel-like-girls into their troops, then the girls-who-only-want-to-camp-with-other-girls are going to leave.
None of that is a "problem," per se....until somebody tries to scold the traditional girls for boycotting, dropping-out, or generally disapproving of the new GSUSA policy. Again, we cannot evaluate an action without examining the merits of that persons individual beliefs. So, telling her to stop hating is too easy. Calling her 'bigot' skips too many important steps: namely discussing how she defines "girl" and why.
None of that is a "problem," per se....until somebody tries to scold the traditional girls for boycotting, dropping-out, or generally disapproving of the new GSUSA policy. Again, we cannot evaluate an action without examining the merits of that persons individual beliefs. So, telling her to stop hating is too easy. Calling her 'bigot' skips too many important steps: namely discussing how she defines "girl" and why.
GSUSA's actions stem from the organization's belief that boyhood and girlhood have nothing to do with anatomy (or Divine will). Taylor's action of boycotting cookie-sales stems from her belief that girls have two X chromosomes, and God made no mistakes when he arranged it that way.
Anyone wishing to debate must spend time researching more than just "how to spell intolerant."
Anyone wishing to debate must spend time researching more than just "how to spell intolerant."
----
Part 2: Questions for Parents and Future Parents
Turns out, I was correct about traditional-valued Girl Scouts slowly dropping out. Read this article about the American Heritage Girls, and tell me what you think.
I like the idea of an organization which shares my emphasis on faith. But, is it wise for Christians to "surrender" and start our own cliques instead? Where is your line between protecting your kids from indoctrination and helping them become lights to the world? Finally, for those of you who want your kids to be exposed to other beliefs: do you have a "last straw," which would make you remove your kids from secular programs?
Friday, January 13, 2012
Cheerio!
If you watch a commercial for Old Navy performance gear, you may start believing that their Performance fleece sweatpants will make you look exactly like the model. Ads for shoes try to convince you that running will somehow be fun, if you have the right foot-wear. And I can't watch people twirling their pasta on a TV set designed to look like Olive Garden without thinking I need cheesy, saucy noodles right away. That's the way all businesses try to present their product: as can't-live-without necessities, so you'll want to spend your money with them.
My daughter started eating Cheerios a few weeks ago, and I noticed they dissolve faster than the off-brand. But that's not the selling-point General Mills is using. Years ago, they played to the consumer's nostalgic feelings toward Cheerios (think of the commercial featuring the grandmother, feeding cheerios to her toddler grandson and talking about bringing the family together for Christmas). Now, the marketing department uses the "It's good for you!" line. And, anyone who didn't realize the producers are just a little biased might believe people who don't eat heart-healthy, whole-grain Cheerios will die of a coronary blockage.
But, what if the commercials weren't convincing enough people to buy the cereal...so General Mills decided to fire employees who didn't buy a box of Cheerios every week? Does that seems reasonable?...
Employee #1: That's fine! I buy at least two boxes every week, anyway! I love the heart-healthy, family-friendly Cheerios brand!
Employee #2: Um...I really prefer the cheaper Tasty-O's brand.
General Mills: Well, you can still buy Tasty-O's if you want, but we're going to take about $2.00 out of your paycheck every week, to purchase a box of Cheerios. It's important for our job security that you support the company cereal!
Employee #2: Yeah, but if it's a good product, then people like Employee #1 will keep buying it. Why do I have to?
General Mills: Well, it's a great product. It's not too sweet. It's made with natural ingredients. And, it may lower your cholesterol! I really think you'll be glad when you have it in your pantry.
Employee #2: I appreciate the concern for my heart but...I really don't want the Cheerios. And I don't like the idea of my boss taking money away from me to pay for something I don't want.
Employee #1: Let me tell you something. My great-grandfather came across the ocean to America with a vision...he wanted to provide for his family with the sweat of his brow and his own two hands. And do you know what he was eating while he sailed? Cheerios. I'm fearful when I imagine an America without Cheerios.
Employee #2: You're not touching my paycheck.
General Mills: You have no regard for your coworkers or for this company. If you won't buy our cereal every week, then you're fired.
-----
...If employees can't decide what to do with their own money, then a bit of freedom is lost. Slowly, bit by bit, we allow certain groups to tell others what to buy. Why is this okay?
Regardless of how anybody tries to spin it, the Right-To-Work bill makes it illegal for an organization to fire an employee who refuses to pay union dues. If the employee doesn't want union representation for one reason or another, can we make them buy it?
I have many public-employee friends from whom I've tried to get an answer to this question, but the only thing I've gotten is long-winded emotional responses about how necessary unions are--and how America's middle class will collapse if employees stop funding unions. I'm extremely interested in rational dialog, but it feels like I'm being fed T-shirt slogans coming straight from General Mills--er, I mean union bosses--themselves.
"If you don't buy our product, you'll die of a coronary blockage." That's the tragedy most businesses try to present, in order to keep their consumers loyal. But, ultimately, it's still the customer's choice. Even if the support of a union is THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD for a worker....even if a teacher or librarian or policeman literally would lose all health coverage, the whole retirement fund, his or her house, and everything without union help: is it our job to make them pay for something we know they need, if they don't want it?
---
I realize employees who like their union are worried there won't be enough funding unless they require other employees to pitch in. In fact, I imagine the Right-To-Work law probably would deal a lethal blow to unions, due to much less funding. (This is because many workers find their product isn't the can't-live-without-necessity their bosses claim.)
But, are union-members willing to give up the right to refuse purchases, just to "ensure" they keep their health benefits? Am I willing to make other moms buy Cheerios, just so I know the cereal will be on the shelf next time I go to the store? It reminds me of the statement by oft-quoted Benjamin Franklin: "They who will give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I'm not sure what Ben would say about those willing to give up their neighbor's liberty. In keeping with the theme of this blog, that seems a little....(prepare for impact) selfish.
As for me, having heard the level-headed arguments from people like Peter Heck, Governor Mitch Daniels, and many teacher friends, I've decided the emotionalism-disguised-as-arguments from critics of Right-to-Work don't stand.
The only issue is: should workers have to pay for a union they don't want?
If the answer is "no," and workers choose to withdraw payments, and this results in the disbanding of unions, well then...
Cheerio!
My daughter started eating Cheerios a few weeks ago, and I noticed they dissolve faster than the off-brand. But that's not the selling-point General Mills is using. Years ago, they played to the consumer's nostalgic feelings toward Cheerios (think of the commercial featuring the grandmother, feeding cheerios to her toddler grandson and talking about bringing the family together for Christmas). Now, the marketing department uses the "It's good for you!" line. And, anyone who didn't realize the producers are just a little biased might believe people who don't eat heart-healthy, whole-grain Cheerios will die of a coronary blockage.
But, what if the commercials weren't convincing enough people to buy the cereal...so General Mills decided to fire employees who didn't buy a box of Cheerios every week? Does that seems reasonable?...
Employee #1: That's fine! I buy at least two boxes every week, anyway! I love the heart-healthy, family-friendly Cheerios brand!
Employee #2: Um...I really prefer the cheaper Tasty-O's brand.
General Mills: Well, you can still buy Tasty-O's if you want, but we're going to take about $2.00 out of your paycheck every week, to purchase a box of Cheerios. It's important for our job security that you support the company cereal!
Employee #2: Yeah, but if it's a good product, then people like Employee #1 will keep buying it. Why do I have to?
General Mills: Well, it's a great product. It's not too sweet. It's made with natural ingredients. And, it may lower your cholesterol! I really think you'll be glad when you have it in your pantry.
Employee #2: I appreciate the concern for my heart but...I really don't want the Cheerios. And I don't like the idea of my boss taking money away from me to pay for something I don't want.
Employee #1: Let me tell you something. My great-grandfather came across the ocean to America with a vision...he wanted to provide for his family with the sweat of his brow and his own two hands. And do you know what he was eating while he sailed? Cheerios. I'm fearful when I imagine an America without Cheerios.
Employee #2: You're not touching my paycheck.
General Mills: You have no regard for your coworkers or for this company. If you won't buy our cereal every week, then you're fired.
-----
...If employees can't decide what to do with their own money, then a bit of freedom is lost. Slowly, bit by bit, we allow certain groups to tell others what to buy. Why is this okay?
Regardless of how anybody tries to spin it, the Right-To-Work bill makes it illegal for an organization to fire an employee who refuses to pay union dues. If the employee doesn't want union representation for one reason or another, can we make them buy it?
I have many public-employee friends from whom I've tried to get an answer to this question, but the only thing I've gotten is long-winded emotional responses about how necessary unions are--and how America's middle class will collapse if employees stop funding unions. I'm extremely interested in rational dialog, but it feels like I'm being fed T-shirt slogans coming straight from General Mills--er, I mean union bosses--themselves.
"If you don't buy our product, you'll die of a coronary blockage." That's the tragedy most businesses try to present, in order to keep their consumers loyal. But, ultimately, it's still the customer's choice. Even if the support of a union is THE BEST THING IN THE WORLD for a worker....even if a teacher or librarian or policeman literally would lose all health coverage, the whole retirement fund, his or her house, and everything without union help: is it our job to make them pay for something we know they need, if they don't want it?
---
I realize employees who like their union are worried there won't be enough funding unless they require other employees to pitch in. In fact, I imagine the Right-To-Work law probably would deal a lethal blow to unions, due to much less funding. (This is because many workers find their product isn't the can't-live-without-necessity their bosses claim.)
But, are union-members willing to give up the right to refuse purchases, just to "ensure" they keep their health benefits? Am I willing to make other moms buy Cheerios, just so I know the cereal will be on the shelf next time I go to the store? It reminds me of the statement by oft-quoted Benjamin Franklin: "They who will give up essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I'm not sure what Ben would say about those willing to give up their neighbor's liberty. In keeping with the theme of this blog, that seems a little....(prepare for impact) selfish.
As for me, having heard the level-headed arguments from people like Peter Heck, Governor Mitch Daniels, and many teacher friends, I've decided the emotionalism-disguised-as-arguments from critics of Right-to-Work don't stand.
The only issue is: should workers have to pay for a union they don't want?
If the answer is "no," and workers choose to withdraw payments, and this results in the disbanding of unions, well then...
Cheerio!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
The Service of Censorship
As a conservative--and a rampant internet user--I'm unimpressed with the current push to regulate and censor online activity.
I believe it's my responsibility not to look at things or listen to things which offend me. I can't control what other people post, and writing laws just whittles away at freedom. But I can control whether I subject myself to things which offend me.
This concept motivated my post, "If You Don't Like My Teaching..." Anyone who stumbles onto my blog, hears my teaching, and finds the material horrendous, needs only to exit my classroom. Nobody is making anyone stick around. The reader's counterpoint to "freedom of speech" is the "freedom to plug his or her ears," so to speak.
Yet, as a Christian, I'm confronted with the responsibility of personal censorship. To an extent, I must guard what I say to others. These two beliefs dance a complicated tango.
Where does my call to "be considerate" "watch your tongue" and "live at peace with everyone" meet the listener’s responsibility to grow thicker skin and ignore things with which they disagree?
---
I think audiences play a huge part in whether we censor or speak freely. For example, with Luke, I use virtually no brain-to-mouth filter. I may tell him, "There is green slime coming from every hole in my face,” whereas, to the cashier at Aldi who asks, “How are you?” I’d simply say, “Fine.” But this, of course, is just social etiquette. It wouldn't be wrong to tell the cashier my sinuses are full of mucous...just awkward. What about when I tell Luke things which would be rude to say in front of others? Is it okay to "rant" or "vent" to a trusted confidant, when popular culture says, "If you wouldn't say it to a person's face, don't say it at all" ?
Before you answer, consider the many audience-specific calculations we make. We tell stories in front of adults we wouldn't share with children. We yell things at other drivers in the winter which we'd repress if the windows were down. And, most interestingly, we censor our choices of humor greatly, depending on who's listening. I had a friend in middle school who HATED the blonde stereotype, so she told blonde-related jokes using “red-head” instead. A silly preference, perhaps. But, when I was in her company, I censored myself, for her sake. What about jokes which are racist or sexist? Is it EVER okay to tease, using words like "retarded," "nigger," "faggot"....? What if you're joking with one or two people who know you're just kidding?
One thing is for certain: it would be downright mean to continue telling standard blonde-jokes to my friend if I knew she really hated them. One-on-one with each other, we tend to be more careful. If our audience is small, we at least recognize our responsibility to be gentle, and it's easier to censor.
But what about bigger audiences…especially those of mixed beliefs?
My dad makes his living as a stand-up comic. He doesn't use filthy language or off-colored humor. Yet, there still are people who find his show "offensive" for one reason or another. He has been told he is disrespectful toward my mom (as if she hasn't seen the show and can't speak for herself); some say switching to a high-pitched voice is discriminatory against women; and one person said his use of an electronic cigarette (and playing practical jokes with it) are insensitive to someone who has lung cancer...
Dad says it just goes to prove you can't make everyone happy. Somebody will be offended about something, every time. But Dad can't control the responses of audience members any more than I can convince readers to agree with me. The only thing we can do is make sure our own consciences are clear.
So when are we released of our burden to censor ourselves for certain people? There is no doubt the quality of a product suffers if writers, comics, painters, musicians, etc. try to please the .1% of people who dislike it, instead of continuing to work for their loyal fans. But, as a Christian, isn't it my dad's job--isn't it my job--to be considerate and live at peace with everyone?
----
Feel free to choose any of the offshoots to the main topic and give me your thoughts. To what extent should we censor ourselves? How does audience size come in to play? If I know certain topics frustrate somebody, should I steer clear of them at all times? Are there different rules for jokes? What if the things someone says are offensive... but true?
How can we use censorship as a service of love toward others?
I believe it's my responsibility not to look at things or listen to things which offend me. I can't control what other people post, and writing laws just whittles away at freedom. But I can control whether I subject myself to things which offend me.
This concept motivated my post, "If You Don't Like My Teaching..." Anyone who stumbles onto my blog, hears my teaching, and finds the material horrendous, needs only to exit my classroom. Nobody is making anyone stick around. The reader's counterpoint to "freedom of speech" is the "freedom to plug his or her ears," so to speak.
Yet, as a Christian, I'm confronted with the responsibility of personal censorship. To an extent, I must guard what I say to others. These two beliefs dance a complicated tango.
Where does my call to "be considerate" "watch your tongue" and "live at peace with everyone" meet the listener’s responsibility to grow thicker skin and ignore things with which they disagree?
---
I think audiences play a huge part in whether we censor or speak freely. For example, with Luke, I use virtually no brain-to-mouth filter. I may tell him, "There is green slime coming from every hole in my face,” whereas, to the cashier at Aldi who asks, “How are you?” I’d simply say, “Fine.” But this, of course, is just social etiquette. It wouldn't be wrong to tell the cashier my sinuses are full of mucous...just awkward. What about when I tell Luke things which would be rude to say in front of others? Is it okay to "rant" or "vent" to a trusted confidant, when popular culture says, "If you wouldn't say it to a person's face, don't say it at all" ?
Before you answer, consider the many audience-specific calculations we make. We tell stories in front of adults we wouldn't share with children. We yell things at other drivers in the winter which we'd repress if the windows were down. And, most interestingly, we censor our choices of humor greatly, depending on who's listening. I had a friend in middle school who HATED the blonde stereotype, so she told blonde-related jokes using “red-head” instead. A silly preference, perhaps. But, when I was in her company, I censored myself, for her sake. What about jokes which are racist or sexist? Is it EVER okay to tease, using words like "retarded," "nigger," "faggot"....? What if you're joking with one or two people who know you're just kidding?
One thing is for certain: it would be downright mean to continue telling standard blonde-jokes to my friend if I knew she really hated them. One-on-one with each other, we tend to be more careful. If our audience is small, we at least recognize our responsibility to be gentle, and it's easier to censor.
But what about bigger audiences…especially those of mixed beliefs?
My dad makes his living as a stand-up comic. He doesn't use filthy language or off-colored humor. Yet, there still are people who find his show "offensive" for one reason or another. He has been told he is disrespectful toward my mom (as if she hasn't seen the show and can't speak for herself); some say switching to a high-pitched voice is discriminatory against women; and one person said his use of an electronic cigarette (and playing practical jokes with it) are insensitive to someone who has lung cancer...
Dad says it just goes to prove you can't make everyone happy. Somebody will be offended about something, every time. But Dad can't control the responses of audience members any more than I can convince readers to agree with me. The only thing we can do is make sure our own consciences are clear.
So when are we released of our burden to censor ourselves for certain people? There is no doubt the quality of a product suffers if writers, comics, painters, musicians, etc. try to please the .1% of people who dislike it, instead of continuing to work for their loyal fans. But, as a Christian, isn't it my dad's job--isn't it my job--to be considerate and live at peace with everyone?
----
Feel free to choose any of the offshoots to the main topic and give me your thoughts. To what extent should we censor ourselves? How does audience size come in to play? If I know certain topics frustrate somebody, should I steer clear of them at all times? Are there different rules for jokes? What if the things someone says are offensive... but true?
How can we use censorship as a service of love toward others?
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Did You Have a Baby in 2011?
Why, yes I did have a baby in 2011. Thanks for asking, TurboTax.
Having determined we could provide for a growing family--and believing a mini-McKinney would enhance our lives, my husband and I made the private decision to conceive.
But, why is the government paying us for that decision this tax season?
Don't get me wrong, it's a nice bonus. But I wanted to have a baby anyway. On the other hand--if Luke and I were incapable of supporting a child apart from a tax incentive--we wouldn't have gotten pregnant. So, this few hundred (or thousand?) dollars will be given to us for...really, no reason.
I bring this up because I'm thinking about the insane American debt--the "budget crisis,"--and I hear many argue that making cuts only sounds good in theory...until someone personally feels inconvenienced by the results. Perhaps that's true. Selfish interests make budget cuts difficult. But I'm not so selfish as to demand money for a life choice like the one I made last year. This New Baby Tax Credit affects me personally, and I'm willing to sacrifice it. I honestly wouldn't holler a bit if the next President decided to eliminate the costs of paying parents for doing what parents are supposed to do: raising their own babies.
What about those energy-efficient windows we installed two summers ago? We bought them because we liked the look and we wanted to save money on future heating bills. There was no need for Uncle Sam to contribute on top of that. Also, though I believe tax increases are not the sole answer to our current problem (because taxing all citizens at 100% of their income still wouldn't sustain the government at its current spending rate), it seems a little bizarre that Luke and I have never owed Federal taxes due to our income being too low. This can be said regarding a good portion of the country. But we live here, and we enjoy the protection of the armed services, the right to vote, and the privileged title of American. I'm willing to start contributing a percentage of our earnings, provided the revenue isn't wasted on needless programs and more freedom-killing laws.
-----
We've heard we "can't balance the budget on the backs of college students." We can't sacrifice programs meant to help the poor, the elderly, those just-starting-out, or those representing the "99%" of the population. But where CAN we make changes?
I had a baby in 2011, and it's my job to raise her with or without the tax incentive. Let's talk specifics. Is there anything you're willing to give up?
Having determined we could provide for a growing family--and believing a mini-McKinney would enhance our lives, my husband and I made the private decision to conceive.
But, why is the government paying us for that decision this tax season?
Don't get me wrong, it's a nice bonus. But I wanted to have a baby anyway. On the other hand--if Luke and I were incapable of supporting a child apart from a tax incentive--we wouldn't have gotten pregnant. So, this few hundred (or thousand?) dollars will be given to us for...really, no reason.
I bring this up because I'm thinking about the insane American debt--the "budget crisis,"--and I hear many argue that making cuts only sounds good in theory...until someone personally feels inconvenienced by the results. Perhaps that's true. Selfish interests make budget cuts difficult. But I'm not so selfish as to demand money for a life choice like the one I made last year. This New Baby Tax Credit affects me personally, and I'm willing to sacrifice it. I honestly wouldn't holler a bit if the next President decided to eliminate the costs of paying parents for doing what parents are supposed to do: raising their own babies.
What about those energy-efficient windows we installed two summers ago? We bought them because we liked the look and we wanted to save money on future heating bills. There was no need for Uncle Sam to contribute on top of that. Also, though I believe tax increases are not the sole answer to our current problem (because taxing all citizens at 100% of their income still wouldn't sustain the government at its current spending rate), it seems a little bizarre that Luke and I have never owed Federal taxes due to our income being too low. This can be said regarding a good portion of the country. But we live here, and we enjoy the protection of the armed services, the right to vote, and the privileged title of American. I'm willing to start contributing a percentage of our earnings, provided the revenue isn't wasted on needless programs and more freedom-killing laws.
-----
We've heard we "can't balance the budget on the backs of college students." We can't sacrifice programs meant to help the poor, the elderly, those just-starting-out, or those representing the "99%" of the population. But where CAN we make changes?
I had a baby in 2011, and it's my job to raise her with or without the tax incentive. Let's talk specifics. Is there anything you're willing to give up?
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Why Did God Make Babies?
My little girl makes my heart swell.
She has the best giggle, the most beautiful eyes, and the strongest will of any child I've ever met. She is smart and determined. She is a blessing.
But, this week, she's also a challenge.
Before Cami got a fever, two teeth, and a croupy cough, I planned to write an update for my Adventures in Marriage collection of posts. (I mean, hasn't it been too long since I proved relationships require patience, hard work, and constant self-sacrifice by sharing something unstable I said/did to my husband?) :) But I haven’t had time to mistreat Luke lately because we’ve been embarking on Adventures in Miserable Babies.
Soooo you get one of Amanda's Parenthood Ponderings instead.
----
Why did God create babies?
Some say babyhood is important for the parent-child relationship; their sweet faces and total dependency encourage long-term attachment. But I'm not particularly attached to the whining, the night-wakings, and the loss of my free time. Yes, babies are cute, with good-smelling breath and soft skin. But they're a lot of work, too! If their sole purpose is making us fall in love with them, the pooping, crying, and constant-attention-requiring part all seem counterproductive. God should have seen that coming…
It also seems logical that babies “must” start small because they come packaged in a tight space. Naturally, after birth, they have to spend time growing. But I believe God is fully creative enough to invent a quicker way. He could have programmed babies to crawl, walk, and run within hours of birth--as with horses. Or, He could have arranged humans to be independent immediately, never even meeting their parents (like sea turtles).
Why are human babies immature for so long? If God could have eliminated babyhood--or at least sped it up--why didn't He?
----
I'm lucky my little girl plays fabulously by herself, most of the time. But lately, when I try to wash a few dishes, or write for my blog, or even brush my teeth, she crawls after me, crying. Her moodiness has confined me to the rocking chair (in my PJ's, with no makeup) trying to console the inconsolable--considering the irony of "Miss Amanda--the unshakable, unstoppable, Teacher of dozens" begging for mercy from ONE red-faced 8-month-old.
Desperately, I want her to get over this illness or growth spurt or whatever, so we can get back to normal. I want to play with her, sing with her, take her to run errands, and all the other important mommy-things…
But what if these difficult, tear-filled days, when my to-do list is neglected and I feel like a failure are the most important mommy-things? What if bonding and teaching are only secondary purposes of Cami's babyhood—with the main point being to challenge me?
Like teaching special education and marriage, parenthood is hard. And if all the "incentives" had to come from Cami herself, it might not be worth it. Perhaps, since I have a "good baby,” this seems unfair. Her good days outnumber the bad. It should be easy to press through a rough week knowing it probably will get better, right?
But what about children who aren't so "good?" What about colicky babies? Or, what about those with disabilities, whose challenging behavior shows no end? Let's face it--if parenthood hinges on physical rewards, like giggles and hugs, there are kids whose extreme needs aren't worth it.
That's why I think parenthood has more to do with becoming better people than raising them. It's precisely the most un-cute, un-productive, un-pleasant days which have the most to teach us.
----
I’m confident Cami will be easy-going again soon…and it will be a relief. I don't LIKE when my patience is challenged. Unconditional love isn't easy to learn. And, when Cami goes back to normal, eventually I’ll go back to taking her for granted, complaining about small things, nagging her father, and other self-serving activities, too.
But I’m glad that God made babies—cute, needy, sweet, whiny, selfish babies—to put parents like me in our place now and then.
She has the best giggle, the most beautiful eyes, and the strongest will of any child I've ever met. She is smart and determined. She is a blessing.
But, this week, she's also a challenge.
Before Cami got a fever, two teeth, and a croupy cough, I planned to write an update for my Adventures in Marriage collection of posts. (I mean, hasn't it been too long since I proved relationships require patience, hard work, and constant self-sacrifice by sharing something unstable I said/did to my husband?) :) But I haven’t had time to mistreat Luke lately because we’ve been embarking on Adventures in Miserable Babies.
Soooo you get one of Amanda's Parenthood Ponderings instead.
----
Why did God create babies?
Some say babyhood is important for the parent-child relationship; their sweet faces and total dependency encourage long-term attachment. But I'm not particularly attached to the whining, the night-wakings, and the loss of my free time. Yes, babies are cute, with good-smelling breath and soft skin. But they're a lot of work, too! If their sole purpose is making us fall in love with them, the pooping, crying, and constant-attention-requiring part all seem counterproductive. God should have seen that coming…
It also seems logical that babies “must” start small because they come packaged in a tight space. Naturally, after birth, they have to spend time growing. But I believe God is fully creative enough to invent a quicker way. He could have programmed babies to crawl, walk, and run within hours of birth--as with horses. Or, He could have arranged humans to be independent immediately, never even meeting their parents (like sea turtles).
Why are human babies immature for so long? If God could have eliminated babyhood--or at least sped it up--why didn't He?
----
I'm lucky my little girl plays fabulously by herself, most of the time. But lately, when I try to wash a few dishes, or write for my blog, or even brush my teeth, she crawls after me, crying. Her moodiness has confined me to the rocking chair (in my PJ's, with no makeup) trying to console the inconsolable--considering the irony of "Miss Amanda--the unshakable, unstoppable, Teacher of dozens" begging for mercy from ONE red-faced 8-month-old.
Desperately, I want her to get over this illness or growth spurt or whatever, so we can get back to normal. I want to play with her, sing with her, take her to run errands, and all the other important mommy-things…
But what if these difficult, tear-filled days, when my to-do list is neglected and I feel like a failure are the most important mommy-things? What if bonding and teaching are only secondary purposes of Cami's babyhood—with the main point being to challenge me?
Like teaching special education and marriage, parenthood is hard. And if all the "incentives" had to come from Cami herself, it might not be worth it. Perhaps, since I have a "good baby,” this seems unfair. Her good days outnumber the bad. It should be easy to press through a rough week knowing it probably will get better, right?
But what about children who aren't so "good?" What about colicky babies? Or, what about those with disabilities, whose challenging behavior shows no end? Let's face it--if parenthood hinges on physical rewards, like giggles and hugs, there are kids whose extreme needs aren't worth it.
That's why I think parenthood has more to do with becoming better people than raising them. It's precisely the most un-cute, un-productive, un-pleasant days which have the most to teach us.
----
I’m confident Cami will be easy-going again soon…and it will be a relief. I don't LIKE when my patience is challenged. Unconditional love isn't easy to learn. And, when Cami goes back to normal, eventually I’ll go back to taking her for granted, complaining about small things, nagging her father, and other self-serving activities, too.
But I’m glad that God made babies—cute, needy, sweet, whiny, selfish babies—to put parents like me in our place now and then.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)