Recently, as Michael and I sat in a subway station awaiting our train, we were approached by a twenty-something black man who asked, "How can you live with yourself, being a white woman?"
"I'm sorry, what?" I replied, not sure I had dug my post-shower q-tips deep enough into my ear canals that morning.
"I just don't know how you can live with yourself as a white person," he said. "If I was a white person, I would be filled with so much guilt I wouldn't be able to live with myself."
Yeah, it's a wonder I was able to drag my guilty white behind to the train station that morning. And I told him so, more or less: "Get over yourself," I said. And then I rolled my eyes at him and stepped on my train, dooming some other fair-skinned person to be pestered by the man.
This sort of thing just irritates me. This man was young, clean, able-bodied, and healthy-looking. He was well-dressed and wore expensive athletic shoes. And yet, he obviously harbored some sort of picked-on complex that compelled him to approach a woman in a subway station and inform her that she should feel guilty about the color of her skin.
Martin Luther King would be pleased.
I may be a pampered white female, but come on, this is America. If you are being held back by "the man", start checking your mirror to see if you've handcuffed yourself to his ankle.
And try giving up your seat on the subway once in awhile. That might be nice, too.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
A Recipe for Future Therapy
I have four rules when it comes to naming children:
1. It must be immediately obvious how the name is pronounced when you look at the spelling.
2. Most people should be able to spell the name correctly without having to ask how it is spelled.
3. The name should easily translate to the child's future adulthood. Naming your December-born baby "Jingle" may seem cute when she is born, but it will not be cute when she is a college graduate trying to land a serious job in the corporate world.
4. The name should make it immediately obvious whether the child is a boy or a girl.
I realize that not everyone feels the need to comply to my baby-naming rules, and I recognize that while I am ultra-traditional when it comes to bestowing a lifelong label on an infant, some people are into the trendy and cutesy and weirdly spelled names. But at least most people aren't as bad as this Swedish couple, who decided not only to refer to their child by a non-gender-specific name, they decided not to refer to it as being a specific gender at all. So two-year-old "Pop" is not a him or a her, wears dresses and "masculine" pants and alternates between girly and manly haircuts. Only a few close relatives (i.e., those who have changed the child's diaper) know whether Pop is actually a boy or a girl.
You see, Pop's parents, in an attempt to be the most "progressively" stupid people on the face of the planet, want their child to "grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset." Says Pop's mother, "It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead."
Um, lady, what about that blue or pink stamp a little farther south, if you know what I mean?
Whether this poor child's parents like it or not, he/she is a boy or a girl, as evidenced by his accompanying parts. No amount of silly secrecy or gender-neutral clothing is going to change that. The idea that gender is an artificial result of socialization is just ridiculous, and frankly, dangerous. Obviously genetics and hormones play a role as to whether your child will have the typical male/female likes and dislikes (and it's not a bad thing if your little boy likes barbies or your little girl is into monster trucks - let them play with things they enjoy), but the fact is that God created everyone before they were born as either male or female. Gender is not a choose-your-own adventure thing, and these parents are going to irreversibly damage their child by confusing him/her about his identity and purpose in life.
But, at least this child will have a companion in his lonely and confusing life. Pop's parents are due to have another child soon, and intend to be just as idiotic when it comes to their new arrival.
These poor children. Who is going to pay for their therapy bills?
1. It must be immediately obvious how the name is pronounced when you look at the spelling.
2. Most people should be able to spell the name correctly without having to ask how it is spelled.
3. The name should easily translate to the child's future adulthood. Naming your December-born baby "Jingle" may seem cute when she is born, but it will not be cute when she is a college graduate trying to land a serious job in the corporate world.
4. The name should make it immediately obvious whether the child is a boy or a girl.
I realize that not everyone feels the need to comply to my baby-naming rules, and I recognize that while I am ultra-traditional when it comes to bestowing a lifelong label on an infant, some people are into the trendy and cutesy and weirdly spelled names. But at least most people aren't as bad as this Swedish couple, who decided not only to refer to their child by a non-gender-specific name, they decided not to refer to it as being a specific gender at all. So two-year-old "Pop" is not a him or a her, wears dresses and "masculine" pants and alternates between girly and manly haircuts. Only a few close relatives (i.e., those who have changed the child's diaper) know whether Pop is actually a boy or a girl.
You see, Pop's parents, in an attempt to be the most "progressively" stupid people on the face of the planet, want their child to "grow up more freely and avoid being forced into a specific gender mould from the outset." Says Pop's mother, "It's cruel to bring a child into the world with a blue or pink stamp on their forehead."
Um, lady, what about that blue or pink stamp a little farther south, if you know what I mean?
Whether this poor child's parents like it or not, he/she is a boy or a girl, as evidenced by his accompanying parts. No amount of silly secrecy or gender-neutral clothing is going to change that. The idea that gender is an artificial result of socialization is just ridiculous, and frankly, dangerous. Obviously genetics and hormones play a role as to whether your child will have the typical male/female likes and dislikes (and it's not a bad thing if your little boy likes barbies or your little girl is into monster trucks - let them play with things they enjoy), but the fact is that God created everyone before they were born as either male or female. Gender is not a choose-your-own adventure thing, and these parents are going to irreversibly damage their child by confusing him/her about his identity and purpose in life.
But, at least this child will have a companion in his lonely and confusing life. Pop's parents are due to have another child soon, and intend to be just as idiotic when it comes to their new arrival.
These poor children. Who is going to pay for their therapy bills?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
If You Must...
There is a bar/lounge across the street from us that I have never actually walked by. Which is too bad, really, because apparently I have been missing out on some serious fun. As David and I passed by on Saturday we noticed a sign placed prominently in the window (next to the blaring rainbow flag): "If you must do illegal drugs, please don't do them here."
"If you must"? What kind of anti-drug message is that? How about a similar anti-murder message? "If you must kill someone, please don't leave the body on my porch." Or burglary? "If you must rob someone, please don't choose me!" I'm so confused. But I'm glad to know that this bar at least sort of, kind of encourages their clientele to take their heroin needles elsewhere.
It's certainly not a poster that would win any drug-prevention contests (like my creative cat poster in the third grade that won me a ride in a police car with its clever catchphrase: "Stay Purrrfect. Say no to drugs." Original, eh?). It's not even eye-catching. But the volume of those three little words of encouragement is so loud you can hear it pulsing in the streets.
I guess in this age of moral relativism it would be offensive to tell someone not to do something, so instead we say, "If you must..." and hand out packages of free condoms to classrooms of teenagers and clean needles to drug addicts. As long as they take care of their unholy business somewhere else, who cares if they do those things, right? Just make sure it's not in my backyard.
Next week there will probably be a map posted next to the "If you must" sign directing patrons to a quiet little alleyway where they can shoot up in peace.
Why does tolerance have to extend to greenlighting the dangerous behavior of others? Can't we just say no anymore? Be smart, don't start?
Heck, I'll even vote for "Stay purrrrfect. Say no to drugs."
"If you must"? What kind of anti-drug message is that? How about a similar anti-murder message? "If you must kill someone, please don't leave the body on my porch." Or burglary? "If you must rob someone, please don't choose me!" I'm so confused. But I'm glad to know that this bar at least sort of, kind of encourages their clientele to take their heroin needles elsewhere.
It's certainly not a poster that would win any drug-prevention contests (like my creative cat poster in the third grade that won me a ride in a police car with its clever catchphrase: "Stay Purrrfect. Say no to drugs." Original, eh?). It's not even eye-catching. But the volume of those three little words of encouragement is so loud you can hear it pulsing in the streets.
I guess in this age of moral relativism it would be offensive to tell someone not to do something, so instead we say, "If you must..." and hand out packages of free condoms to classrooms of teenagers and clean needles to drug addicts. As long as they take care of their unholy business somewhere else, who cares if they do those things, right? Just make sure it's not in my backyard.
Next week there will probably be a map posted next to the "If you must" sign directing patrons to a quiet little alleyway where they can shoot up in peace.
Why does tolerance have to extend to greenlighting the dangerous behavior of others? Can't we just say no anymore? Be smart, don't start?
Heck, I'll even vote for "Stay purrrrfect. Say no to drugs."
Friday, June 26, 2009
A Tale of Two Cases
Who knew that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals could actually issue a decent ruling? Usually those California judges act as if they've spent too much time bleaching their brains in the sun and not enough time studying law, but for once it appears some sense has prevailed.
The case at issue involves a man who unexpectedly died of an allergic reaction in 1995. His widow ordered sperm to be extracted from her husband after his death so she could have his child (she gave birth to a little girl in 1999 using the frozen sperm). But here's where it gets tricky - she applied for her husband's Child Survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration to help care for the girl, but was denied. She sued for rights to the benefits, and the case eventually ended up in front of the 9th Circuit. The judges ruled that the child is not eligible for the father's survivor benefits because she was not dependent on him at the time of his death. Heck, she wasn't even a twinkle in her father's eye at the time of his death.
So, this ruling actually makes sense to me. But what doesn't make sense is why someone would want to take sperm from their dead husband to conceive a child. It is one thing for a child to lose a father after she is born, but it is quite another to deliberately bring a child into the world without a father to help raise her.
Of course, that case is not as icky as this one, where a Texas woman was granted the right to harvest (um, steal?) sperm from her dead son so she she could use it to father a grandchild at some point in time. She argued that her son had wanted children so she was just fulfilling his wishes. Um, lady, I'm pretty sure that there is not a man out there who wants his mother to get a court order allowing invasion of his cold, dead testicles so she can make herself a grandmother. Ewww. That is so creepy and wrong.
I understand there must be sadness in knowing you will never have children with your husband or that your son will never give you grandchildren, but is it really ethical to take sperm from a dead person, especially without their explicit prior consent? And even if you had their consent, is it ethical to deliberately bring fatherless babies into the world?
Ugh. Who knew men would have to start putting "Don't steal my sperm!" in their wills to prevent this sort of thing?
People these days.
The case at issue involves a man who unexpectedly died of an allergic reaction in 1995. His widow ordered sperm to be extracted from her husband after his death so she could have his child (she gave birth to a little girl in 1999 using the frozen sperm). But here's where it gets tricky - she applied for her husband's Child Survivor benefits from the Social Security Administration to help care for the girl, but was denied. She sued for rights to the benefits, and the case eventually ended up in front of the 9th Circuit. The judges ruled that the child is not eligible for the father's survivor benefits because she was not dependent on him at the time of his death. Heck, she wasn't even a twinkle in her father's eye at the time of his death.
So, this ruling actually makes sense to me. But what doesn't make sense is why someone would want to take sperm from their dead husband to conceive a child. It is one thing for a child to lose a father after she is born, but it is quite another to deliberately bring a child into the world without a father to help raise her.
Of course, that case is not as icky as this one, where a Texas woman was granted the right to harvest (um, steal?) sperm from her dead son so she she could use it to father a grandchild at some point in time. She argued that her son had wanted children so she was just fulfilling his wishes. Um, lady, I'm pretty sure that there is not a man out there who wants his mother to get a court order allowing invasion of his cold, dead testicles so she can make herself a grandmother. Ewww. That is so creepy and wrong.
I understand there must be sadness in knowing you will never have children with your husband or that your son will never give you grandchildren, but is it really ethical to take sperm from a dead person, especially without their explicit prior consent? And even if you had their consent, is it ethical to deliberately bring fatherless babies into the world?
Ugh. Who knew men would have to start putting "Don't steal my sperm!" in their wills to prevent this sort of thing?
People these days.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Wrong Solution
Is a lifetime of wedded bliss still possible? That depends. If you ask me, I would respond with a resounding "Yes!" (I just celebrated eight years of happy marriage this week, in fact). But, if you ask Atlantic Monthly's Sandra Tsing Loh, she says that marriage is obsolete and kind of ridiculous, and she wonders what kind of personal idiocy induces one to marry in the first place.
While she did manage to walk down the aisle herself once without suffering any strangulating effects from the oppressiveness of the institution she was entering, after twenty years of marital un-bliss Ms. Loh is divorcing her husband, to her self-stated "horror". Of course, she says she is horrified by the undoing of her wedding vows, but then she reveals that she doesn't even enjoy men, particularly, and that "given [her] staggering working mother’s to-do list, [she] cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling [her] romance."
Yes, I can imagine it's much nicer to focus on all the boring, menial tasks that make up life and work, spend each day slaving over a desk and each night enjoying a healthy TV dinner and the warming glow of your laptop than it is to spend five minutes here and there reconnecting with your husband.
Honestly, if these other boring tasks are preferable to the work of nurturing her marriage (which is often a lot of fun in spite of the fact that it might be considered "work"), I feel sorry for her. What a lonely, pathetic life she's carved out for herself! If she is so overwhelmed that she can't find a few minutes for her husband at the end of the day, why doesn't she try dropping some of her other projects instead of ridding herself of her partner? (or cheating on him, as she admits to doing, because that makes perfect sense - it's certainly easier to make time for secret trysts with another man when you're on a tight schedule than it is to romance the one who is already sleeping in your bed at home).
But, as anti-marriage as she may be, the author has a solution for modern marriages which doesn't require the work she is so keen to avoid - yay! She posits that research has shown that children don't really need parents who love each other - they just need domestic stability (What the...?); therefore, why not try out a post-modern marriage arrangement: have a husband to take care of the clogged pipes and shelf-building, and a boyfriend on the side for sex. Or, even better, she suggests an arrangement where the women and children live with their female relatives and the husbands only appear once or twice a week to cook or provide a little bedroom entertainment.
If either of those ideas seem a little too Byzantine for your taste, you can just stick with her final advice: "Avoid marriage — or you too may suffer the emotional pain, the humiliation, and the logistical difficulty, not to mention the expense, of breaking up a long-term union at midlife for something as demonstrably fleeting as love."
Um, wow. It is really sad that marriage has been degraded to the point that it is thought to be nothing but a vehicle for self-fulfillment. And then, when the self-fulfillment grinds to a halt or your spouse demands too much time, unhappy wives and husbands present their get-out-of-jail-free card (you know, that "it's all about me and my happiness" card) and escape the marriage in pursuit of a more enjoyable, less responsible life.
Well, I have some news for Ms. Loh: She won't find happiness out there, no matter how many career goals she meets or how many exotic vacations she takes, no matter how many dinners she has with girlfriends or the number of nights she spends romancing hot, young guys. When you willingly throw away your family because you are afraid of a little work and tired of the responsibility, there is absolutely nothing that will save your happiness from being squashed by your own selfish actions.
Doing away with marriage isn't the answer. Doing away with selfishness is.
While she did manage to walk down the aisle herself once without suffering any strangulating effects from the oppressiveness of the institution she was entering, after twenty years of marital un-bliss Ms. Loh is divorcing her husband, to her self-stated "horror". Of course, she says she is horrified by the undoing of her wedding vows, but then she reveals that she doesn't even enjoy men, particularly, and that "given [her] staggering working mother’s to-do list, [she] cannot take on yet another arduous home- and self-improvement project, that of rekindling [her] romance."
Yes, I can imagine it's much nicer to focus on all the boring, menial tasks that make up life and work, spend each day slaving over a desk and each night enjoying a healthy TV dinner and the warming glow of your laptop than it is to spend five minutes here and there reconnecting with your husband.
Honestly, if these other boring tasks are preferable to the work of nurturing her marriage (which is often a lot of fun in spite of the fact that it might be considered "work"), I feel sorry for her. What a lonely, pathetic life she's carved out for herself! If she is so overwhelmed that she can't find a few minutes for her husband at the end of the day, why doesn't she try dropping some of her other projects instead of ridding herself of her partner? (or cheating on him, as she admits to doing, because that makes perfect sense - it's certainly easier to make time for secret trysts with another man when you're on a tight schedule than it is to romance the one who is already sleeping in your bed at home).
But, as anti-marriage as she may be, the author has a solution for modern marriages which doesn't require the work she is so keen to avoid - yay! She posits that research has shown that children don't really need parents who love each other - they just need domestic stability (What the...?); therefore, why not try out a post-modern marriage arrangement: have a husband to take care of the clogged pipes and shelf-building, and a boyfriend on the side for sex. Or, even better, she suggests an arrangement where the women and children live with their female relatives and the husbands only appear once or twice a week to cook or provide a little bedroom entertainment.
If either of those ideas seem a little too Byzantine for your taste, you can just stick with her final advice: "Avoid marriage — or you too may suffer the emotional pain, the humiliation, and the logistical difficulty, not to mention the expense, of breaking up a long-term union at midlife for something as demonstrably fleeting as love."
Um, wow. It is really sad that marriage has been degraded to the point that it is thought to be nothing but a vehicle for self-fulfillment. And then, when the self-fulfillment grinds to a halt or your spouse demands too much time, unhappy wives and husbands present their get-out-of-jail-free card (you know, that "it's all about me and my happiness" card) and escape the marriage in pursuit of a more enjoyable, less responsible life.
Well, I have some news for Ms. Loh: She won't find happiness out there, no matter how many career goals she meets or how many exotic vacations she takes, no matter how many dinners she has with girlfriends or the number of nights she spends romancing hot, young guys. When you willingly throw away your family because you are afraid of a little work and tired of the responsibility, there is absolutely nothing that will save your happiness from being squashed by your own selfish actions.
Doing away with marriage isn't the answer. Doing away with selfishness is.
Monday, June 22, 2009
Super Fast
Michael's not-so-mild obsession with Little Einsteins has caused him to develop a love for all things "super fast!" So, one night when David suggested speeding up one of Michael's bedtime song favorites, he was in heaven. He has asked for the "super fast" version every night since.
Head, Shoulders, Knees & Toes from Bonnie on Vimeo.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Random Thoughts
Why does it have to be butter that makes everything taste better? Why can't it be something healthy like wheat germ?
Of the 21,449 cases of Swine Flu that have been reported in America, only 87 have resulted in deaths. That's a fatality rate of less than one percent. Not to marginalize lives lost, but why are we panicking over this disease? According to cnn.com, the regular flu results in 36,000 deaths every year in the US. 13,000 people have died from January to April of this year alone. So I'm still not sure why everyone is so freaked out about Swine Flu (and at the same time probably not getting immunized against the regular flu).
If you smacked someone in the face with a frying pan, how long would they stay unconscious? It seems in the movies that the knocked-out time period is only as long as the plot requires (cue murderous loon jumping on our hero from behind...) but if someone in real life had such a bonding experience with a calphalon pan, would they be out for minutes or hours?
Half of the train-wreck union that is Jon & Kate Plus 8 appeared on magazine covers this week swatting one of her disobedient children on the behind. I'm so glad I don't have to find my picture splashed across the front page every time Michael's bum needs a little slap. Then again, I'm not stupid enough to make my family the subject of a reality show, so I guess you could say the Gosselins have brought this sort of thing on themselves.
I realize I can divide my life into two time periods - the days when I thought The Olive Garden made good Italian food, and the era of enlightenment when I discovered the Italian world beyond Provo and realized that Olive Garden's chef probably ran to Costco and purchased a bag of the green salad mix and a few dozen brown-n-serve breadsticks and tried to pass them off as authentic made-from-scratch Italian fare.
I can't think of a single thing about smoking that is appealing, but having a cold this weekend has made me wonder how any smoker makes it through the hacking and coughing phase of a cold without resolving to quit.
Does anyone who has ever stood in line at the DMV really think government-run healthcare is a good idea?
The sound of splashing in the bathroom always means trouble, especially when no faucets have been running.
Of the 21,449 cases of Swine Flu that have been reported in America, only 87 have resulted in deaths. That's a fatality rate of less than one percent. Not to marginalize lives lost, but why are we panicking over this disease? According to cnn.com, the regular flu results in 36,000 deaths every year in the US. 13,000 people have died from January to April of this year alone. So I'm still not sure why everyone is so freaked out about Swine Flu (and at the same time probably not getting immunized against the regular flu).
If you smacked someone in the face with a frying pan, how long would they stay unconscious? It seems in the movies that the knocked-out time period is only as long as the plot requires (cue murderous loon jumping on our hero from behind...) but if someone in real life had such a bonding experience with a calphalon pan, would they be out for minutes or hours?
Half of the train-wreck union that is Jon & Kate Plus 8 appeared on magazine covers this week swatting one of her disobedient children on the behind. I'm so glad I don't have to find my picture splashed across the front page every time Michael's bum needs a little slap. Then again, I'm not stupid enough to make my family the subject of a reality show, so I guess you could say the Gosselins have brought this sort of thing on themselves.
I realize I can divide my life into two time periods - the days when I thought The Olive Garden made good Italian food, and the era of enlightenment when I discovered the Italian world beyond Provo and realized that Olive Garden's chef probably ran to Costco and purchased a bag of the green salad mix and a few dozen brown-n-serve breadsticks and tried to pass them off as authentic made-from-scratch Italian fare.
I can't think of a single thing about smoking that is appealing, but having a cold this weekend has made me wonder how any smoker makes it through the hacking and coughing phase of a cold without resolving to quit.
Does anyone who has ever stood in line at the DMV really think government-run healthcare is a good idea?
The sound of splashing in the bathroom always means trouble, especially when no faucets have been running.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)