baby don't hurt me

If you're side-bobbing your head, you already know what this post is about.

Various people in my life have been talking lately about "love," and what it is, and whether it's attainable. So naturally, because I have some intense ideas and opinions about the topic, I felt the need to chime in. [1]

why is love so complicated?

Honestly, in many ways, it's not. We love our families and our friends, and we don't usually question it, even when they make us crazy. Non-romantic love is something we accept, something we are willing to put effort into. And usually, we do it without really realizing how much.

From our family, ideally speaking of course, we learn a permanent love, the kind that exists regardless of the fights we have with siblings or parents etc. We even admit that we love, at least in some capacity, those relatives we might not necessarily like or connect with, or even someone who has wronged us. Family is family; they aren't going anywhere. So without the option of just "not being family anymore," we learn to adjust, and by adjusting, we establish a relationship. [2] From friends, we learn what it is to find people and love them for how they are. Unlike siblings, friends don't share the same genetics or upbringing, and therefore our friendships add dimensions to our perspectives as well as to our lives in general. Usually each relationship is unique unto itself, and as such we find different ways to interact with different friends. Because we are choosing to spend time together, we are also choosing to invest time and emotion in another person, and to some extent our friendships change and grow us.

So romantic love, as I see it, should fall somewhere in between: a combination of choosing to spend time with someone and working through differences instead of walking away from them. I have noticed, however, that most people try to make romantic love into something much more magical and complex. Some people come at it with a preconceived idea of what it's supposed to feel like, and are ready to run at the first sign that "the spark" might be gone. If we don't just automatically know about a person, it can't be right. Others (and I typically used to fall into this particular category), believe that it has to be love because it's convoluted and intensely emotional--a mix that tends to result in a good deal of fighting and even actual abuse. [3] An alarming amount of people idealize relationships that can be summed up as "people don't usually get us," as though these kinds of relationships are SO incredible that no one else could possibly understand. This is not to say that people haven't ever experienced "love at first sight" (at least some of those cute old people stories have to be true), or that there aren't successful relationships that don't make sense to the outsider. The problem I am trying to identify is really less to do with relationships themselves, and more about the expectations we bring into them.

It seems that most people fully support the concept of "being friends first" but then treat romantic relationships completely different from friendships. And yes, there is a lot more at stake in a romantic relationship than in a friendship, because you're looking to find someone to trust with all of your secrets and vulnerabilities. But if you choose to be friends with someone based on the way you interact and the things you have in common, why should the initial groundwork be any different for a boyfriend or girlfriend? And once you're in a relationship, and looking toward marriage--essentially, trying to establish a family of your own--wouldn't it make sense to treat it as though you will be working on it for the rest of your life?

Equally as complicating as our expectations going in to relationships, however, is the issue of sex. I here refer to it as a concept, which includes mackin' or even just cuddling. Once the physical element is involved, it is suddenly harder to approach the relationship from a friendship perspective. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a "don't hold hands until you're married" kind of a person. But once you've crossed certain lines, they can't be un-crossed, and you've just invested a great deal more than you may have originally planned. I mean, who doesn't like sex, and doesn't want to continue having it after it's started up? Exactly. But barreling down this hill means that the other emotional/intellectual parts of you are still kind of waiting at the tops of their respective hills, and usually you're too busy rolling around in the grass to notice. Until suddenly you DO notice, and then you don't understand why the emotional and intellectual aspects of your relationship are so hard to work out. [4] The fact is, sex (and physical interaction in general) is connected to emotions, no matter which way you look at it. [5] The more you interact physically with someone, the harder it is to stay objective about your relationship. Not to suggest that subjectivity is a bad thing--in fact, it's not at all helpful to be completely objective--but without a certain element of reasonableness, relationships tend to spiral downward into a hot mess of heightened emotion and defense mechanisms.

okay, but what does it look like?

I'm gonna go here, you guys. It has to be done. I feel like a lot of people have heard this explanation so many times that they don't really think about what it means and how it is relevant. Which is too bad, because the Bible straight-up hands us a how-to guide on love:

• Love is patient and kind
• Love does not envy or boast
• Love is not arrogant or rude
• Love does not insist on its own way
• Love is not irritable or resentful
• Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. [6]

Kids, this is what love looks like. It is both far easier to break down than people want it to be, and a hell of a lot more work than people expect. It's not magic, it's not inexplicable sensation. It's being patient with someone when they drive you nuts, and not being petty or irritable. It's being kind and not rude or self-centered. And it's hard, because by nature we lose our patience, we are resentful of someone for something they do (or don't do!). I certainly don't like it when things don't go the way I want them, but there it is.

I should mention that this explanation of love is talking about love for everyone--your mom, your lab partner, your best friend, that obnoxious guy you work with, etc. Jesus instructs us to love one another, [7] so the list is really talking about an entire lifestyle. I know someone who actually gets annoyed that people use this in the context of romantic relationships, because it doesn't indicate anything about romance or marriage. And really, when you think about it, if you don't have a foundational perspective and definition of Love, how can you possibly expect a romantic relationship to survive? [8] In fact, without a foundation, "love" appears only in the form of emotions, which are fluid and temporary and therefore unreliable.

sometimes love just isn't enough

Two things:
a) that depends on how you are defining "love"
and b) enough for what?

Okay, I admit it: I do understand the sentiment behind this statement. But I'm me, and it's far too ambiguous for me to simply agree with it.

Love, as defined in the list above, and as exemplified in the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Christ, is absolutely enough. Enough to be happy, to live your life fully, and to establish healthy and enjoyable relationships with those around you. [9] It's even enough to bring us from this life into eternity: for God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [10] If we live our lives loving one another, and trying to imitate the love of Christ, that true love then becomes the foundation of our relationships and the underlying current that directs our emotions. This is especially true in romantic relationships: if you love someone with a love that is patient, and selfless, and rejoices in the truth (and if they have the same foundation, and are approaching it the same way you are), it's going to be much easier to work through the challenges you face.

But "love" in the mushy romantic sense is not enough of a reason to commit yourself to a relationship, let alone a marriage. Absolutely a true statement. There's a lot more to stable relationships than the way you feel about them, because those feelings may or may not be permanent. Relationships are hard work, and this kind of "love" won't always stick around through the fights and the difficulties. [11] I've been married almost two years now and I can tell you for sure that all the giddy romantic stuff is there much less than it used to be. [12] But I can also tell you that this isn't a bad thing. It's not that "the spark has gone out"--our relationship has simply changed. You grow out of that initial head-over-heels feeling and into a different kind of warm fuzzies. And no, it's not that incredible headrush of the first kiss, but it's a comfort and security that you can't possibly achieve right away.

then how do you know you're in love?

Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer this one. To some extent, I think it's kind of obvious: you'll feel it, you'll breathe it, you'll know it with every ounce of your body. But whether that means you're ~in love~ as in, THE love, the person you're going to marry? I think that has to be a different feeling for everybody. And it probably depends on your views about "The One."

My views, since you asked, are sort of in the middle of "there is One Person out there for you" and "you can theoretically marry and be happy with anyone." Before I met Aaron, most of the married people I asked about this told me "oh, you just know." And of course I didn't really believe them, because that sounded like a load of crap and I was far too practical for that. True love, after all, isn't magic and fleeting emotions. But as it turns out, I did "just know." I knew it so well that to this day I haven't questioned it, and I haven't needed to.

I believe that God is using my choices and circumstances to provide me with everything I need, and to bring me, ultimately, through life and into an eternity in heaven. [13] I believe it strongly enough to write about it, even more than once. So my beliefs regarding marriage and "soul mates" fall, naturally, within this structure: certain choices that I have made have led me toward the person I married, and I believe completely that God brought us together on purpose (which includes, I should add, the idea that God also used Aaron's decisions and circumstances to guide him toward me). But I think that if I had made different decisions somewhere along the line, or even that external forces had led me in another direction, I would have met someone else who was equally as perfect for me as I am for him. So in a way, I believe that I could have married any number of different people and have been just as happy as I am now, but it's no different than thinking about what would have happened if I had gone to a different college or decided on a different career path.

so what is love?

Love is putting someone else before yourself. [14] Love is an active decision you make every moment of your life, and it's not always easy. But love isn't necessarily any different between friends or family or spouses. Our relationships and the ways we express our love are all different, but at the core, the foundation remains the same. And yes, loving people puts you at risk. It's actually a little bit terrifying to think how vulnerable you become when you are willing to truly love someone. But when you're looking for a husband or a wife, and when you both come at it with the same foundation and beliefs, you already have the answer for a lot of the problems that arise on the surface. And when you're both in it together, loving each other as God loves you, then you can't go wrong. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. And the best part is, love never ends. [15]

---
[1] For all of you skeptics out there, don't worry, I have already been informed by multiple people that anything I have to say on the matter is rendered invalid by the existence of my wedding ring, as it indicates that I am no longer capable of sympathy or empathy for the lovelorn. Because clearly that's how it works. </snark>
[2] Of course, I'm speaking in ideals here. Certainly, and unfortunately, I am aware that a lot of hurt and awfulness can occur within--and as a result, separate--families.
[3] Not to make light of abusive relationships, because those are a psychology chapter all to themselves.
[4] I mean, not like I have ever done this before.
[5] Even if that means you shut your emotions off, and pretend that your sexual experience has no bearing on the rest of your perspectives. But that's still a connection, and it's not a healthy one.
[6] 1 Corinthians 13:4-6
[7] John 15:12 -- This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
[8] Yep, you bet that I realize that I am presupposing a foundation of faith in order for any of this to work. I also realize and acknowledge that not everybody shares this foundation. To be honest, though, I don't think there is a better, all-encompassing explanation or approach than that list.
[9] 2 Corinthians 12:9a -- But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."
[10] John 3:16. Go team.
[11] If you're interested, I've even written a post about what I have learned to be important to a healthy relationship. Keep in mind that I do know everything.
[12] Not to say that we aren't sort of mushy and gross sometimes. Because ... we are. lol.
[13] Romans 8:28 -- And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
[14] John 15:13 -- Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
[15] 1 Corinthians 13:7-8a

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.

the perils of a persuasive thesis

I'm good at selling myself.

Not like that. Shame on you.

As an English major, you practice over and over again picking an idea/conclusion and then finding ways to prove yourself right. That's the whole idea behind writing an essay: come up with a thesis, and use literature and/or various sources to support it. Demonstrate why you are arguing your point, and why other people should agree with you. Essentially, you're selling an idea. The more textual support your paper has, the better that idea sounds, and the more people will buy into it. You learn to see literature through certain lenses and to pick out quotes from other people in order to prove that you're not the only one with said idea.

And let's be realistic here: eventually, because this skill is practiced in terms of homework and grades, you learn to sell the idea long after you have stopped caring about it. I might have lost interest in Hamlet's hubris, but I have three more pages to write by tomorrow morning, so I'm going to keep at it. [1] There's a certain amount of shmoozing that goes on at this point, and you get really good at making broad connections and tying in loosely-relevant quotes. [2] It becomes part of what you do and how you think. I'm the kind of person now who hesitates to share an opinion without also giving at least two good reasons for having it, because I believe in writing strong and convincing theses. [3]

And sometimes I am really pleased about having this mentality. I am of the opinion that more people should have reasonable support for their perspectives, and that society would benefit from a little bit of research now and again. But the problem, I have found, is that I am too good at supporting an idea. So good, in fact, that I buy into my own arguments, simply because they are well-supported.

There's this recurring theme in my life: discovering a new and different job (that pays better, or has a "better" schedule). I pursue that thing by doing what I know, which is pitching myself as perfect for it because of XY&Z previous experiences or skills. [4] Resumes are more or less just a weird-looking works cited page. And while I'm trying to get there, I manage to convince myself that all the selling points about me are why I will love this job, and then one of two things happens:

1. I don't get the job, and I feel all the feelings of rejection, dejection, depression, existentialism, frustration, etc, OR
2. I do get the job, and I charge into it headlong, and at some point a few months down the road I realize that while I am completely capable of doing it, I don't love it like I thought I would. It doesn't change me or edify me in the ways that I had hoped. Plus, so far, these instances have involved work in addition to The Corporation, so while I (sometimes) make a little more money I also have less time to be Piera-y, which ends up making me crazier than ever.

Someone asked me the other day what I would do if time and money were no object. [5] First I panicked because I thought I didn't know. But as I opened my mouth to reply, [6] it occurred to me that I would write. Would I still teach English Comp to freshman? Yes, probably. And I would also read, and watch all manner of movies and TV shows--but most of all I would hole up and write.

And after all of this real-world adult nonsense, I'm asking myself the same question that keeps coming back to me: why aren't I doing this already?

I keep looking for ways to change my situation, and I keep trying to grab hold of options simply because they are there. I keep running away from what is right in front of me, because it's not "good enough." The conditions aren't perfect, and I have to make them perfect before I can go on. My mom calls this "if/then" thinking, and it's not really a productive way to live, because you spend your whole life waiting for something to work the way you think it should in order to do something that you want.

I don't love working for The Corporation. It's made me (more) cynical, if nothing else, and it's humbling to go to work every day and not have ways to express my intellect, my passion for thinking and relationships, my faith. And while it's not a terrible paycheck, it's not a good one, and we have bills to pay.

But for the present, it actually is offering me what I want: The freedom to come home and pursue my own goals. I have a flexible schedule, no homework, no problems to take home. My job even has benefits and vacation hours. So, I ask myself yet again, what's the problem? There's no glory, no intellectual high? Does there have to be? Is it not meaningful in the sense that I have a job at all? Am I in danger of wandering from my career path?

It's not that I can't pursue bigger or better options. But Real Jobs tend to want you for the semi-long term, and if I want to go to grad school, which starts in less than a year, the timing doesn't look so great. And until I know if/where I get accepted, I can't really make any plans. Once applications are submitted, I can stop stressing about grad school and start using my free time to--you guessed it--write more.

So new game plan? Keep on keepin' on. Reassess when I have an answer about school. Stop worrying and start making the most of what I actually have. And most of all, stop looking for answers in the wrong places, [7] starting with not buying in to my own sales pitch about me.

"I know he can get the job, Harry, but can he do the job?" [8]

And more importantly, should I?

--
[1] You also learn, eventually, to sell the idea by skimming the material for quotes instead of actually reading it. Not, of course, that I would ever have done this.
[2] I always wondered if professors just couldn't see through my bullshit, because I would get good grades on these papers. I'm beginning to think, however, that maybe they were grading my ability to bullshit in the first place.
[3] When it comes to serious stuff, anyway. In regular life I don't usually think about the things that come out of my mouth O_o
[4] I'm especially a fan of tying in stage management as great life experience for everything, which is ironic because I've never even done it in an actual professional capacity.
[5] Granted, the person asking was using a marketing tactic herself, but that's neither here nor there.
[6] See [3]
[7] If this were a different blog post, I would go on to explain that the answer is trust in God's design and knowing that I am loved and forgiven. And all of these things are true, but this wasn't the angle I was taking, because all of these things are already assumed and in place. At least,they are in my head.
[8] from Joe Versus the Volcano

is God telling me to ruin MY life?

I'm going to do it again: that thing where I link to another post because someone else said what I have said or have wanted to say. Only (naturally) they said it better, and more concisely. Because let's face it, I don't do concise.

Go ahead, ruin your life. I dare you.

... this post is everything I have been saying, to myself, to my husband, to my sister and brothers, to my friends.

You can't lose. You can't! There aren't "right decisions" in the freedom of the Gospel. We still commit sin, that's not what I mean--but if you think about it, nothing we do is untainted by our sinful human nature. Everything is affected by our self-serving attitudes. But when it comes to life decisions? When it comes to choosing a path, a career, a spouse... we spend so much time worrying about what is Right that we often end up not making decisions at all.

It's like Allison says:  "if I’m living in honest pursuit of Truth, I believe I’ll find it."

I'm ridiculously worked up right now, for two reasons. First, because someone else thinks how I think, and is passionate about the steadfast presence of God. Because my friends have heard me say it enough that they really just need to hear it from someone else too.

But also? Because I feel like she is talking to me. Because right now I'm feeling inspired to Write (oh, to BE a Writer), to find a way to pursue teaching English between now and whenever-I-get-into-grad-school, and to stop barista-ing in order to pursue it.

I mean, let's face it. That's what I want to hear. And there's a fine line between taking a leap of faith for a specific purpose, and doing something irresponsible because I want to. And there's two of us, and I have to consider how my theories and philosophies and passionate ideals will change our life.

But damn. Right now, I'm ready to jump.

teleios and the time vortex: how Doctor Who shaped my faith

Part One: The Time Vortex 

"People don't understand time. It's not what you think it is." --the Doctor

When I fell in love with this man, I didn't expect it to shape so much of the way that I thought about life, and certainly not the way I thought about God or His presence in my life.

When you start traveling with the Doctor, you spend a lot of time being thoroughly confused. You experience it episode by episode, and for a lot of it, you really aren't sure what is going on. Who is this guy, and what is that telephone box thing (and why does it say "police"?) and why is he telling that blonde girl to run!, or saying "I'm so so sorry" to those aliens? [1] And once you kind of get the premise, you then have to wrap your mind around the concept of Time Travel, and how you can be in the past-but-actually-the-present, and watch the world exploding in the very-distant-future but still call your mom in 2005, and the whole thing is more than a little complicated. But slowly, the more you watch and the less you try to understand, the easier it becomes not only to follow the story, but also to comprehend the concepts and theories behind it. Time travel--at least in Doctor Who lore--doesn't confuse me as much as it did, because I sat back, shut up, and let it happen. And surprisingly, my brain eventually caught up with the rest of me. [2]

I am sure you're wondering what any of this has to do with God. So let me put Doctor Who on hold and catch you up to where I am.

Growing up, I was taught that God, who is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), has a plan for my life. He knows how many hairs I have on my head [3] and what I will be when I grow up (if that ever, you know, happens). Verses like Jeremiah 29:11 [4] are ingrained in my understanding of God: He has a plan for me, and that means He's taking care of me no matter what.

Alongside accepting that God Has A Plan, however, I also had the ingrained knowledge that we were given free will, and the ability to choose between good and evil. The fact that he gave us options [5] proves that we are allowed to think for ourselves. Being Lutheran meant that my salvation was not dependent on my choices [6], but mostly, in the practical sense, it just meant that that I had the freedom to make my own decisions.

But then high school happened, and the topic of free will vs predestination came into play. This was the first time I noticed the disparity between the two concepts: if God has a plan for me, does that mean I don't get a choice in what I do? Am I just following the script and having delusions of decision-making? But if I have free will, then how does it make sense that God has a plan for me? Unless God knows what I am going to decide (because omniscience) and then creates his plan around my decisions... but that would imply that it's not God's plan but rather my own. And most of all: if I do have free will, and God does have a plan, then what happens if I make the free-will decision to do something that's NOT in the plan? Won't that screw me over? Do I just keep muddling through, hoping that all my following decisions are the right ones, until I can get back on track? ...what happens if I don't ever get back on track?

It's all very confusing. And really stressful if you already have a hard time making decisions in the first place.

What college do I go to. What do I major in. Should I break up with my boyfriend. Should I go out with this other guy. What classes do I take next semester, and what classes do I give up in order to take them. The questions are endless, and it was through many lengthy discussions with my friend Kim that I (we) finally arrived at the conclusion/philosophy "you can't lose." It was based primarily on Romans 8:37-39 [7], and the idea that no matter what happens in life--which would logically include the decisions we make--God will still love us. We can't screw up past what He can fix. Obviously we shouldn't be going off and doing whatever we want, because that's dangerous and stupid, but in the end, even if we make mistakes, He's still got our back, and we still win (ie, have eternal salvation), no matter what.

How incredibly comforting. Trusting in this got me through most of college, because I was more than a conqueror, and God was looking out for me. The reassurance of God's unconditional love gave me a certain amount of peace--but it didn't answer my questions about His Plan. Even if my life happens according to God's will (which is good), I am still a puppet, and I don't want that. Even if I have the freedom to make my own decisions (which seems to be the case), I am at risk of screwing something up, and I don't want that either. Even if I am never going to "lose," none of this explains to me how it is possible. [8]

The thing is, predestination and free will have conflicting agendas. When one side says "you live your life according to God's will" and the other says "you have the freedom to make your own choices," there's basically no way for them to be resolved. In the timeline of our lives, there simply isn't room for both to be possible. We simultaneously want and reject both perspectives, but either way, we can't comprehend a way for the two theories to exist side by side. From where I am standing, I can only see the path of where I have been, and not the unknown of the future, and therefore, neither option seems plausible. Or even very desirable.

Enter the Doctor. [9] Specifically into the life of Sally Sparrow, who has no idea what's going on, and is thoroughly confused about how all the bizarre stuff that keeps happening to her is somehow connected. And while Sally is working out the complicated concept of Time Travel, Piera is flipping out because the Doctor just answered all of her questions in about 15 seconds.

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff." [10]

We--people, humans, non Time Lords--can only see the "strict progression of cause to effect." But what if, for example, we could step outside of our timeline and look at everything as a whole: the past, the present, and the future? Rose Tyler looked into the time vortex, and saw all of time and space--she took the words "bad wolf" and put them along her own timeline, leading herself to the very moment in which she looked into the time vortex and saw all of time and space. In that moment, she sees "everything. All that is, all that was, all that ever could be." She even knows that "everything must come to dust." [11]

… this … sounds familiar. Like someone else has said it before, maybe, you know, in Genesis? [12] Or Revelation? [13]

The human thought process can't fully comprehend that freedom of will can exist alongside an intelligent, active design--but that's because we're not GOD. Rose looked into the time vortex, and it nearly killed her. But the Doctor sees everything, all the time. He can step into it, and He can see it from the outside. [14] Our freedom to make decisions can exist alongside God's Plan, because we are on the inside, making decisions for the here and now. Those decisions are based on only what we know, which is basically comprised of what we have experienced in the past and what we can attempt to predict of the near future. And because those decisions are still within our own timeline, and we are not in control of it. But we don't have to be, because God is. And God is outside of time.

Take a minute to actually think about that.

God

is outside

of time.

God can have a Plan because He exists outside of our comprehension of how The Plan should work out. We may be trapped within the "time vortex" of cause-to-effect, but he sees the entire journey, start to finish, from outside of it. He also has the power (because omnipotence, plus being its Creator) to add to it, to allow or prevent obstacles, to shape our paths in the direction He wants us to go. We can't change the past and we can't predict the future, so we just hold on to the right now and hope it will all work out.

And the thing is--it will. Because God has a Plan, remember? A Plan for our welfare and not for evil; a Plan for hope and a future. A Plan that comes out of creating us, knowing us, loving us. At some point (and somewhat reluctantly, I might add), I became the obnoxious friend who always tells you that "everything happens for a reason." And at some later point (probably after watching "Blink"), I realized that I completely believe that to be true. Everything, both the good and the bad, has a place in The Big Picture of Things, and somehow, whether we realize it or not, it's all connected. God has created it, and is actively involved in it. He took the time to scatter "bad wolf" here and there in my life, in order to lead me to where I am right now, and in order to direct me toward my future. And I am looking forward to that future, because I am positive that it will be fanTAStic. [15]

---
[1] ...and how does he manage to be so attractive while he does it??
[2] Proof, by the way, that I am actually capable of doing this. Just not so great at doing it naturally.
[3] Luke 12:7 -- Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.
[4] For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
[5] Genesis 2:15-17 -- The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
[6] Ephesians 2:8-9 -- For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
[7] No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
[8] Does it really matter if I understand it? Okay, no. Not really. But I like having answers, and I don't like going along with a concept if I don't really get it. Hence, this entire post.
[9] And I am here issuing a massive spoiler alert -- although to be honest, if you haven't seen any of Doctor Who I'm not sure how much of this will make sense anyway.
[10] Doctor Who - "Blink" (series 3, episode 10) - btw that's also where the quote at the top is from. It just made for a better intro without the footnote ;)
[11] Doctor Who - "The Parting of the Ways" (series 1, episode 13)
[12] Genesis 3:19c -- ...for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
[13] Revelation 1:8 -- "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
[14] For the record, I am NOT trying to paint the Doctor as a representation of the one true God. There are parallels in the time vortex aspect, but the entities themselves are absolutely not the same. Just so we're clear.
[15] It's a 9th-Doctor-ism, in case you didn't read it in a Christopher Eccleston voice.

here, have a lame non-post

...because it's really kind of silly to just repost someone else's blog, but seriously, this one, Men and Women are Not Equal, speaks to my soul. plus it's a lot more straightforward than what i probably would have done.

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.