the situation is always fluid

In light of, well, you know, I've decided to compile some thoughts. My guess is that they will not form a logical thread of a normal, well-written post, but I suppose we'll have to see.

1: sin is real.

And it's the reason for all of the crazy bullshit that goes on in the world, and it attacks and damages and destroys everyone, regardless of who you are or where you come from or what you believe in. People hurt and kill each other. Disasters happen. Injustice is everywhere across the world. And we're not safe from ourselves, either—regardless of how hard we might try to Do the Right Thing, we're not perfect. We all have our flaws, whether we can identify them or not, and even those of us who are struggling to live better lives, to be better people, are still, and will always be, fighting an upward battle. You can't avoid it, whether you are a Christ-follower or not. [1] And, I'm sorry to say, there is approximately zero chance of that changing—at least not while we're here on earth.

Certainly, we should do what we can to walk the right path, to prevent injustice, to protect and support those weaker or less fortunate than ourselves, to love all people as God has loved us. But so long as we're here, there will be no end to the terrible things that happen.

Sin just is, and it's awful, and it takes no sides but its own.

2: america is not a christian nation.

Reminder: we left England because we wanted religious freedom—not so we could use our faith to bully other people into living the way we want them to. The very concept of having religious freedom centers on the idea that all people should have that freedom, and that, perhaps, the government should keep its nose out of other people's business. [2]

I've had a handful of conversations with people about voting your beliefs, and that one is tricky for me. As a follower of Christ, I follow his teachings, and he teaches that there is only one Way, one Truth, and one Life [3]. And, as such, I don't (can't?) align with the pluralistic idea that whatever works for you is okay.

That said: I'm not (as I hope you know) the kind of person who just throws my beliefs and opinions in people's faces, because, while I and my faith do adhere to a "One Way" belief, I also don't expect anyone to change their mind simply because "I told them it was the right thing to do." The Way of Jesus is love and compassion, and I strive to follow that path, regardless of whether we believe the same thing, regardless of whether my heart hurts for you as a result of my belief. One of my (many) personal uphill battle(s) is that of finding the courage to share those beliefs, even when I sense that they may not be well received, but this struggle comes from a place of desperately wanting to share the love and the hope that I have through my faith.

Many people, even people that I know and care about, are relatively opposed to hearing about God and Christianity. This is primarily and unsurprisingly because the majority of their experiences with Christianity have been the hatred and judgment that so often radiates from "Christian" communities.[4] And yes, while the Bible draws some pretty explicit (and some unfortunately less-explicit) lines in the sand, Jesus also spent his entire ministry hanging out with sinners, even while completely physically and emotionally exhausted. Ranting and shaming and pointing fingers has never gotten anyone anywhere, nor is it what Christians are called to do. [5]

Anyway where was I — right — voting your beliefs. I struggle with this because I put my faith in God and not in the country, and I also recognize that a functional democracy is one that actually allows its people to live the way they want to. And—in case you were confused—democracy and Christianity are not the same thing. Democracy, in order to work, needs to allow people to live in the way that works for them. My belief system, however, doesn't really work that way. So... do I vote for what makes sense for democracy, because I think that certain laws and rulings and what-have-you create an oppressive, not-in-the-spirit-of-love government system? or do I vote based solely on what MY beliefs are, and let the rest shake out as it may?

The point I am trying to make is this: the Kingdom of God is not the same as earthly government, and democracy should not, and cannot, be used as a tool for spreading the Word and love of Christ. That's on you, kids.

3: in an attempt to pull this together

I think this all comes up because I'm tired—more tired than I have ever been as a result of politics. I've never voted in a presidential election before, because I've never been this invested, and (as a result) I've never been more disappointed in or alarmed by the results. I'm wishing that I had said some of this sooner (not that I think it would have made much of a difference, but you know), but more importantly—I'm tired of not saying any of this at all.

I'm a Christian. I'm a feminist. [6] I'm not a republican (was I ever?). I regularly attend a confessional Lutheran church (which is one of the more traditional/conservative brands). I think that church and state should be actually separated in order for democracy to work. [7] I think that many Christians need to seriously and carefully consider what they say and post on social media, because no matter how caught up you can get, just because something has a seed or suggestion of Christian belief doesn't make it something that spreads the love of Christ. [8] The same goes for everyone, really, but I feel that I currently only have the right to admonish my own people. Because Christians are my people, and—as I have said—no one is perfect, and sometimes judgment can be a good thing.

The point is that I'm tired of worrying that my non-Christian friends will think differently of me for being an ardent, conservative-belief'd Christian. I'm tired of worrying that family members will berate me for my political leanings or for not trying to put on a show of being a straight-laced good girl, when in fact I am just as real and flawed and struggling as the next person. And if nothing else, this election season/process has made it much easier for me to stop caring so much.

The Bible makes it pretty clear that to live means to suffer. But we aren't alone, and God's love is unchanging and eternal.

So we do not lose heart. Though our outer self is wasting away, our inner self is being renewed day by day. For this light momentary affliction is preparing for us an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, as we look not to the things that are seen but to the things that are unseen. For the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal. [9]

Take heart. He has overcome the world. [10]

---
[1] actually, you can't avoid it especially if you are a Christ-follower, but that's a somewhat different angle on what I'm getting at here.
[2] credit to Amanda and/or Jasmine, although I can't remember which of you made this point so concisely.
[3] spoiler: it's him.
[4] judgment is not always bad, however, and I also believe that being judged by someone (in a loving way or not) can do a lot for the whole 'being a better person' thing. even if/when it sucks to hear. and the tricky part is deciphering when it's actually constructive criticism and when the other person is just being an asshole. anyway, that's not the point I'm making here, so if you're mad that I said Christianity isn't about judgment, please review Ephesians 4:1-7 and 1 Corinthians 13 and then just let it go because you might be part of the problem.
[5] so cut it out already, because the only people I've been tempted to "de-friend" are, in fact, largely fellow brothers and/or sisters in Christ. that alarms me. don't be part of the problem.
[6] if you knew me in high school or early college: your surprise is well-founded. let this mark the first time that I have clearly and publicly stated this, and I regret nothing.
[7] I also think this country's "democracy" needs an epic overhaul, but hell if I have any idea what that actually means.
[8] I'd just like it on record that Matt Walsh is a tremendous asshole. I got excited about something he posted, once, because it articulated something that I had been trying to put into words—and then I realized that he's a bigot with a chip on his shoulder who does nothing to display a Christlike humility or compassion. and yes, I recognize the irony in my calling him an asshole and then being unkind to him in the same fashion, but I'm over it (see above).
[9] 2 Corinthians 4:16-18
[10] John 16:33

"If you have to ask, then that’s your answer."

Warning - NSFSA (not safe for some audiences ... you know who you are)

This article, "Fuck Yes or No," pretty much says what I've been trying to say for forever. Manson and I have some different fundamental beliefs about sex [1], but other than that, we're more or less on the same page. I've been concerned for years with the all-too-common relationship approach of "this is good enough for now" or "I just don't want to be alone" -- if we're friends, you've probably heard my opinions about this firsthand. They might even have been directed at you. What I never feel I convey, however, is that it's so sad to hear people give terrible excuses for staying with someone they shouldn't be with. Not because I'm a hopeless, sunshine-and-unicorns-romantic [2], but because it reveals that people I care about don't think they're worth something/-one incredible.

You're worth it. Waiting for that person is worth it. I know, I know, it's easy for me to say because I have my person--but allow me to remind you that we fought for it. And the road wasn't always wonderful. [3] And before that happened, I came up with a lot of reasons to stay with other people when deep down I knew they were bad ones. Reasons, that is. Because ultimately, the Law of Fuck Yes or No doesn't say "this person is terrible and you should leave them"--it supports the idea that two people have to connect.

That being said, I want to comment on the two problems Manson observes at the end of his post. Ultimately they both sum up to "the problem is you." I mean, that's pretty much the argument he makes in general: if you're not happy, it's your responsibility to consider why, and what you're doing or not doing to cause it. And to some extent--yes. You're the only one responsible for your choices and actions. But I want to add that just because one person realized they weren't happy and needed to pursue something else doesn't mean that the other person was somehow screwing it up. Manson's Two Problems make it sound like if you aren't connecting with someone, it's your own fault, and I don't think that's true. I know some really incredible people who haven't met their person yet. I've witnessed seemingly-happy relationships blow up out of nowhere. Sure, everyone can use some self-examination and -improvement, and sure, sometimes your lack of self-actualization can prevent others from seeing who you really are, or bring about the end of a relationship. But not always.

Sometimes you just have to have the chance to meet the right person. Sometimes what seems like a "fault" on one side or another is really just a disconnect that wasn't very evident to one or both parties. Sometimes people just up and leave for "no reason" (essentially, because they're not saying Fuck Yes) and can't give a good explanation as to why. Usually I end up asking these questions: if the person you are interested in doesn't see how great you are, do you really want to try to establish a relationship with them? Do you really want to be with someone who doesn't care about you enough to work through their issues with you? [5]

I guess I'm just trying to cover both sides. You can't generalize and say that you've missed your chance because of something you did or didn't do. You also can't generalize and say that you're perfect and anyone who doesn't realize that is a loser. The point Manson is making--and that I am agreeing with--is that relationships are about connection. If you have to ask whether you are connecting, there's a good chance you aren't. If attempting to connect with someone is harder than it is successful ... maybe neither of you are saying Fuck Yes.

---
[1] primarily the whole "not doing it before you're married" thing
[2] I mean... I am. but that's not the point here.
[3] I'd love to tell you the story sometime. Because I love to tell the story. Although if you're reading this, there's a good chance you know it already and really have no desire to hear it again.
[4] They usually work in the course of a semi-objective, rational discussion. They're not quite as effective right after the breakup, but then, I'm not really great at being comforting. I do like sad movies and wine and ice cream, so maybe we could compromise with those?

it's just money

Yup, you guessed it: this is another temper-tantrum post regarding the evils of growing up.

Seriously though--when they told me it was rough, they weren't kidding. When the adults I've complained to all gave me the "heh, yeah, I remember those days," I thought, "well, at least I'm not alone, at least they survived."

What I didn't realize was that the little "heh" was a temporary flashback to the red font on your bank statement, or the dreaded calls from 800 numbers (fourteen times a day), or the fact that you start using change when you buy things, simply because it makes you feel like you're spending less money.

For a while it was comforting to know that this is a normal post-college experience. Everyone agrees that it's hard to balance yourself out, start paying back loans, try to pay rent or utilities or whatever, nevermind--God forbid--the occasional "splurge," which at this point, includes paying $1.50 for a redbox movie. But it's normal, right? Plenty of Real Adults have done this, and survived, and have even started to have children! [1]

If it's normal, which they keep telling me it is, then everyone deals with it, and eventually, people recover. It's not forever. One day, or so I am told, it'll be normal to have a positive number in your bank account when you get your next paycheck.

The only thing is, that's just not helpful.

No, I don't want your budget lecture or your helpful suggestions or your "have you tried"s. The problem isn't our lack of ability to manage our money. The problem is the lack of freaking money. And sure, it's going to get better. Aaron is being handed work left and right, and my student loans go on hold in the fall, plus I get a salary to be a TA, which yay, but that doesn't help me now, this week, when it's Tuesday and we're overdrawn and there are literally only two eggs and a stick of butter in the fridge. At least I don't have to decide what to make for dinner?

And so, because I'm me, I like to look at all the things I did or am doing wrong. I could have gotten a degree in something marketable and not "English," because what does that degree even mean [2]. I could have "saved up for college" and/or applied to a bunch of places until I got a free ride somewhere and then I wouldn't have loans to pay back. I could shut my stupid mouth and get the job at Aldi bagging groceries, because in the end, what's another 20 hours/week of dealing with the average American consumer, and no one really cares about your degree or actual abilities anyway. And the time you are (selfishly!) taking for your marriage, your sanity, or cooking actual meals isn't really that important, because--you need the money! Get off your high horse and stop bitching!

....

I used to believe, wholeheartedly, that doing what you love is the most important. I used to believe, wholeheartedly, that it was just money, and that there would never be enough, and you just had to focus on what God is giving you today, and let tomorrow sort itself out...tomorrow.

The thing I'm most upset about, more than anything else, is the fact that it's getting harder and harder to believe in that. In theory, I do. In theory, I completely believe that God gives me what I need, when I need it. In theory, it could be a lot worse, and I have a zillion things to be thankful for, and I really have no right to complain at all.

You may have noticed, but I like to whine about growing up. Partially, it's because I know I'm not alone and I feel a sort of camaraderie with my fellow post-grads--and also, I'm a smartass and it's part of my stand-up routine. But honestly? It's so much harder than I realized it would be. And I'm not just talking about paying my bills. I'm talking about shouldering the responsibility of an apartment, a car [3], a job. I'm talking about facing the fact that it's irresponsible not to do something about the anxiety disorder I've been ignoring for years. Regular day-to-day responsibilities aren't homework that I get to put off until the last minute. The decisions Aaron and I have to make--we're it. We make the last call, and if it's a bad decision, there's no one to rescue us. There's no midnight-"get me out of this sketchy party"-phone-call. We're the end of the line, and we're just so used to being kids. Sure, we listened to what grownups told us, and eventually we actually started paying attention, but how on earth can you be "prepared" for this? All you really have is an idea of what it'll be like, and then cannonball, it's into the freezing cold water and you'd better learn how to swim.

You probably won't believe this, but I actually hate listening to myself whine. I know I don't have it as bad as it feels. I can look at today and think, I have a job, I have tips to buy groceries, I have a car to get home and a fantastic relationship with my fantastic husband. College degree, acceptance to grad school, prospects for the future, friends, clothes, cell phones--what do I really have to complain about?

"Growing up" is finding--or sometimes, creating--balance. Maybe I'm not at work every waking moment, but I'm making the most of my life. And life is more than the bank account. Life is goals and relationships, it's using the talents that we're given (even if they don't make us money!). It's finding the strength to face another day, to be able to say alright, let's have a kid or two, [4], to remember that the amount of money you have/don't have doesn't--shouldn't--can't--dictate how you live your life. Can I make changes? Sure. Will it be touch-and-go for a few years? Probably. But that's just how it is. That's just life, and it's not supposed to be easy.

"Growing up" means actually living and breathing the belief that God is giving us exactly what we need, exactly when we need it. It's not something that just happens, it's something you face, you learn, you exercise over and over again, probably forever. It's exhausting, and there's no going back. And that is the hard part.

---
[1] I can't even begin to process how that would work right now. The suggestion alone raises my heart rate.
[2] If you're one of my past or future professors, please note that this is rhetorical and cynical and ... just keep reading...
[3] Two, actually, and no I don't want to talk about it
[4] Nope, not a pregnancy announcement. Stand down, soldier.

how i became a writer

For my entire life, I have wanted to be a Writer.

Naturally this means getting published, and even, maybe, (although I would never admit to such a wishful hope) producing a bestseller one day. I've been journaling and daydreaming and telling stories for as long as I can remember, and with nothing really to show for it, except a box of diaries, a computer folder dedicated to notes and story ideas, and one novella that I "completed" in high school and can't bear to re-read.

This week, I decided to take a page out of Castle's book, and take myself seriously. [1]

...anyway. In college, for my senior honors project, I decided I was going to start writing a book. At the end of the semester, I presented on it, I graduated, and under the pretense of "stepping away from it to let it develop in the back of my mind," I haven't opened the file since. [2] I had 41 pages, a lot of notes, and most importantly: inklings of an idea about what it means to Be A Writer.

In the last week of trying to Write More, these ideas have begun to resurface in the practical, hands-on kind of way, and I am eager to share [3] what I believe to be a decent foundational approach to the insurmountable task of Getting Started. [4]

1: the muse is a tease

Basically every creative person I know waits to write or draw or whatever until "the muse descends." Because when you've got some down time and you're just feeling really inspired and passionate, it's a great time to bust out the old moleskine and be clever. Except the problem is that we then tend do nothing until we get those surges of creative energy, and let's face it, the most common time to get them is either right as you're falling asleep, or when you're in the shower. [5] If you only wait for the muse, the number of times you are actually productive dwindles significantly, until you all but forget that you like to write in the first place. So don't wait. [6] You can't rely on the muse (that fickle minx) and you shouldn't. When I'm feeling inspired I'm also at the height of my perfectionism, and I hardly ever get anything done, because I'm too worried about losing the Perfect Moment to horrible writing. On the flip side, however, if you condition yourself to write every day, or every other day, for some concentrated amount of time, you are at least producing something. One and a half pages of crap is still better than nothing. Which brings me right to my next point, which is this:

2: editing and writing are not the same thing

I like to edit. In fact, I could spend all of my Designated Writing Time reviewing the last four pages, making them the best four pages you have ever read, and at the end of this time period (which really is never long enough, but it's what I have), I haven't actually written anything. This ... well, this defeats the purpose. Four pages of really brilliant writing is still only four pages, and doesn't get me a publishing deal. And yeah, it's awful to skim yesterday's work and not do anything about the fact that you hate it, and is that even what you want to say? And does this ramble? And is that a good character-driven bit of dialogue? But the thing is, it still doesn't get me another page. I'm training myself to leave it alone, to look forward to the time that I can red-pen the hell out of my ~*finished manuscript*~ and until then, I'm going to focus on actually producing said manuscript. Which means no editing.

3: there's nothing permanent about your decisions

is very closely related to #2, but I make it a separate heading because it has two main points I want to address. The first is for perfectionist, anxious creatives like me: it's okay to pick a direction for the sake of getting some writing done. Nothing is final until probably like, the final publishing date [7], and if you spend your whole 47 minutes of writing time dithering over character names or period settings, you still don't have more than four pages. Pick one, and go for it. If you hit a problem somewhere in the future, reassess as necessary. Names? Use one so ridiculous you won't become attached to it, and wait until it presents itself. Or better yer, spend some time outside of said designated writing time in order to brainstorm ideas and make notes for yourself.

The other side of this section is for perfectionist, anxious creatives like me: it's okay to change your mind about a past decision. Even one you were in love with. It's hard to let go of the things you loved (especially when they were just so good!) but more often than not, it's necessary. Mostly in terms of editing (because let's be honest, that's when you basically destroy everything you wrote and start over), but also in terms of just writing something down. You have to let the writing go in the direction it wants to go, and not get caught up in "but I was going to do it this way!" I only half believe in the writers' myth that your characters and story run away from you, but that half of me is pretty darn convinced. [8]

I'm pretty sure that Stephen King said something about "killing your darlings," [9] and that's ironic, because it brings me to my next thought:

4: there really is nothing new under the sun

I have a friend who doesn't even like to use the term "creative" because she believes that if God created the world and everything in it, all we are doing is copying it in a variety of ways. I think there's some truth to that. There are limitless scenarios and nuances, but the core ideas about humanity, relationships, and emotions are never going to change. Someone is always going to say "wow, way to rip off ___." Obviously there's a fine line here, and I'm not suggesting that 50 Pairs of Shoes is going to be a successful romance novel, but when it comes down to it, you can't spend all of your energy trying to create something completely new. Because it won't be. And anyway, the Greeks probably did it first.

5: writing is writing is writing

People keep telling me that the menial journaling and blogging that I do still counts as writing. I have a really hard time accepting this, because as previously stated I am an anxious perfectionist. But in the end, every little bit still counts toward the final goal. Everything you produce is proof that you can produce something, even that page of terrible poetry or the sketch of the family on the back of a napkin. Not everything you produce in the course of your life will be worthy of publishing or selling--but that doesn't make it meaningless. Do you write for the recognition of having written something, or do you write because writing is just...fun? Goodness knows I have to remind myself this. And goodness knows--writing isn't always fun. It's almost like a relationship: you have to dedicate the time and energy, even when your heart isn't in it, even when you wish it could be better. Writing isn't just an isolated magical Thing--it's a process, a habit, a way of life. It doesn't get better unless you do it, and you can't do it if all you care about is the end result.

Am I a writer? You know what, I think I am. I might not be a good one, I might be a little rusty--but I write, and I do it because I adore it. And I think that even for anxious perfectionists like me, that is enough.

---

[1] I use "decide" as a very loose term here, but that's a story for a different post. Also, look at all the clever jokes. ahaha.

[2] except for just now, to see how many pages it was. Sorry, Andy. It's lost but not forgotten.

[3] primarily with other struggling creatives out there, because I feel your pain, but with everyone too because what the heck

[4] I mean, for whatever that's worth, since I have approximately four pages of Brilliant New Story and have never been remotely published

[5] that last bit might just be me.

[6] I think this is essentially what Stephen King is saying in his infamous "butt glue" quote (you know, about making yourself sit down to write and then staying there until it happens). I quite enjoyed On Writing, but I also appreciate Peter M Ball's objections to it, because--well, because he gets me.

[7] clearly, I don't know the first thing about this process

[8] see also [4] because I will be the first to admit I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm guessing Being A Writer is sort of like Being In Love ... you just know.

[9] or he was quoting Faulkner? It doesn't matter enough to research this right now

why i've been going crazy for the last few months

I can't decide if posting this is cheating, since I didn't write it for my blog in particular, but I guess it's no worse than posting a link to someone else's blog? So here it is: my grad school application essay. It feels a teeny bit pretentious to show it off, but I'm kind of proud of it, so...whatever.

Oh, and while I'm being self-conscious, I thought about taking out the school-specific details at the bottom, but then I didn't.

Anyway, enjoy.

---
When I assign the first paper in my future English 101 class, it will be on a current and controversial topic sure to elicit strong opinions from my students. This will encourage them to share their perspectives while giving me a snapshot of their writing abilities. But my favorite part of this assignment will come at the end of the semester, when I ask them to write a second paper on the same topic—except this time, they have to write it from the opposite point of view.

I can’t wait for the uproar when they learn that this is their final.

This assignment epitomizes what I find so glorious about writing. On a practical level, it requires a structured outline, thorough research, and the ability to present information in a logical progression. But this assignment is about more than just composing The Perfectly-Written Essay. It forces students to build an argument from scratch, and to learn how to use language to support an idea—even an idea they disagree with. In committing to the writing instead of only to the position, students learn the value of each and every word used to present a perspective. In using their writing to communicate to the world, students learn the power those words have, and the importance of having reasonable support for their ideas.

There comes a time in our lives when we have to figure out what we love and what we stand for. We have to account for ourselves, but in order to do so, we first have to understand ourselves. In college—right when we need it the most—we learn a beautifully structured method for thinking through an idea and supporting an opinion: expository writing. The classic essay format provides a way to identify the questions we are asking, and gives us the medium with which to answer them. But most of all, the essay calls for order in the form of a thesis. And when students are inspired to create and deliver a personal opinion by means of that thesis, they not only learn to write effectively, but also they also come to a better understanding of their own beliefs.

The unfortunate reality, however, is that college writing assignments are often a wasted effort. Working in the Concordia Writing Center for four years revealed to me that even the most diligent of students do not take their English Composition classes seriously simply because they are boring. The essay is established only as an arbitrary format for future homework assignments, and students walk away uninspired. And what a shame that is, because learning to write is the perfect platform for learning how to think critically. English Composition must not become obsolete, and I intend to be a part of its regeneration.

To do so, my idealism needs to be met with the reality of experience and the structure of a strong education. My attraction to the English department at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee lies in the department’s dedication to writers, evident in its cross-cultural, interdisciplinary studies as well as in the active support and involvement of the writing center. I look forward to the guidance of scholars with such diverse backgrounds and research interests, particularly Alice Gillam and her course “Teaching Writing as Process,” and Dennis Lynch’s experience as Director of Composition. I am also eager for the opportunity to hold a teaching assistantship, which is the ideal method of a hands-on education for my intended career as a professor of English. I hope to use my experience at UWM to reshape the way we write, and consequently, the way we think, one thesis at a time.

Today, the essay. Tomorrow, the world.

I'm writing a book called "How to Make Enemies" ... let me know if you want an autographed copy

I'm on dangerous ground here. You may know that I like to stay away (far, far away) from today's social issues and politics, because there's too much emotion riding on everything and I have noticed that it is generally hard for people to see reason when they're on a soapbox.

But therein, kids, lies the problem. The pursuit of Justice and Equality is never actually a reasonable one. It's always skewed by someone's agenda, someone's pride, or someone's real or imagined (but mostly imagined) suffering. It's far nobler to fight for a cause than to just look out for ourselves, but when we fight for a generalized cause, we tend to lose sight of ... well, reason. Intelligent, semi-objective, philosophical thought. All of it, out the window, because it's the idea that counts (right?), and not the specifics. [1]

So what got me so riled up that I decided to step out of my cave and make some enemies? Two things that will always provoke in me some ~~feelings: Doctor Who and Feminism.

I've been sitting on this rant since I read this article. Today, I read this one. And I'm already mad at my boss, so it's easy to sort of channel that anger into an I-don't-care-I'm-gonna-say-it-anyway-this-is-my-gorram-blog kind of post. You have been warned. It's not too late to turn back.

[Also, I have issued a Spoiler Alert for the rest of the post.]

Ladies and gentlemen (have you ever noticed that this very common phrase begins with "ladies"? Interesting.), I find this whole "the Doctor should be a woman!" rant to be quite disheartening. Maybe if the arguments were, I don't know, solid, I could get behind them. But when the premise of the argument is made with unsupported claims, they effectively make the people arguing them (and thus, the cause as a whole) look idiotic. (please see [1] again because it applies here too)

Kissell and Helmuth are opposed to having "yet another white British dude" [*] playing the Doctor for, as far as I can tell, two reasons:
a) the Doctor has thus far always played by British white guys, and clearly that's the sexist choice to portray men superior to women, and
b) because the show/Moffat portrays women as "sad and broken." [**]

...wait, what? Sad and broken? Have you even watched the show before, Elizabeth Lopatto?! Let's examine her argument for just a minute: "I'm fine with the next Doctor being a dude, as long as we get more interesting women and a more emotionally competent writer." [**]

I see two glaring problems with this sentence alone. The first is "more interesting women," and the second is "a more emotionally competent writer."

Lady, do you realize that the reason this show is so popular is the overwhelming amount of emotional connection viewers have with the characters and the story? "The Girl in the Fireplace" was the reason many of us fell in love with the Doctor in the first place, because of how much he cared about Reinette and how devastated he was that she died before he came back for her, even though he barely knew her. "Silence in the Library" and "Forest of the Dead," once you understand why, have one of the more tragic plot elements I've ever seen, and the kicker is that you don't even realize how tragic until well into season 6 (I'm not telling you if you don't know). "Amy's Choice" presents the question everyone is asking--Rory or the Doctor?--in a way that makes you sit on the edge of your seat and wonder which Amy will choose, because you sure as hell can't decide for yourself. I don't think the problem is that he isn't "emotionally competent." If it's just that you don't like the way he plays with your emotion, then don't watch the show.

And then--more interesting women? Because Clara, who jumped into the Doctor's entire timeline and rescued him without him even realizing it, and Rose, who absorbed the time vortex to defeat the Daleks, and Martha, who traveled the world to save the Doctor, while being hunted by tiny childlike weapon-aliens, aren't interesting enough? And how could I forget "abuse victim River Song, whose lives are stolen from her by the man she loves, for whom she later goes to jail for a crime she didn't commit; although placeholder/perfume model Amy Pond should get special mention for blandness." Yep, that's right, abuse victim River Song, who is so wounded and broken, except for the part where she stares down a Dalek until it cries for mercy, and how she has the Doctor wrapped around her finger and he doesn't even realize it. Because Amy Pond is a bland placeholder--bland?! really?? you couldn't find any other word? What about Donna, who saved the Doctor and the world and created the Doctor-Donna, and can't even remember it? If that's not "interesting" then I can't help you, Elizabeth. And if you don't like your characters to be "sad and broken" then stick to picture books, because I can think of no great work of literature that doesn't feature someone who isn't sad or broken in some way.

Honestly, it's not the cry for a female Doctor that bothers me. In fact, I think that would be quite the road to go down. From a literary perspective, or a philosophical one, or even from a "hey let's just mix things up!" perspective, it would be very cool if the Doctor was a woman. I'm just honestly so offended at the weak and ridiculous arguments being made for it to happen. It's evident that Laura Helmuth [**] isn't overly familiar with the show, based on the fact that she slips up and says "an actor playing Doctor Who" instead of "an actor playing the Doctor."

Of course, she also refers to Tim Minchin as a "dreamboat." [**] Do you see how her credibility might be plummeting?

Ted B. Kissell [*] actually started to form an argument that might have made sense; one of the most compelling statements I've heard on the subject is his comment on "Moffat's handling of his female leads," which was that "River Song, Amy Pond, Clara Oswald--all of them were mysteries for the Doctor to solve, instead of simply people."

You know what, that's a fair point. [2] This one makes me think a little: does the Doctor just view his companions as mysteries to solve? I can see the argument about those three companions. But then, the Doctor also sort of treats everything as a mystery to solve--and what about Craig in "The Lodger"? He's a "dude" [3], plus, the only reason the Doctor moved in with him was the mystery on the second floor. So if we're arguing that the Doctor doesn't treat people as people, then we have to include...everyone. And that's an entirely different topic than the one at hand.

The other big point Kissell argues is the "structurally sexist" [4] element: "i.e., the power imbalance inherent in the relationship between the male Doctor and his usually female companion." Let us keep in mind that Ted Kissell is upset about the fact that "the insidious cultural marinade known as The Patriarchy has penetrated your brain," so no one let on to him that he's a part of it. [5] Seriously though--the superiority argument is confusing to me. The fact that the Doctor has companions doesn't really seem establish a hierarchy. The term "companion" is an accurate description, and I fail to see how it's insulting. [6] The "inherent" distinction is between Time Lords and humans, but that seems appropriate, doesn't it? Besides, the Doctor needs a companion. He goes a little crazy (and a little miserable) without one. And haven't we just gone over the part where various companions save the Doctor, the world, the universe, reality, etc? These are the kinds of arguments that strike me as really trying to create a problem. Companions are only "inferior" if you choose to perceive them as such, but I don't think that perception is necessarily supported by the actual plotlines, given the textual (episodial?) evidence that the companions are friends, traveling partners, and often heroes.

Then again, why would Moffat make it clear that there could be a woman Doctor if he wasn't going to create one? [7] And what if the Doctor WAS played by a woman? I mean, "having a woman as the smartest, bravest person in the universe, being able to fix any problem, save the world with her wits, a magical vehicle, and boundless courage--who wouldn't want to watch that show?" [*] Sure, I would love to watch that show. It would be awesome. [8] But both Kissell and Helmuth make the observation that Moffat would obviously screw up the female Doctor, since "during the regeneration of Mels into River Song, after all, we were treated to such Moffaty gems as her 'focusing on a dress size,' weighing herself, and going shopping." [*] Because women don't do that? Ever? Wouldn't you, if you weren't a member of the insidious Patriarchy [9] and you transformed into a different body? I think (surprisingly!) Helmuth actually gets closer with her observation that "if Moffat writes us a female Twelve, I imagine she'll be just as sad and broken as the other women he's written." [**] That I actually agree with. And then inevitably, someone would complain that the Doctor was under too much pressure, and she never got the thanks she deserved. Someone else would argue that she was portrayed as too giving, too self-sacrificing, and her goodwill was being abused. Her maternal instinct would be subject to question--why does the fact that she's female mean that she has to take care of everyone? Is that like her role, just because she's a woman? Yet another indignant viewer would be upset that the Doctor's hard decisions made her look like the badguy, and how come she can't be better at saving everyone? Unless the argument is that a female Doctor would find a way to save the world without any casualties. In which case, I don't want to watch that show, because part of the beauty of it is the raw, realistic (well, sorta) element of "you can't win all the battles all the time." The Doctor has to make the hard decisions, and I don't think that should ever change.

I just ... I can't figure out what you want, Feminist Cause. I think it's power for all women, and to ensure that women are not portrayed in pop culture as inferior to men, but it doesn't seem like you're actually evaluating the story, or the characters' relationships, or the philosophy of the Doctor himself. The arguments you are making are sort of trickling through to sound like "I want a woman Doctor because there aren't enough women who do badass things in this show" (false) "and how come it's always weird rando British guys that no one has actually heard of until they were Doctors?" [10] In fact, you're so busy being upset about the fact that the title character is a man, that you're completely missing all the fantastic stuff women in this show are doing. And yeah, the characters are broken. Yeah, people get hurt, and the Doctor is a little bit of an island. But the Doctor doesn't change, not at his core, and we're used to him. It's the women of the show who keep it running, keep it interesting. It sounds like you want someone incapable of being wounded, someone with no sense of fashion, someone who is fearless and flawless and independent and perfect. But I think you would hate her twice as much as you hate that Twelve is a male Doctor.

But then again, I'm on my soapbox. Maybe I'm just not seeing reason.

---
[*] from "The Depressing, Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who's New Time Lord" (The Atlantic)
[**] from "The Next Doctor Should Be a Woman. You Should Care Even if You Don't Watch Doctor Who" (Slate.com)

[1] This applies to everything, including, mind you, a lot of Christian theology, which will sacrifice actual doctrine in order to support a cause like "evangelism" or "youth ministry." This is an entirely different rant but it was worth noting.
[2] Never mind that basically every woman I know wants to be a mystery ...
[3] Why do both of these authors refer to men as "dudes"? Are they trying to be insensitive to men in order to dole out some justice? Or something?
[4] He took that quote from some other blog, but if you read the article you can find it for yourself. This ain't no research paper, deal with it.
[5] Or that his "favorite doctor, Tennant," is also "another white guy." Just sayin.
[6] Merriam-Webster's first definition is "one that accompanies another: comrade, associate; also: one that keeps company with another."
[7] Maybe because it's an interesting fact for the Doctor Who trivia bank, like the fact that he has children. Or maybe because Moffat is going to change the Doctor into a woman or something, and wouldn't that cause an uproar (and make a lot of people feel really stupid).
[8] Arguably, I watch it every time I sit down to watch Doctor Who. But I think I must be watching a different show than everyone else ...
[9] That's HIS capitalization, by the way, and he didn't capitalize any of the terms he uses to refer to women. Someone explain this to me.
[10] Really, I just wanted to use the word "rando" because it makes me giggle.

get a grip

I am, for the most part, of the opinion that people grow in little spurts, which occur as a result of an external cause (which is usually a "bad" experience, but I find that I learn the most through these in particular). I myself can look back and identify large changes and how they correlate to my chronological life: parents' divorce, starting college, breakup, breakup, etc. To be honest, while I usually dislike the event itself, in periods of stasis I find myself looking forward to these occurrences. That's why I enjoy school so much -- I am constantly finding things to think about, and these thoughts act as little catalysts for development. And I crave this development. Only when I am actively learning, academically or otherwise, do I feel that I am exercising the truest and best parts of my brain and my personality. The thrill of processing new ideas and information carries me through until I get the next hit, and I can sail through life high on inspiration and creativity.

Which is why, ultimately, I was so very upset about not getting into grad school. My reaction probably came across as pretty overdramatic, since it's not unusual not to be accepted the first time you apply places, and it's not like I can't apply again. But for me, it was more than just a delay in reaching my career. Grad school was going to give me another few years of intellectual high, and probably/hopefully give me that one last boost into "adulthood" that I've been waiting for. I couldn't tell you what it is that I'm going to learn or do that will make that happen, but I was (am?) pretty positive that a step or two remains between current Piera and useful-member-of-society-Piera. And grad school felt like my opportunity to reach that change, because it was moving on from barista-ing. I enjoy my job, but once the new-job thrill died down, Starbucks was just ... Starbucks. In some ways I'm jealous of the people who have found their calling in, as we say, "the industry." There's something to be said for contributing in tasty little ways to people's lives, and going home at the end of the day feeling fulfilled. But what I know is that it isn't MY calling, and it'll always make me restless and hungry for something more. Working there has given me plenty of time to observe society, but no way to respond to it. I have learned a lot of useful skills, but now I am just ... re-using those skills, and I don't know where or how to find new ones. I even put off getting promoted because I was positive that I would be moving on, and I didn't want to waste anyone's time by training me.

Anyway, as we all know, God usually has something in mind that is very different from what we expect. This time around, it was not going to grad school in the fall of 2013. And I could not for the life of me figure out WHY--what else was there to learn about this job? How else can I change, besides becoming a shift supervisor (which will only provide a quick intellectual buzz and then fade back into the status quo)? How am I supposed to go to this job every damn day and not worry that this is all I am good for?

Gradually, I figured it out. It took getting a second job, working on two shows (in two capacities), and going basically nonstop with barely enough time to sleep and/or shower for a couple of months before I did, but here I am. Realizing (again.) that some of the stuff my mom used to tell me is actually, in fact, great wisdom.

In high school, and when I was home from college, I would have this problem where I would over-commit. I had friends in different circles, and I hated to tell someone I couldn't do anything because I already had plans with someone else, because it felt like I was picking a favorite. So I would agree to all of it, and drive all over everywhere so I could make it work. [1] And every so often, it would really get to me, and I would be sick of everyone and just want some time for myself--which of course I realized too late, since I was supposed to be going somewhere and I didn't want to let anyone down by backing out. In these moments, my mom would tell me that I needed to stop letting everyone else dictate the course of my life. I, of course, would be furious that she thought I was such a pushover.

Well kids, here I am, nearly 25 years old and realizing how much of a pushover I am. Less so by people, I guess, although I still cave pretty quickly (especially depending on who it is). Mostly, however, it's like Deirdre also used to say: I am so good at adapting to my surroundings that I forget to be myself.

I've spent ...well, at the very least, the last 12 years or so letting life have its way with me. Occasionally I would put my foot down and Make A Change, but pretty much only for the glaringly-big things. In daily life, in the course of weeks and months and (apparently) the last year and a half, I just kind of go along with things, because that's how it goes and I can deal.

But the thing is, I can't deal. I've been going crazy and I have been waiting and waiting for something to change so I will be happy and -- just ... what?

It occurred to me--during tech week, I think, or shortly after--that it's my goram life, and maybe there are things I can't change right now, but there are definitely things that I can. I can't just sit around and wait for conditions to be perfect. [2] If I want things to be different, I need to change them. I got lucky--I got so lucky [3]--that I spent the last several years being literally presented with problems to deal with, and ideas to work on, and people to interact with. I got so comfortable with it that I never really learned how to ... well, self-motivate, I guess, although that phrase seems sort of trite and cliche. I was always jealous of the friends who just Get Shit Done because I never seem to have the time or the inclination to Do those things. And what I realized is ... why not? When people say "you have to make the time" I always respond with "I literally don't have any."

...but Piera. Why not.

Because I spend all of my energy waiting for something to cause me to move. And when nothing does, I find the closest most appealing activity that I can get my hands on, because clearly the magic of discovering a new thing signifies that it will change me. Obviously, this isn't working for me. I have so many things to write, so many books to read. I have let my intellect sort of wither and fade, because nothing external is pushing me to use it. And then I had the audacity to complain that I was losing myself -- because I kept looking for external forces to give me a reason to use them. I was bored, and I forgot to use the one resource I have always had: my own mind. [4]

I will not just be carried downstream anymore; I'm building a raft and I'm learning to steer. This is why I didn't get accepted to grad school: because I can't keep waiting for life to flow in the direction I want it to go. Some parts are necessary and unchangeable--I have a good job, and full-time hours, and I don't love it all the time but it's what I have and that's how it goes right now. But that job doesn't define me. But that job won't define me unless I let it. And I am very done letting it.

So this is my plan. I quit my second job. I turned down a stage managing offer. I claimed the desk in the new apartment and I will assign myself Office Hours, and I will Get Shit Done. Grad school apps, round two. Blogging. Reading. Catching up on my Greek. I even completed day one of my couch-to-5k program this afternoon. [5]

Sometimes, we have no control over life. I believe firmly that we are incapable of controlling it as a whole, because we are broken and human. We are, however, able to control how we react to it, learn from it, change because of it. It's easy for me to look at Big Scary Life Events and say well, we can't control what happens, we just have to learn how to deal. I'm good at that. But what I learned recently is that we also have no control over the fact that sometimes life is mundane. The Big Stuff, I accept as a challenge. I welcome challenge. The little stuff, however, I let take over. And I'm going to... stop letting it. It's going to take more self-discipline than I am used to exercising, because let's face it, the only reason I was so motivated in college was because grades were involved. Real life doesn't have grades. It just has me, being supremely disappointed in myself, which honestly has never been enough of a reason for change. [6] And I have a sneaking suspicion that starting to change this part of my life will create the groundwork for my alleged final level-up into "adulthood" (if not shove me into it altogether, but let's not get too excited).

So this is my plan, because it never gets easier. Hell, it never gets anywhere if you don't start trying.

---
[1] Well technically, I would make my mom drive me everywhere. Which is probably why she started telling me to cut it the hell out.
[2] My last post, but the body is weak, talks a lot about this already, but with less ... I don't know, revelation. That post was a recognition of the situation; this one is ... A Plan Of Sorts.
[3] Except I don't believe in luck, I believe in design, but it sounds sort of poetic here so I'll stick with it
[4] I get bonus points for saying Very Dramatic Things, right?
[5] It was pathetic. Just sayin.
[6] As aside here about stewardship, and how not using my talents for the glory of God is like burying them to "keep them safe," and I'm feeling very passionate in this post so it's coming out from a "I have to be good enough for myself" perspective when there's a whole lot of Jesus and grace and things actually involved. I'm just stating for the record that all of this falls under the category of "Already Assuming XY and Z"

lately.

This isn't quite as cool as my idea of a Tim-Burtony-pop-up-storybook-werewolf video, but since it's actually by the band, I guess it's okay.

Anyway, I'm hoping to return from my accidental hiatus sooner vs later.

---

Edit: I guess you can't really have a hiatus, accidental or otherwise, if you don't really post on a regular basis. I guess what I mean is that I actually have some things I want to blog about and I keep putting those things off.

pretty awesome.

here's another commentary-less link for y'all! Just some ideas to think on.

this is a pointless rant

I know this may come as a surprise to a lot of you fangirls out there, but LOKI IS A BADGUY.

Yeah yeah, I get the whole misunderstood thing, how he's just lost and lonely and feels betrayed and unloved and all that nonsense. But the thing is, he's had plenty of chances to get his head out of his ass and realize that (a) his father really did love him, frost giant heritage or not, and (b) everyone would have welcomed him back and tried to work it out if he had given up his "the throne should be mine" obsession back during Thor. But once The Avengers came around and Loki was still trippin from not being good enough to be king of Asgard, I kind of gave up wanting him to turn out okay.

I appreciate good character development. And a huge part of Loki's character development is understanding that he was adopted, and it really has to be a big deal to realize that your kinspeople are The Enemy and no one told you until you were an adult (although Odin chose not to tell him because he didn't want Loki to grow up feeling less important, so I have a hard time feeling TOO bad for his awkward discovery). Plus his brother is good at everything, and said brother used to be an arrogant impulsive jerk. So it kind of makes sense that Loki would be jealous upset when Thor, who fell out of favor (and out of Asgard), regains his father's respect and restores his rightful place as heir to the throne. Especially if Loki doesn't understand the change that happened to Thor on earth, because while us Americans watched him change, Loki only saw before and after shots, and he wasn't really paying attention anyway.

These are all important factors to consider when understanding Loki. He's not just evil for the sake of being evil; the argument could even be made that he's not evil at all, just misdirected and malajusted, and does that necessarily make a person evil?

But people, let's have some perspective. It's not necessarily the fault of Thor or Odin that Loki turned out the way he did. Loki's got a brain; he could have figured out. He could have shut up and listened to what they were trying to tell him, because while he may feel that they have betrayed him, they never actually did. Thor loves his brother, and that's evident through both of the movies. But Thor also isn't a wuss and doesn't just give Loki what he wants so Loki will quit with the temper tantrums. Sometimes people get hurt--that's life. And when people are hurt they react in weird ways, and even that is understandable, because everyone does it. But there comes a point when you just need to GET OVER YOURSELF ALREADY.  Life is about making choices. And Loki spends a good deal of his life making bad ones, and somehow this makes him a tragic hipster icon. ~~ooh look at Loki, he's all twisted and has sad puppy eyes and I just want to hug him and make it all okay.

What? Girls, for goodness sake. He isn't even badass enough to get minions--he needs to use mind control. And mind control is never okay. And did you notice the part where he monologues about power... but only to people who are obviously not as strong as him, because they're not even from the same world as he is (and by the way, it was maybe a bad idea to do it in Germany, where they're a little touchy about scary power-hungry leaders). And face it, you've got to be a little unstable to start spazzing out at the Hulk. So tell me, because I must be missing it--which part of this is attractive? He's a whiny brat who probably got that way because his dad felt bad that he was actually a frost giant, and let him get away with some stuff, which is how he turned into a greasy weasel. But once you reach a certain age, you need to start being accountable for your actions. Even IF his feelings of betrayal were justified (which really, they weren't), he still would need to eventually move on and learn to deal instead of throwing a temper tantrum.

I feel a little sympathy for people who are hurt and who go a little crazy as a result. Because we've all been there. But when you go crazy and stay crazy, and refuse to try to work it out with anyone, I don't want to hug you. Even if you do have sad puppy eyes.

why I won't make it to grad school

1. graduate college
2. get married
3. get a doctorate
4. be a professor

Good news: the pre-grad school preparations have begun, and although I promised myself to apply to multiple graduate schools, I have basically already decided where I want to go. But let us not yet worry about whether I will actually get in to said top-choice school, because I'm still stuck on the fact that I have to take the *#$!% GRE.

I just do NOT understand the point of standardized tests.

Okay, no. I guess that to some extent, I understand the point. The point is to have one standard test so that all people can be equally measured across the country, so that schools have something to go on as far as a person's intellectual level.

Fair enough. Standards have to happen I suppose. This is America after all. Except that's pretty much where its usefulness ends. Because I don't believe for a second that a standardized, sit-in-a-taupe-colored-air-conditioned-room-and-bring-your-fancy-calculator-just-in-case test is going to portray a person's intellectual level. Their analytical reasoning skills? Sure. But I don't see why schools consider this as a huge part of accepting you or not.

Personal Rant Disclaimers:

a) I want to study English, in which it is hard to pin down qualitative or logical Correct Answers, and not only that, but I want to study Composition and Rhetoric, which is about writing and not even about comprehending and analyzing literature. (comprehending and analyzing life, maybe, but who cares about how well i can do that). So maybe my rant is a little biased in that direction (because I don't know a thing about what it's like to be a business student or whathaveyou).

b) I don't actually know how much schools consider ACT/GRE scores. I know that a lot of program informational things will say how much it is relevant for the program, but nevertheless the school itself requires a certain score in order to be accepted.

c) The FAQ page of the GRE website pretty much says straight-up that they're measuring reasoning skills:

"Does the GRE revised General Test measure knowledge in any specific disciplines?     The GRE revised General Test measures your verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, critical thinking and analytical writing skills — skills that have been developed over a long period of time and are not related to a specific field of study but are important for all. The GRE revised General Test features question types that reflect the kind of thinking you'll do — and the skills you need to succeed — in today's demanding graduate and business school programs."

Well, good. I'm glad the GRE website knows what skills I'll need to succeed in "today's demanding graduate and business school programs" because I certainly don't. So maybe I should trust them and just learn how to take the damn test.

OR (and here the disclaimers end and my rant continues) I could continue doing what I do, which is think not as though I were programmed to regurgitate The Correct Answers. And to take on each class for what it is, that is, its own individual semester-long experience with different teachers, or even the same teachers with different subject material. When I need to apply my brain in a "qualitative reasoning" direction, I will do so. But I will be greatly affected by varying factors like the professor, or the curriculum, or the time of the year, or work, or my group partners, or whether I'm pregnant at that point, or whether I care enough to get anything higher than a C in that class.

And so someone please tell me why one solitary outside-of-anything-close-to-normal-life test is going to assess a person's actual ability to think qualitatively? Last time I checked, nothing in life can really be singled out and tested without any surrounding factors. Because everything in a person's life is connected by (go figure) that person, and that person is continuously being affected by... something.

And not only that, but (surprise, America!) not all people think equally or in accordance with some kind of standard. And certainly an argument can be made for people all meeting the same standard, because I do actually think that students should be expected to reach a certain standard, and also that said standard should not be lowered just because our kids are getting dumber (I'm going to get in trouble for that one). It's just that this standard is more or less impossible to asses on a national level. Because when the numbers get into the millions (or heck, even if they were just in the hundreds), no one would have the time to meet and talk to a person and figure out their story and how they apply their brain and what have they learned in the last four years of school. That's just... ridiculously impossible. It would be tricky even for 20 students. The fact of the matter is that people all learn differently, and a person's progress cannot be tracked without knowing that actual person. Sally might have made straight As and then gotten a high score on her test, but she hasn't actually improved her mind or really learned anything except how to take a test and how to impress a teacher. Tommy on the other hand might have gone from failing to getting pretty consistent Cs, but he'll get a lower score and Sally will be chosen for the competitive medical program even though Tommy's little sister died of cancer and he wants nothing more than to start researching ways to save other kid's little sisters--

--aaaand breathe wow I just got a little dramatic and carried away just there.

The point is: I don't think it makes sense to require a standard that really doesn't asses anything other than how well you take a test. The study guide section of the GRE website even says that you don't have to know actual information:

"Reading passages are drawn from many different disciplines and sources, so you may encounter material with which you are not familiar. Do not be discouraged if you encounter unfamiliar material; all the questions can be answered on the basis of the information provided in the passage."

Well how does that help anybody? Because the kicker, the real actual kicker, is that they already give you the answer. It's either A, B, C, or D, but it's there, and the Gamemakers (whoops sorry, that was a scarily apt Hunger Games reference just there) have already decided which one it is. So I don't even have to learn how to take a test ... I have to learn how to interpret a question that some group of Very Smart People has decided is relevant to my critical thinking skills. I wonder if anyone in that special group of people has a life, let alone a relationship, and what they actually do when they aren't constructing (poorly-written) paragraphs for us poor Tributes to analyze critically but also correctly.

I wonder if I can bypass this torture by writing a very intelligent and well-researched letter to UW-Madison explaining all the reasons I shouldn't have to take the GRE to prove that I would be a worthwhile student.

post script: i know that i'm breaking every single rule about citation with my url-link quotes. i also don't care, because i trust that you'll trust me not to make this shit up, and to be smart enough to find the quote if you care enough to click the link.

accidents (don't) happen

I was recently told by a member of a previous church that the pastor and his wife had another baby. "But it was an accident," was the hurried follow-up comment, as if that made any sort of difference.

This bothers me to no end. No child—no life—is an accident. A surprise, perhaps, and maybe one that seems to cause more stress than the planned-for child, but an accident? Never.

I'm not saying this because I don't want all these poor kids to grow up feeling unwanted. I mean, obviously I don't want that, but there's more going on here than little Bobby's self-esteem. I think I actually take offense to this seemingly-harmless explanatory comment (and I am not easily offended). It falls in the same category as people who say that the world is here because some dustballs sneezed it into existence, but it's a little more personal and a sentiment found a lot more commonly among Christians (who, I would assume, believe that God spoke the world into existence, ktl). Conception isn't up to chance, it's up to God, who is the ONLY being capable of actually legitimately creating life. Sure, we have plenty of tests and procedures and fancy methods of scientifically makin the babies (not to mention the sex), but as far as I know there is still no actual way to explain how sperm + egg = living breathing baby.

And sure, sometimes married couples (or even, le gasp, non-married couples!) get pregnant at a really "inconvenient" time, and they weren't expecting it to happen (but not to me, don't everyone freak out). But in keeping with my post Born Ready, which is (more or less) about God's design, I don't believe anything happens "accidentally." Especially not when it comes to an entire life being brought into existence.

The moral of this rant is that people don't think about what they're saying. And usually I just let it go, because people will be people, and I don't have the energy to care that much. But for a Christian to say that a pregnancy is an "accident" is an affront to the love, omnipotence, and design of a God said Christian claims to believe in. And by the way it's no different for an unmarried couple, because although premarital pregnancy indicates naughtiness, we're still talking about the life of an actual person whom God specifically chose to create, regardless of the factors preceding the conception.

I'm so sorry if you didn't want the inconvenience of a child, but don't diss that which God has made, and made beautifully.

/rant.