First on the list - Movies.
I've noticed something incredibly appalling in recent movies that involve violence.
It is no longer ok to just kill people on screen and imply other things. It is now apparently necessary to rape, too.
As interesting as the movie Law-Abiding Citizen was, they didn't need to include that.
Its so strange. My reaction to these scenes, you'd think I'd been raped at some point in my past. I go into hysterics, shaking and suddenly feeling absolutely freezing cold while sobbing. I'm ok with this reaction. Now, movie producers can go back to leaving stuff like that to people's more sinister imaginations.
Second is Friends.
I've lost the only two followers to this blog that I had. Both were college friends. One significantly closer to me than the other. Or at least used to be. Though the 2nd follower doesn't bother me that much (we were never really that close - we love Jane Austen and music). Its the first one that does.
I understand that I wrote something offensive to her that was inappropriate to post on a blog. I also understand that my dogmatic view on feminism has been causing some tension and that the blogs I link to, she has found appalling. But rather than engage in healthy debate, she makes a retaliation post on her blog and never responds to comments.
Because of the (specifically) two posts she found offensive, we haven't really been on good terms lately. And this seriously bothers me.
I don't understand it. She was one of my closest friends in college even though we didn't agree on feminism. There were a lot of people who no longer talk to me who I had considered my closest friends in college. And the ones that were not that close are the ones that still call me up, send me messages on my birthday, and more readily engage in debate without walking away with hurt feelings. I guess that's why I went with someone who wasn't so close to me to be a bridesmaid for my wedding.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
What is "Realmannspracht"?
Heh...you can get a good idea from this blog posting at one of my favoritest blogger's sites: The Spearhead
I left a comment there but its an old post, so I don't think anyone will really see it. But I think it was a good one and should be read. I believe it is fair and balanced to both sides - it also is disagreeable to both sides...
Like EW, I reference God of Christianity as the moral backdrop to my life, so keep in mind that what I am saying comes from this worldview.
Pro-Male / Anti-Feminist Tech said the following:
This is very similar to what I’ve seen on some feminist blogs when it comes to the definition of physical “femininity”. Why is femininity always coming from the stance of what masculinity likes?
Renee said this on modesty…
She’s absolutely right that modesty for women is a form of control on sexuality. But she’s wrong in thinking its a bad thing.
I also think she’s wrong that there is no modest code for men…there is. I’ve seen it first-hand – and I’ve seen immodest men aplenty on tv without nakedness.
You can’t use victorian definitions for applying modesty to chests, so you can’t use a man without a shirt vs women and breasts as an example of victorian modesty controlling female sexuality because women’s breasts were as everyday then as a man’s bare chest was – if not more. Necklines were so low to make breastfeeding easier (pop one out via style of the ‘immodest’ extreme la leche clubs that EW loves so much – amazing the tidbits of info you garner when researching breast feeding and renaissance gowns!).
But men were also held to modesty standards. Their trousers didn’t hang loosley around their hips so you could see the abdominal muscles as they trailed to the genital area like you see today in Abercrombi & Fitch adverts (and yes, that’s immodest and does make a girl stare); they were practically around their chests. For the longest time, men would only go shirtless in the company of other men or around their wives – if a lady was present, on came the shirt. It was immodest to be caught in your skivvies around a woman and to have bare leg showing (keep those stockings and garters on, men). It was also customary to show modesty in speech and behavior – you didn’t drink strong drinks or smoke cigars around a lady (brandy was reserved to after-dinner hours in the den where women were not allowed) nor was it acceptable to be vulgar, lewd, or brawly around a woman. There were standards for male modesty that controlled their sexuality just as much as women – its just that the modern day woman is not so readily willing or able to recognize the examples that history gives us of this.
(However, we also know that whorehouses were places where men could do all these things in the presence of a female without censorship)
Now my actual point – my argument against both Pro/Anti and Renee is the same – God did not create man (or woman) in a vaccuum. First, he created us for HIM. But he created us both male and female for eachother.
Its not a popular thought in today’s society to think that the female gender was created for men (for God saw that something was missing in just creating one gender) and that the female gender also requires the male to reciprocate. He created exactly what the male needed to make the world perfect when he created women by creating a gender who needed him.
And I think that with this world-view, it is not inappropriate to define certain aspects of masculinity and femininity; manhood and womanhood; male modesty and female modesty within a framework that considers the gender whose needs they were meant to fill.
So men will continue to shave their faces if their wives (or girlfriends or the female populace they care about) find this attractive and women will continue to shave their legs and armpits for the same reason. (Sorry for the simplistic example)
I just think that defining manhood and womanhood completely without consideration for the opposite results in an incomplete picture.
I left a comment there but its an old post, so I don't think anyone will really see it. But I think it was a good one and should be read. I believe it is fair and balanced to both sides - it also is disagreeable to both sides...
Like EW, I reference God of Christianity as the moral backdrop to my life, so keep in mind that what I am saying comes from this worldview.
Pro-Male / Anti-Feminist Tech said the following:
So much realmannspracht is defined based on women’s choices (i.e. if a woman marries you for socons or if a woman has sex with you for guys on the other end). This like so many other definitions of a “real man” (TM) fail all objectivity since they’re dependent on women.
This is very similar to what I’ve seen on some feminist blogs when it comes to the definition of physical “femininity”. Why is femininity always coming from the stance of what masculinity likes?
Renee said this on modesty…
Honestly, I think this all goes back to society attempting to control female sexuality and how female sexuality used to be (and today still in some circles) feared and seen as evil. It was a form of control in a way.
She’s absolutely right that modesty for women is a form of control on sexuality. But she’s wrong in thinking its a bad thing.
I also think she’s wrong that there is no modest code for men…there is. I’ve seen it first-hand – and I’ve seen immodest men aplenty on tv without nakedness.
You can’t use victorian definitions for applying modesty to chests, so you can’t use a man without a shirt vs women and breasts as an example of victorian modesty controlling female sexuality because women’s breasts were as everyday then as a man’s bare chest was – if not more. Necklines were so low to make breastfeeding easier (pop one out via style of the ‘immodest’ extreme la leche clubs that EW loves so much – amazing the tidbits of info you garner when researching breast feeding and renaissance gowns!).
But men were also held to modesty standards. Their trousers didn’t hang loosley around their hips so you could see the abdominal muscles as they trailed to the genital area like you see today in Abercrombi & Fitch adverts (and yes, that’s immodest and does make a girl stare); they were practically around their chests. For the longest time, men would only go shirtless in the company of other men or around their wives – if a lady was present, on came the shirt. It was immodest to be caught in your skivvies around a woman and to have bare leg showing (keep those stockings and garters on, men). It was also customary to show modesty in speech and behavior – you didn’t drink strong drinks or smoke cigars around a lady (brandy was reserved to after-dinner hours in the den where women were not allowed) nor was it acceptable to be vulgar, lewd, or brawly around a woman. There were standards for male modesty that controlled their sexuality just as much as women – its just that the modern day woman is not so readily willing or able to recognize the examples that history gives us of this.
(However, we also know that whorehouses were places where men could do all these things in the presence of a female without censorship)
Now my actual point – my argument against both Pro/Anti and Renee is the same – God did not create man (or woman) in a vaccuum. First, he created us for HIM. But he created us both male and female for eachother.
Its not a popular thought in today’s society to think that the female gender was created for men (for God saw that something was missing in just creating one gender) and that the female gender also requires the male to reciprocate. He created exactly what the male needed to make the world perfect when he created women by creating a gender who needed him.
And I think that with this world-view, it is not inappropriate to define certain aspects of masculinity and femininity; manhood and womanhood; male modesty and female modesty within a framework that considers the gender whose needs they were meant to fill.
So men will continue to shave their faces if their wives (or girlfriends or the female populace they care about) find this attractive and women will continue to shave their legs and armpits for the same reason. (Sorry for the simplistic example)
I just think that defining manhood and womanhood completely without consideration for the opposite results in an incomplete picture.
Gone
Again.
Last trip of the year, though...and its only a week this time.
It sucks because I am so unhealthy when he's not here! Its a miracle that I stay alive. I don't eat right, I don't sleep right...the only one who wins is my new bed companion - when I make it into bed. You see...that means he eats all night.
At least one of us is well fed and well rested...
Last trip of the year, though...and its only a week this time.
It sucks because I am so unhealthy when he's not here! Its a miracle that I stay alive. I don't eat right, I don't sleep right...the only one who wins is my new bed companion - when I make it into bed. You see...that means he eats all night.
At least one of us is well fed and well rested...
Monday, October 19, 2009
Morning Sickness Association
It has been absolutely wonderful not having to deal with morning sickness.
Some things, though, have become so associated with the sickness that they still bring back memories and a bit of a tummy ache - like the smell of hotdogs, Smallville, and my brand new Mustang.
These things I can avoid, though. And I do. While pregnant and confined to a couch because getting up meant needing a bucket attached to my neck, I watched 4-5 seasons of Smallville. My car's smell made me unbearably sick, and though I craved them for all of 5 seconds at a time, the smell (and thought) of hot dogs made my tummy turn.
But here's the kicker. My morning sickness went through the entire winter months. It started in early October and lasted till February.
So now that the weather is cooling down and October feels like October, I find myself having a queasy tummy thanks to association.
How long is this supposed to last? This used to be my favorite time of year - am I going to be adverse to it for the rest of my life?
Some things, though, have become so associated with the sickness that they still bring back memories and a bit of a tummy ache - like the smell of hotdogs, Smallville, and my brand new Mustang.
These things I can avoid, though. And I do. While pregnant and confined to a couch because getting up meant needing a bucket attached to my neck, I watched 4-5 seasons of Smallville. My car's smell made me unbearably sick, and though I craved them for all of 5 seconds at a time, the smell (and thought) of hot dogs made my tummy turn.
But here's the kicker. My morning sickness went through the entire winter months. It started in early October and lasted till February.
So now that the weather is cooling down and October feels like October, I find myself having a queasy tummy thanks to association.
How long is this supposed to last? This used to be my favorite time of year - am I going to be adverse to it for the rest of my life?
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Adulthood
So, I discovered broccoli from last night in the steamer...my left-overs.
And in the refrigerator, I have 1.5 heads of lettuce that are going bad...
On top of that, last night was the first meal in over a week that I've cooked.
As I walk out of my kitchen, I'm thinking to myself how horrible I am at this whole adult thing...I mean, who am I kidding? I can barely take care of myself and I'm caring for a baby.
And then I sit down to finish cleaning out the diaper bag and re-filling all the diaper wipe containers and it dawns on me. I would much rather be reading my book or playing a video game than doing what I'm doing, but here I am doing this. I'd much rather be watching TV than going shopping for food and clothes for Ethan, but I went shopping. And yeah, I slip up a LOT and do what I would rather be doing more often than I should, but I have a decently clean house, a well fed and clean baby and there IS food in the refrigerator.
Adulthood - you know when you are there when you choose to do what NEEDS to be done before you do what you WANT to do - and that is something that comes with age and maturity.
And in the refrigerator, I have 1.5 heads of lettuce that are going bad...
On top of that, last night was the first meal in over a week that I've cooked.
As I walk out of my kitchen, I'm thinking to myself how horrible I am at this whole adult thing...I mean, who am I kidding? I can barely take care of myself and I'm caring for a baby.
And then I sit down to finish cleaning out the diaper bag and re-filling all the diaper wipe containers and it dawns on me. I would much rather be reading my book or playing a video game than doing what I'm doing, but here I am doing this. I'd much rather be watching TV than going shopping for food and clothes for Ethan, but I went shopping. And yeah, I slip up a LOT and do what I would rather be doing more often than I should, but I have a decently clean house, a well fed and clean baby and there IS food in the refrigerator.
Adulthood - you know when you are there when you choose to do what NEEDS to be done before you do what you WANT to do - and that is something that comes with age and maturity.
Monday, October 12, 2009
Twilight Saga
Strange that I'm reading these books. I'm not much for following trends and even more so, I tend to avoid books that are recommended to me (I'm a rebel, what can I say).
Initially, I deeply mistrusted the source of the first recommendation, knowing full well that I had a lot of issues with her reading choices. But I got so desperate for books that I started reading the Harry Potter books (again) while taking brief stints into Historical books like The Battle of Salamis written by a Cornell University History professor and The Eight Wives of Henry VIII.
Finally, one more person suggested I read it - and the source was one I felt I could trust. So...I've read the first two books.
They are addicting. Woefully so. Frustratingly so. And if I were a member of the target audience, these books would be so incredibly unhealthy.
Luckily, I'm older and wiser and am in a healthy relationship, so I recognize this girl's obsession as being unhealthy. I'm wise enough to recognize how wrong the dynamics are playing out and it bothers me that these books were written for young adults that don't know better.
Its such an oxymoronic relationship - on one hand you have a girl in a relationship with a guy who is a gentleman - but her obsession with him would make you think it was an emotionally abusive relationship. Her dependence on him is excruciatingly painful to witness. And then the male half of the relationship - he has the wisdom and maturity to know that this relationship isn't a good one but acts as a selfish child in fulfilling his selfish desires to be with her.
All in all, I wouldn't mind that part so much if the girl was more capable of healthy, emotional boundaries - alas, she's not.
And in the 2nd book it gets even worse when Edward leaves Bella and she's convinced he doesn't love her anymore...and in her attempts to recover over her loss of him, she becomes attached to another boy who loves her - and she loves him, just not as much as she loved Edward - who, by the end of the book when Edward comes back because he can't live without Bella, this boy is ultimately crushed.
Its hard to watch and it makes me uneasy with how careless the author treats her characters and how irresponsible she is towards her target audience - an audience who doesn't know better when it comes to developing healthy emotional boundaries in relationships.
The author likes to say she is influenced by L.M. Montgomery and Anne of Green Gables, but while I was reading these books, I didn't see it - Bella may be learning what is unhealthy and self-destructive, but she does nothing to put a stop to her self-destructive behavior - unlike Anne Shirley, who, upon recognizing a poor choice, does her best to avoid such trouble in the future. And Anne maintains proper boundaries to a well-enough extent that you don't feel hurt for a rejected suitor...he's left with enough of his heart to more easily move on.
However, i did come across one quote from the author that I find is a good thing and her books to a good job of illustrating it -
(From wikipedia)
Unfortunately, this theme is really subtle and would require discussion on the books with an older/wiser for a younger audience to really pick up on it.
And to be quite frank, as I stated in another blog post on this subject, I think parents nowadays are too lazy to engage with their children on this stuff.
Initially, I deeply mistrusted the source of the first recommendation, knowing full well that I had a lot of issues with her reading choices. But I got so desperate for books that I started reading the Harry Potter books (again) while taking brief stints into Historical books like The Battle of Salamis written by a Cornell University History professor and The Eight Wives of Henry VIII.
Finally, one more person suggested I read it - and the source was one I felt I could trust. So...I've read the first two books.
They are addicting. Woefully so. Frustratingly so. And if I were a member of the target audience, these books would be so incredibly unhealthy.
Luckily, I'm older and wiser and am in a healthy relationship, so I recognize this girl's obsession as being unhealthy. I'm wise enough to recognize how wrong the dynamics are playing out and it bothers me that these books were written for young adults that don't know better.
Its such an oxymoronic relationship - on one hand you have a girl in a relationship with a guy who is a gentleman - but her obsession with him would make you think it was an emotionally abusive relationship. Her dependence on him is excruciatingly painful to witness. And then the male half of the relationship - he has the wisdom and maturity to know that this relationship isn't a good one but acts as a selfish child in fulfilling his selfish desires to be with her.
All in all, I wouldn't mind that part so much if the girl was more capable of healthy, emotional boundaries - alas, she's not.
And in the 2nd book it gets even worse when Edward leaves Bella and she's convinced he doesn't love her anymore...and in her attempts to recover over her loss of him, she becomes attached to another boy who loves her - and she loves him, just not as much as she loved Edward - who, by the end of the book when Edward comes back because he can't live without Bella, this boy is ultimately crushed.
Its hard to watch and it makes me uneasy with how careless the author treats her characters and how irresponsible she is towards her target audience - an audience who doesn't know better when it comes to developing healthy emotional boundaries in relationships.
The author likes to say she is influenced by L.M. Montgomery and Anne of Green Gables, but while I was reading these books, I didn't see it - Bella may be learning what is unhealthy and self-destructive, but she does nothing to put a stop to her self-destructive behavior - unlike Anne Shirley, who, upon recognizing a poor choice, does her best to avoid such trouble in the future. And Anne maintains proper boundaries to a well-enough extent that you don't feel hurt for a rejected suitor...he's left with enough of his heart to more easily move on.
However, i did come across one quote from the author that I find is a good thing and her books to a good job of illustrating it -
Other major themes of the series include choice and free will. Meyer says that the books are centered around Bella's choice to choose her life on her own, and the Cullens' choices to abstain from killing rather than follow their temptations: "I really think that's the underlying metaphor of my vampires. It doesn't matter where you're stuck in life or what you think you have to do; you can always choose something else. There's always a different path."
(From wikipedia)
Unfortunately, this theme is really subtle and would require discussion on the books with an older/wiser for a younger audience to really pick up on it.
And to be quite frank, as I stated in another blog post on this subject, I think parents nowadays are too lazy to engage with their children on this stuff.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Interesting post
I'll provide some more info later - baby is demanding today...
Feminism and Christianity
Feminism and Christianity
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Back to the Point
You know, I had originally started this blog for a friend of mine who is a feminist.
I really have gone in the wrong direction on it, but it started pretty well. Pretty much, the idea was to do a Bible study through scripture, highlighting the parts that talk about womanhood and manhood.
I'm not much into the minute details of specific passages - I hate tearing a passage to pieces to find out its real meaning instead of using its context for meaning. I find it tedious and pointless. Context is more than just the surrounding verses - its the entire book. The whole thing paints a picture and if two parts seemingly contradict, then you have something wrong in your thinking.
I've trained myself to rethink when i come across things that may appear to contradict so that I may better understand - and I have no need of a ton of language lessons to figure this out.
Problem with pursuing this is that more than just Feminism makes my skin crawl - a world that ignores consequences also rankles me - and so do parents that over-shelter rather than educate their children. I get off track a bit...
I also want to take a less (and more) critical look of feminism - what it is, how its used, and all its different forms - the less evil-intentioned of this group believe there's a need for it - and it has nothing to do with making men subject to women and everything to do with protecting themselves.
I will never change my mind that feminism is a product of a lack of trust. Its a lack of trust in God, foremost - because to obey him means to subjugate herself to a man (a father or husband) and let him be the ruler of her.
Considering how difficult it is to learn to trust the people around you who clearly love you, I don't find it at all out of scope that it would be difficult to learn to trust God...trusting that he has plans not to destroy you but to give you hope and a future.
It also is a lack of trust in men in the general, husbands specifically. History has marked men as taking advantage of scripture that gives them power. From laws to lack of laws, moments in history have taken advantage and abused women.
It is true that feminism has left a mark on history, as well - a mark that generally goes unrecognized when it shouldn't. The decades prior to the fall of the greatest empire the world has seen was prolific with Feminism - in a very bad way. Its just that those moments have been shortlived, so don't garner much attention.
I believe, strongly, that scripture is the only source of equal treatment of men and women. It outlines how we should live with eachother. Its not all that we want to hear - there are some very difficult things to swallow in it - but it is the best way. Its not just women that have difficult things to do - men do to. Both sides.
But in a world where one or the other can take advantage of an imbalance in power, how do you promote laws that protect both? Women write laws that protect women and shame men. Men write laws that protect men and shame women. They both have evil tendencies to be selfish and protect ways of life that benefit one over the other. They also have a tendency to protect evil desires of their gender to their own demise - such as protection of sexual freedom (both genders are guilty of this).
I came across this idea not so long ago as it applied to Captialism - it can not exist in a world void of moral and ethical values. The same goes for gender equality.
Where do we go from here?
I really have gone in the wrong direction on it, but it started pretty well. Pretty much, the idea was to do a Bible study through scripture, highlighting the parts that talk about womanhood and manhood.
I'm not much into the minute details of specific passages - I hate tearing a passage to pieces to find out its real meaning instead of using its context for meaning. I find it tedious and pointless. Context is more than just the surrounding verses - its the entire book. The whole thing paints a picture and if two parts seemingly contradict, then you have something wrong in your thinking.
I've trained myself to rethink when i come across things that may appear to contradict so that I may better understand - and I have no need of a ton of language lessons to figure this out.
Problem with pursuing this is that more than just Feminism makes my skin crawl - a world that ignores consequences also rankles me - and so do parents that over-shelter rather than educate their children. I get off track a bit...
I also want to take a less (and more) critical look of feminism - what it is, how its used, and all its different forms - the less evil-intentioned of this group believe there's a need for it - and it has nothing to do with making men subject to women and everything to do with protecting themselves.
I will never change my mind that feminism is a product of a lack of trust. Its a lack of trust in God, foremost - because to obey him means to subjugate herself to a man (a father or husband) and let him be the ruler of her.
Considering how difficult it is to learn to trust the people around you who clearly love you, I don't find it at all out of scope that it would be difficult to learn to trust God...trusting that he has plans not to destroy you but to give you hope and a future.
It also is a lack of trust in men in the general, husbands specifically. History has marked men as taking advantage of scripture that gives them power. From laws to lack of laws, moments in history have taken advantage and abused women.
It is true that feminism has left a mark on history, as well - a mark that generally goes unrecognized when it shouldn't. The decades prior to the fall of the greatest empire the world has seen was prolific with Feminism - in a very bad way. Its just that those moments have been shortlived, so don't garner much attention.
I believe, strongly, that scripture is the only source of equal treatment of men and women. It outlines how we should live with eachother. Its not all that we want to hear - there are some very difficult things to swallow in it - but it is the best way. Its not just women that have difficult things to do - men do to. Both sides.
But in a world where one or the other can take advantage of an imbalance in power, how do you promote laws that protect both? Women write laws that protect women and shame men. Men write laws that protect men and shame women. They both have evil tendencies to be selfish and protect ways of life that benefit one over the other. They also have a tendency to protect evil desires of their gender to their own demise - such as protection of sexual freedom (both genders are guilty of this).
I came across this idea not so long ago as it applied to Captialism - it can not exist in a world void of moral and ethical values. The same goes for gender equality.
Where do we go from here?
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Book Banning or Education?
There's some parents in Leesburg that are all upset about some books in the public library that involve teen drug-use and sex that were put into the young-adult (teenager) section of the library.
Funny, cuz the books are the literary version of the popular CW show Gossip Girl.
There's other merchandise out there with the Gossip Girl name on it to - its like a more racy version of Hannah Montana in the marketing they have going on.
TV shows spawn books due to frenzied popularity - and who do you think is watching the 8:00 show on weeknights and buying the Gossip Girl logo on their clothes?
Oh...the teenagers that these parents are attempting to protect by banning the exact same content from the library.
On a post about Credit Cards at Boundless, Heather had this to say and it echoes my sentiments nearly perfectly:
I can't help but feel that these parents are being lazy in pursuing book banning rather than teaching their children how to make good and wise decisions in the media they choose to entertain themselves with and the choices they make in how they live their life.
After all, the tv show was inspired by the incredible plethora of sex and drugs in the school system now - pursuits that surround the children of these over-the-top parents.
Funny, cuz the books are the literary version of the popular CW show Gossip Girl.
There's other merchandise out there with the Gossip Girl name on it to - its like a more racy version of Hannah Montana in the marketing they have going on.
TV shows spawn books due to frenzied popularity - and who do you think is watching the 8:00 show on weeknights and buying the Gossip Girl logo on their clothes?
Oh...the teenagers that these parents are attempting to protect by banning the exact same content from the library.
On a post about Credit Cards at Boundless, Heather had this to say and it echoes my sentiments nearly perfectly:
I'm a little ambivalent. One side of me says that we should educate college students (and high school and middle school students, too) and then let them make choices and deal with the consequences. But the other side says that yes, someone should have to prove that they have a self-produced income stream before being allowed to enter into the adult financial world.
I can't help but feel that these parents are being lazy in pursuing book banning rather than teaching their children how to make good and wise decisions in the media they choose to entertain themselves with and the choices they make in how they live their life.
After all, the tv show was inspired by the incredible plethora of sex and drugs in the school system now - pursuits that surround the children of these over-the-top parents.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Income Adventure!
So, FINALLY, I have things put in place to start an At-Home-Business to help pay off those horrid student loans!
Stina's Web Design
I'm excited. In web portfolios, I have one more site that will be added very very soon - but the client is trying to find his hosting information =p
Stina's Web Design
I'm excited. In web portfolios, I have one more site that will be added very very soon - but the client is trying to find his hosting information =p
Saturday, September 26, 2009
Strange Dreams
You know, I hate it when my husband is on travel. Going to sleep is the worst, though.
Lately, I've been having the strangest dreams that make me incredibly uneasy. And I dont' feel rested at all in the morning after them.
Pretty much, in my dreams my husband doesn't exist. And I live my life as if he doesn't - but the entire time I have this nagging feeling that something isn't right...that something important is missing. Its like a craving for something that I don't know yet.
So, I'll end up dating someone and not feeling right about it because its as if they aren't the person I'm supposed to be with...I feel uneasy and push them away, not certain what it is I'm looking for.
Occassionally, I'll find him and I'll sleep peacefully the rest of the night...but most of the time, he's not there...
/sigh - I wonder how military wives handle this...
Lately, I've been having the strangest dreams that make me incredibly uneasy. And I dont' feel rested at all in the morning after them.
Pretty much, in my dreams my husband doesn't exist. And I live my life as if he doesn't - but the entire time I have this nagging feeling that something isn't right...that something important is missing. Its like a craving for something that I don't know yet.
So, I'll end up dating someone and not feeling right about it because its as if they aren't the person I'm supposed to be with...I feel uneasy and push them away, not certain what it is I'm looking for.
Occassionally, I'll find him and I'll sleep peacefully the rest of the night...but most of the time, he's not there...
/sigh - I wonder how military wives handle this...
Friday, September 25, 2009
Christian Debate and Accountability?
Ever since I wrote my post to "my feminist friend", I've been seriously struggling with some issues.
I caught some flack for it, which is why its down now. I have my reasons for capitulating -
1) It wasn't right for me to attack this person's beliefs in such a public forum. I'm not quite certain what provoked me to do it, but I don't think it had much to do with her...other than her stance on the issue is constantly in my mind - CONSTANTLY.
2) Her faith in Christ is real and holding to something in a dogmatic way and allowing that to destroy a friendship isn't worth it. In essence, I was attacking a belief she has that has no bearing on her eternal soul - just a disagreement on an issue that I believe my way will lead to an easier life and she believes her way is the easier life.
How, as christians, do we proceed? I find myself with butterflies in my stomach wondering if i should go to a function tomorrow where she might be (and the other person who attacked me for that post) and i don't know how to proceed.
A part of me wants to debate this issue...the other part wants to forget about it.
For some reason, I'm more able to let go of political differences than this one (and abortion). I don't really know what to do...
I caught some flack for it, which is why its down now. I have my reasons for capitulating -
1) It wasn't right for me to attack this person's beliefs in such a public forum. I'm not quite certain what provoked me to do it, but I don't think it had much to do with her...other than her stance on the issue is constantly in my mind - CONSTANTLY.
2) Her faith in Christ is real and holding to something in a dogmatic way and allowing that to destroy a friendship isn't worth it. In essence, I was attacking a belief she has that has no bearing on her eternal soul - just a disagreement on an issue that I believe my way will lead to an easier life and she believes her way is the easier life.
How, as christians, do we proceed? I find myself with butterflies in my stomach wondering if i should go to a function tomorrow where she might be (and the other person who attacked me for that post) and i don't know how to proceed.
A part of me wants to debate this issue...the other part wants to forget about it.
For some reason, I'm more able to let go of political differences than this one (and abortion). I don't really know what to do...
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Grumpy 5 Month Olds
I hate teething.
He's such a sweetheart, but now he's grumpy all the time! It sucks cuz there's nothing I can do about it and his mouth is too small for all his teething toys.
Poor lil guy.
He's such a sweetheart, but now he's grumpy all the time! It sucks cuz there's nothing I can do about it and his mouth is too small for all his teething toys.
Poor lil guy.
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Paranoia
So...today I woke up with a sore throat.
My eyes are heavy and my forehead is warm (not hot...I doubt I have a fever).
Ethan has been cranky for the last 2 days which is totally unlike him.
Are we getting sick?
What if its the swine flu?
My eyes are heavy and my forehead is warm (not hot...I doubt I have a fever).
Ethan has been cranky for the last 2 days which is totally unlike him.
Are we getting sick?
What if its the swine flu?
Saturday, September 05, 2009
Old Treasure Recovered
Fairies
Come hither, my child
And listen to my tale.
A story so fleeting it flies on the wings of Wind,
So beautiful that it only is percieved at that infinitesimal moment of twilight,
So innocent, it has yet to be concieved by the minds of men.
I will take you first to the light of day
Where paths of sunlight guide you to fields of rubies
Sapphire greets you from heaven above and cloud's soft shapes take form
The sunlight dances as you prance barefoot through emerald grasses
Then notice the fire glinting off wings of sprites with long golden hair and mischeivous eyes.
Next you will see the soft glows of sunset
When day kisses the earth goodbye
Colors of roses sing sweet songs of love as sun gives way to moon
Though dazzling sun gives eyes delight, be weary of the artists
Who, with small brushes in hand, paint hues of time upon their tapestry - the sky.
Swiftly, be quick, as setting sun turns dark!
And catch the first sign of twilight - a star shining in deep blue abyss
Avert your eyes not or you might miss the last sign of twilight - the first star of night
And once your eyes catch sight of the first light of dark, look quick for the culprit who sees fit not to let night be black.
There he will be, skipping specks of light across the deepening sea of ebony.
Last of all comes the glory of night.
The moon sketches paths of beauty and light.
Her coolness brings peace and sparkles like diamonds upon dew covered grass
Though Jasmine may cause you to drift on sweet dreams, take heed first to small feet
Who kiss sleeping earth with droplets of love and gaurd her til her lover returns.
At last my tale is told and done
My child, I hope you believed the fairies all told
And your innocent eyes alone will catch glimpse
For as years pass by the fairies will hide
And all you will see is the beauty left behind.
Come hither, my child
And listen to my tale.
A story so fleeting it flies on the wings of Wind,
So beautiful that it only is percieved at that infinitesimal moment of twilight,
So innocent, it has yet to be concieved by the minds of men.
I will take you first to the light of day
Where paths of sunlight guide you to fields of rubies
Sapphire greets you from heaven above and cloud's soft shapes take form
The sunlight dances as you prance barefoot through emerald grasses
Then notice the fire glinting off wings of sprites with long golden hair and mischeivous eyes.
Next you will see the soft glows of sunset
When day kisses the earth goodbye
Colors of roses sing sweet songs of love as sun gives way to moon
Though dazzling sun gives eyes delight, be weary of the artists
Who, with small brushes in hand, paint hues of time upon their tapestry - the sky.
Swiftly, be quick, as setting sun turns dark!
And catch the first sign of twilight - a star shining in deep blue abyss
Avert your eyes not or you might miss the last sign of twilight - the first star of night
And once your eyes catch sight of the first light of dark, look quick for the culprit who sees fit not to let night be black.
There he will be, skipping specks of light across the deepening sea of ebony.
Last of all comes the glory of night.
The moon sketches paths of beauty and light.
Her coolness brings peace and sparkles like diamonds upon dew covered grass
Though Jasmine may cause you to drift on sweet dreams, take heed first to small feet
Who kiss sleeping earth with droplets of love and gaurd her til her lover returns.
At last my tale is told and done
My child, I hope you believed the fairies all told
And your innocent eyes alone will catch glimpse
For as years pass by the fairies will hide
And all you will see is the beauty left behind.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
A Defense of Infant Baptism
I've been challenged to provide a biblical defense of the Catholic Tradition of baptism (as opposed to the Baptist Tradition). Pretty much, Catholic Tradition is Infant Baptism and Baptist Tradition is Believer's Baptism.
Many people have attempted this before and failed, so I don't expect that I will succeed in changing his mind that Infant Baptism is just plain wrong. I do want to make it clear that my purpose is not to claim one wrong and the other right; or to claim one is better than the other. After long thought and prayer, I have determined that the theologies behind the two traditions of baptism are very different.
Baptists and those who believe in Believer's Baptism believe it is just that - baptism once you believe. Some of them will even claim that you aren't really saved unless you've been baptized after confession. I don't agree with that group of people - I strongly believe that salvation does not require baptism to be true. I believe that baptism is simply an expression of faith, like fasting and long hours of meditation.
To those that simply believe baptism shouldn't occur until after belief is established, I don't disagree with you and your theology. I find it a good thing. However, I also find that Infant baptism serves its purpose, as well - and is, in fact, biblical. It simply derives its theology from something much older.
This is in two parts. The first addresses the theology behind infant baptism. The second tackles some conceptions that I think are false when it comes to belief in Christ.
First, when Christ came, he made it clear that he was not coming to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). There were commandments that were given in the Old Testament by God to prepare the people for the coming of Christ. Examples are the command to never forget the passover - for the signs given at the passover were repeated when Christ died...and anyone who religiously practiced the passover meal would have recognized those signs (Exodus 12:14). There are others, but hashing this point isn't relevant to this argument.
Another command that was given was that when a gentile chose to become a follower of Jehovah, he had to be circumcised (Genesis 17:10-11) - and so did his whole household (Genesis 17:12-14). In essence, when one chose to become a part of the covenant, his entire family was commanded to become a part of the covenant - regardless of their own feelings on the issue. Examples of this being carried out in scripture include Dinah's lover and his kingdom (Genesis 34) and the risk of Moses' son's life due to his lack of circumcision (Exodus 4:24-27).
Because the Catholic Tradition of baptism is one of a convenantal nature, its theology derives from the Old Testament's method of entering the covenant.
Where Believer's Baptism is an expression of faith of the person being baptized, Infant baptism is an expression of faith of the parents of the child being baptized. To them, this is their declaration of their covenantal bond with Christ a promise to do as God commanded in Deuteronomy - not once, but twice.
In the Catholic Tradition, parents take full responsibility for their child's faith until they are adults and can claim responsibility for their own faith - just as the jews did and still do when their children come of age. In the Catholic Tradition, it is Confirmation. For the Jews, it is a Bar or Bat Mitzvah - a ceremony where the now young adults take everything they have learned from their parents and accept it as their own faith.
And this brings me to the second part - the matter of belief. Many who believe in the Believer's Baptism believe that only when a person reaches an appropriate age of responsibility can he make a concious claim of faith. The Catholic Tradition doesn't place that stipulation on belief. An 18 month old singing songs in her crib as the sun pours through, conciously aware of the one who created the sun, is capable of true belief. The 4 year old who cries when Jesus dies in his children's bible and shouts with joy that "Jesus is alive!" when he comes back to life is just as capable of true belief. The 6 year old who gives her favorite bible away to a girl whose parents are atheists because she was asking questions about God and Jesus is just as capable of true belief. Even Jesus claimed that more people should have faith like children. If we all had such blind faith like children, wouldn't that mean that none of us should be capable of a concious, reasonable decision of faith? (Matthew 10:15)
For those raised in Christian homes that are taught daily the Christian faith, a child can come to an adult understanding of Christ without ever having that "pivotal moment" of confession and faith. For them, every day is a living confession of faith and there is no remembrance of a life without Christ because he has always been a part of their lives.
And to these children and their parents, Infant baptism is a valid and even right and true expression of faith.
I don't intend for the one who challenged me to change his views on baptism in so much that Believer's Baptism is what he chooses to follow. I do, however, wish to bring about an understanding and graceful acceptance that those who practice infant baptism do so believing it is right and true and that it is just as valid as believer's baptism. And that those baptized as infants do not need to be baptized a second time.
Many people have attempted this before and failed, so I don't expect that I will succeed in changing his mind that Infant Baptism is just plain wrong. I do want to make it clear that my purpose is not to claim one wrong and the other right; or to claim one is better than the other. After long thought and prayer, I have determined that the theologies behind the two traditions of baptism are very different.
Baptists and those who believe in Believer's Baptism believe it is just that - baptism once you believe. Some of them will even claim that you aren't really saved unless you've been baptized after confession. I don't agree with that group of people - I strongly believe that salvation does not require baptism to be true. I believe that baptism is simply an expression of faith, like fasting and long hours of meditation.
To those that simply believe baptism shouldn't occur until after belief is established, I don't disagree with you and your theology. I find it a good thing. However, I also find that Infant baptism serves its purpose, as well - and is, in fact, biblical. It simply derives its theology from something much older.
This is in two parts. The first addresses the theology behind infant baptism. The second tackles some conceptions that I think are false when it comes to belief in Christ.
First, when Christ came, he made it clear that he was not coming to abolish the law, but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17). There were commandments that were given in the Old Testament by God to prepare the people for the coming of Christ. Examples are the command to never forget the passover - for the signs given at the passover were repeated when Christ died...and anyone who religiously practiced the passover meal would have recognized those signs (Exodus 12:14). There are others, but hashing this point isn't relevant to this argument.
Another command that was given was that when a gentile chose to become a follower of Jehovah, he had to be circumcised (Genesis 17:10-11) - and so did his whole household (Genesis 17:12-14). In essence, when one chose to become a part of the covenant, his entire family was commanded to become a part of the covenant - regardless of their own feelings on the issue. Examples of this being carried out in scripture include Dinah's lover and his kingdom (Genesis 34) and the risk of Moses' son's life due to his lack of circumcision (Exodus 4:24-27).
Because the Catholic Tradition of baptism is one of a convenantal nature, its theology derives from the Old Testament's method of entering the covenant.
Where Believer's Baptism is an expression of faith of the person being baptized, Infant baptism is an expression of faith of the parents of the child being baptized. To them, this is their declaration of their covenantal bond with Christ a promise to do as God commanded in Deuteronomy - not once, but twice.
5 Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength. 6 These commandments that I give you today are to be upon your hearts. 7 Impress them on your children. Talk about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 8 Tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 9 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates.
~Deuteronomy 6:5-9
18Fix these words of mine in your hearts and minds; tie them as symbols on your hands and bind them on your foreheads. 19 Teach them to your children, talking about them when you sit at home and when you walk along the road, when you lie down and when you get up. 20 Write them on the doorframes of your houses and on your gates, 21 so that your days and the days of your children may be many in the land that the LORD swore to give your forefathers, as many as the days that the heavens are above the earth.
~Deuteronomy 11:18-21
In the Catholic Tradition, parents take full responsibility for their child's faith until they are adults and can claim responsibility for their own faith - just as the jews did and still do when their children come of age. In the Catholic Tradition, it is Confirmation. For the Jews, it is a Bar or Bat Mitzvah - a ceremony where the now young adults take everything they have learned from their parents and accept it as their own faith.
And this brings me to the second part - the matter of belief. Many who believe in the Believer's Baptism believe that only when a person reaches an appropriate age of responsibility can he make a concious claim of faith. The Catholic Tradition doesn't place that stipulation on belief. An 18 month old singing songs in her crib as the sun pours through, conciously aware of the one who created the sun, is capable of true belief. The 4 year old who cries when Jesus dies in his children's bible and shouts with joy that "Jesus is alive!" when he comes back to life is just as capable of true belief. The 6 year old who gives her favorite bible away to a girl whose parents are atheists because she was asking questions about God and Jesus is just as capable of true belief. Even Jesus claimed that more people should have faith like children. If we all had such blind faith like children, wouldn't that mean that none of us should be capable of a concious, reasonable decision of faith? (Matthew 10:15)
For those raised in Christian homes that are taught daily the Christian faith, a child can come to an adult understanding of Christ without ever having that "pivotal moment" of confession and faith. For them, every day is a living confession of faith and there is no remembrance of a life without Christ because he has always been a part of their lives.
And to these children and their parents, Infant baptism is a valid and even right and true expression of faith.
I don't intend for the one who challenged me to change his views on baptism in so much that Believer's Baptism is what he chooses to follow. I do, however, wish to bring about an understanding and graceful acceptance that those who practice infant baptism do so believing it is right and true and that it is just as valid as believer's baptism. And that those baptized as infants do not need to be baptized a second time.
Monday, August 31, 2009
Weight Loss Woes
So, I've been trying all month to lose weight. I have like 15lbs to lose to get to pre-preggers weight and over 30 to get to my goal weight.
After working out almost every day for a month and watching how much I eat, I lost a glorious 1lb.
I gave up and doing things the "balanced" way and decided to tackle this problem via the only method that has helped me lose weight in the past...
And I'm not going to share what it is because that method is tied up with so much slander that every one is going to think I'm doing something stupid.
Its the end of day one and I feel horrid. I have a headache and just want to go to sleep. Luckily, I only have one more day of this to go.
And when its up, I have a baptism post to write.
After working out almost every day for a month and watching how much I eat, I lost a glorious 1lb.
I gave up and doing things the "balanced" way and decided to tackle this problem via the only method that has helped me lose weight in the past...
And I'm not going to share what it is because that method is tied up with so much slander that every one is going to think I'm doing something stupid.
Its the end of day one and I feel horrid. I have a headache and just want to go to sleep. Luckily, I only have one more day of this to go.
And when its up, I have a baptism post to write.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Beauty and the Beast
My freshman year of college, I met this young man who prided himself on being contrary. He was cruel, rude, and totally self-absorbed.
I was feeling a bit risky and college freedom was getting to my head. I did so many things in the first 3 months of college that I had never done before - one being I tried out for the Dance Team...
When he was being rude and boarish, I was being optimistic, friendly, and persistent. In other words, I was being annoying because he was being annoying. For some reason, he liked it and I started to see a different side of him.
We started dating. And as much as my friends hated him because of how rude and mean he was, I justified it because he was someone else with me.
I thought that if he cared enough about me and I was nice enough to him, he would change.
So many girls out there think this - that if a guy is "broken" in their eyes, they can fix him by loving them and being loved by them. Its frustrating to nice guys, because nice girls will fall for the "bad boys". It leads to unhealthy relationships later when the "bad boys" don't change and wives become angry, bitter, and nagging - and those men get distant and self-absorbed.
One of my favorite movies as a little girl perpetuates this thing about love from a woman can change a man - Beauty and the Beast. I was watching it today and there are so many unrealistic expectations in it, its ridiculous. Thing is, Belle doesn't think she can change him...she just does with no real effort on her part. She doesn't give him any opportunities thinking he might change - he changes before she falls for him. And he changes because he wants her to fall for him.
Grease had the same dynamic. Sandy thinks Danny is a very nice guy (and he is when he is with her in Austrailia). When she sees him in the states, she discovers he's not such a nice guy and gives him the cold shoulder most of the time. Its not until the end that Danny finally gives up and decides to be the nice guy...only Sandy decided it was easier to join in.
You don't fall for a guy thinking you can change them. You don't marry a guy thinking you can inspire him to be better. If he's going to change with you as inspiration, he's gonna do it while you refuse to give him the time of day because he's such a "bad boy".
I was feeling a bit risky and college freedom was getting to my head. I did so many things in the first 3 months of college that I had never done before - one being I tried out for the Dance Team...
When he was being rude and boarish, I was being optimistic, friendly, and persistent. In other words, I was being annoying because he was being annoying. For some reason, he liked it and I started to see a different side of him.
We started dating. And as much as my friends hated him because of how rude and mean he was, I justified it because he was someone else with me.
I thought that if he cared enough about me and I was nice enough to him, he would change.
So many girls out there think this - that if a guy is "broken" in their eyes, they can fix him by loving them and being loved by them. Its frustrating to nice guys, because nice girls will fall for the "bad boys". It leads to unhealthy relationships later when the "bad boys" don't change and wives become angry, bitter, and nagging - and those men get distant and self-absorbed.
One of my favorite movies as a little girl perpetuates this thing about love from a woman can change a man - Beauty and the Beast. I was watching it today and there are so many unrealistic expectations in it, its ridiculous. Thing is, Belle doesn't think she can change him...she just does with no real effort on her part. She doesn't give him any opportunities thinking he might change - he changes before she falls for him. And he changes because he wants her to fall for him.
Grease had the same dynamic. Sandy thinks Danny is a very nice guy (and he is when he is with her in Austrailia). When she sees him in the states, she discovers he's not such a nice guy and gives him the cold shoulder most of the time. Its not until the end that Danny finally gives up and decides to be the nice guy...only Sandy decided it was easier to join in.
You don't fall for a guy thinking you can change them. You don't marry a guy thinking you can inspire him to be better. If he's going to change with you as inspiration, he's gonna do it while you refuse to give him the time of day because he's such a "bad boy".
Friday, August 21, 2009
Worth it?
Ok. I'm really bad at doing cost estimates.
I can call around and ask for an estimate, but if someone has to come out and give me an estimate, the only way I'll say no is if I already know what a reasonable cost is for the circumstances.
Maybe its bad money sense, but I feel rude having someone come out, inspect, give estimate and tell them "no" when I might not find a better deal (because I just don't know).
And I hate this not knowing stuff. They should have some kind of a website for homeowners where they document how much they paid for a certain service (and for car owners) so they have an idea of what to expect for a ball-park figure.
Anyway, my sewage backed up today while I was washing Ethan's laundry...and the toilet overflowed all over the carpet.
I called the plumber and carpet cleaners. The plumber dug up our pipe (in our beautiful garden, though he was respectful of the plants) and found a pipe with no cap on it...it was clogged by MULCH from the garden. It cost $249.00 to "snake" the pipes. I wonder if I can find out who laid our sewer line and request a reimbursement for the lack of a cap? Probably. I'll try that.
But here's the thing - the only other estimate I got was a ball-park figure based on the length of the lines and stuff - she said $165 - 250. So...because I ended up at the far end of that estimate does it mean I coulda gotten cheaper?
Now I'm waiting on a cost estimate from the carpet cleaners for carpet replacement - because yes, when there is a sewage back-up you WANT to replace the carpet. Ewww for other people's feces all over your carpet.
Now - for any new homeowners, when your toilet starts bubbling while your doing laundry, get your pipes looked at to avoid the mess that results.
I can call around and ask for an estimate, but if someone has to come out and give me an estimate, the only way I'll say no is if I already know what a reasonable cost is for the circumstances.
Maybe its bad money sense, but I feel rude having someone come out, inspect, give estimate and tell them "no" when I might not find a better deal (because I just don't know).
And I hate this not knowing stuff. They should have some kind of a website for homeowners where they document how much they paid for a certain service (and for car owners) so they have an idea of what to expect for a ball-park figure.
Anyway, my sewage backed up today while I was washing Ethan's laundry...and the toilet overflowed all over the carpet.
I called the plumber and carpet cleaners. The plumber dug up our pipe (in our beautiful garden, though he was respectful of the plants) and found a pipe with no cap on it...it was clogged by MULCH from the garden. It cost $249.00 to "snake" the pipes. I wonder if I can find out who laid our sewer line and request a reimbursement for the lack of a cap? Probably. I'll try that.
But here's the thing - the only other estimate I got was a ball-park figure based on the length of the lines and stuff - she said $165 - 250. So...because I ended up at the far end of that estimate does it mean I coulda gotten cheaper?
Now I'm waiting on a cost estimate from the carpet cleaners for carpet replacement - because yes, when there is a sewage back-up you WANT to replace the carpet. Ewww for other people's feces all over your carpet.
Now - for any new homeowners, when your toilet starts bubbling while your doing laundry, get your pipes looked at to avoid the mess that results.
A Morbid Post
I just spent 5 hours driving from Savannah, GA to Orlando, FL tonight. It was...FUN!!!! (not so much) Needless to say, I'm happy to be home.
The trip up was incredibly easy cuz I had a good source of entertainment - I listened to Rush Limbaugh for the first time in my life. I couldn't help but brag to my dad afterwards. He was very proud of me =p
Anyway, all that time in the car gave me the opportunity to let my brain wander. Among the topics that crossed my mind were my arguments for infant baptism, sanctity of motherhood, and fear of death.
Baptism can wait. Seeing as this is a morbid post, we'll go with the last two =p
First, fear of death. I have NEVER been afraid of death in my life. I just wasn't worried about it. I knew where I was going. I still do, but its more complicated now...and it really shouldn't be. However, I'm no longer this independent creature who, when death comes, will only leave behind aging parents and separated siblings and a handful of friends (I'm so cold, I know - I realize they love me very much and my death would be hard on them, but its really different now). When I became a wife, things started to change. Ok...engagement and the prospect of motherhood really began the change. But the marriage and house actually solidified the first part and the birth solidified the second. First, here was this man who had just given up everything for me. He has invested the rest of his life in me. He loves me. Not because he has to because he's a good person. He loves me because he chose to. I don't want to die anytime soon because of that - I don't want him to be left behind with all this stuff he put together for our life together with no life together.
Then there was Ethan. And every time I think of dying now, it involves Ethan crying for me and my not coming to him. And that just tears me up inside. IN a very bad way.
And then this went in a new direction - abortion and all these stories of mothers hurting their children. And I finally understand why mothers doing this appalls me so much more than hearing about fathers doing such things.
You see, from the moment of conception to birth, a baby is relying solely on its mother for survival. Its life is so utterly dependent on the mother. And here is this woman, with this child in her safe-keeping, who violates that protection that her body is providing for her child - violating the very purpose of her body at that point in time - and destroying it for some stupid, selfish reason.
And then, after birth, that child so naturally and instinctually trusts implicitly and loves unconditionally this woman who has just given birth to him. Fathers, they learn to trust in those first days, first weeks, first months - mothers = trust to them.
So when a mother harms her child, she is violating and betraying that trust. She throws away the only one who truly loves unconditionally.
Its horrid.
Enough. I'm going to bed with my hubby now.
The trip up was incredibly easy cuz I had a good source of entertainment - I listened to Rush Limbaugh for the first time in my life. I couldn't help but brag to my dad afterwards. He was very proud of me =p
Anyway, all that time in the car gave me the opportunity to let my brain wander. Among the topics that crossed my mind were my arguments for infant baptism, sanctity of motherhood, and fear of death.
Baptism can wait. Seeing as this is a morbid post, we'll go with the last two =p
First, fear of death. I have NEVER been afraid of death in my life. I just wasn't worried about it. I knew where I was going. I still do, but its more complicated now...and it really shouldn't be. However, I'm no longer this independent creature who, when death comes, will only leave behind aging parents and separated siblings and a handful of friends (I'm so cold, I know - I realize they love me very much and my death would be hard on them, but its really different now). When I became a wife, things started to change. Ok...engagement and the prospect of motherhood really began the change. But the marriage and house actually solidified the first part and the birth solidified the second. First, here was this man who had just given up everything for me. He has invested the rest of his life in me. He loves me. Not because he has to because he's a good person. He loves me because he chose to. I don't want to die anytime soon because of that - I don't want him to be left behind with all this stuff he put together for our life together with no life together.
Then there was Ethan. And every time I think of dying now, it involves Ethan crying for me and my not coming to him. And that just tears me up inside. IN a very bad way.
And then this went in a new direction - abortion and all these stories of mothers hurting their children. And I finally understand why mothers doing this appalls me so much more than hearing about fathers doing such things.
You see, from the moment of conception to birth, a baby is relying solely on its mother for survival. Its life is so utterly dependent on the mother. And here is this woman, with this child in her safe-keeping, who violates that protection that her body is providing for her child - violating the very purpose of her body at that point in time - and destroying it for some stupid, selfish reason.
And then, after birth, that child so naturally and instinctually trusts implicitly and loves unconditionally this woman who has just given birth to him. Fathers, they learn to trust in those first days, first weeks, first months - mothers = trust to them.
So when a mother harms her child, she is violating and betraying that trust. She throws away the only one who truly loves unconditionally.
Its horrid.
Enough. I'm going to bed with my hubby now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)