Infertility: Faith, Hope, and Love.

Please note that comments on these posts on infertility will be heavily screened; derogatory, offensive, or inflammatory comments will be removed.  If you truly aren't sure whether your comment could be read as such, but you feel like you could add constructively to the conversation, please send a private message through TACN's Facebook page. For this particular post: keep in mind that this isn't a forum in which to discuss birth control, and any comment making it about that will also be removed.  Also, this post talks about my faith and infertility. When talking about my own journey, the two are inextricably linked.  Everyone's experience with faith is different; please be respectful.
  
Infertility is a medical condition: failure to get pregnant within one year while having frequent, unprotected intercourse (upwards of 90% of women will conceive within that year).  This doesn't mean that women diagnosed with it will never get pregnant; most women who want to get pregnant will eventually go on to conceive, though usually with a doctor's help.  Others will of course go on to adopt or take a break from trying to recoup their energy. Infertility can happen at any point in a woman's life after she starts ovulating, even though statistics often include only ages 25-44. It doesn't just affect women who are 35 and older, or women who have other health problems, or women who have been on birth control.   It doesn't even affect only women without children.  Infertility looks different for everyone. 

While I do have "Female Infertility" on my doctor's chart, and I do require treatment due to polycystic ovarian syndrome, my journey hasn't been as long or arduous as some.  I don't claim to know the heartbreak of miscarriages or failed in vitro attempts.  I haven't been actively trying for two or more years.  I haven't had an adoption fall through.  I haven't had ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or needed an operation to fix or remove an organ.  To all of you who have: you are stronger than anyone could imagine.  It has, of course, still been a frustrating experience. I've done unsuccessful rounds of Clomid and Femara and Follistim.  I've been disappointed by who knows how many negative pregnancy tests, even when I knew I probably hadn't even ovulated. I finally found a medication and dosage that gives me a chance, and I do have hope.  I also believe that I've been going through this for a reason. Even if I get pregnant this cycle or next, I think it's important to normalize the emotions that women feel and the choices they make when they don't get pregnant within that one year window of time.  

*******************

In the back of my mind, I anticipated having some trouble conceiving; I went on the pill in my teens, because slightly elevated androgen levels pointed to PCOS, though I wasn't "officially" diagnosed until I came off it to try to conceive.  I nonetheless held out hope that perhaps I was wrong and would come off the pill and bam!, pregnant.  One day after the first six months, when I hadn't yet even ovulated, I went to the bank to deposit a holiday present that was about to go straight into our fertility treatment fund.  I pulled into the parking lot, and suddenly the flood gates opened.  (PS, I apologize to anyone who witnessed me breaking down and seemingly yelling at my windshield and thought they might need to fear for their safety.)

Is this even going to work?  Because I've been waiting for the opportunity to be a mother for a long time now.  I can't reconcile a God who would instill such a desire in me with one who would then keep it from me.  There are people who get pregnant without trying at all.  What's wrong with me that I can't do that?  Am I not meant to have children?  Am I supposed to adopt?  Can I at least get an "Amen" somewhere? Is the fact that I'm not even ovulating my dry wool on the ground, as it were? Can there be words in the sky?  A sign at the side of the road?  A text?  Can't you just tell me if this is what I'm supposed to be doing?  I need some confirmation, because  I don't understand, and I'm floundering here.  Why must I make these decisions?  

I was upset, crying, angry.  I didn't think I'd get an answer, because at that moment God felt cold and distant to me.  In fact, I doubted that even if He existed, He actually listened.  Then unexpected words rang clearly in my mind.

Who ever said that this was your struggle?  This is our struggle.  


And as suddenly as I had started railing against God's silence, my body, and the injustices of life, my perspective changed.  This wasn't going to be God's punishment, or the universe's way of telling me that I shouldn't be a mom, or a sign that I wasn't as prepared for parenthood as the people who so easily got pregnant. This was just the trailhead of a meandering, more challenging hike up the mountain to the breathtaking view from the top.  It might be hard, and I might grumble when I faltered along the way; I might slide backward occasionally. But the blessing at the end was worth striving for, and I realized something important about myself; I was willing to fight for it, to endure for it. And God had said He would be there with me, my guide, picking me back up and dusting me off and giving me water whenever I sat down and thought about giving up.  Rejoicing in my progress.  Crying with me when I stumbled and bruised myself, even as He healed those wounds and made me even stronger.

Yes, I might get to the top and find a different landscape than I expected-- God could say, "Now that I've led you here, you can better see that child over there who needs a home"; He's God, and He does that sometimes-- but I knew that outcome would be equally as beautiful, and whatever journey preceded it would still be worth it.  Because while faith, hope, and love always remain, the greatest of these isn't hope.  

And day by day, God is just building up the love I have to offer when our child arrives.

If I Should Ever Have a Son.

The other day, after scrolling through Facebook and various other blogs and online articles and reading some horrifyingly misogynist comments, I had the rather daunting realization that if I ever have a son, I will be at least in part responsible for many of his attitudes about girls and women.  The following is what I would want him to know.  

Dear Son,

You're coming into the world with an advantage.  It's an unfair advantage, and it's simply that you are a man.  People will pay you more for your work.  People outside of school and work (and sometimes even at school and work) will be less likely to comment on your choice of clothing. They will be more inclined to treat your anger, sadness, or joy as valid and not as the result of a hormonal mood swing. Some will even tell you that as a man, you are entitled to authority.  As a man, you aren't.  You will encounter your own set of problems and challenges in life, but please listen to me when I say that they are separate from the overwhelming systematic sexism that women face every day.

Being born into such privilege as described above shouldn't make you feel guilty--everyone knows that you didn't come into the world thinking you deserve more than anyone else--but not recognizing it or making any effort to change the prevailing mentality... well, that should.  I hope you will earn most of your achievements and rewards by working hard and respecting those around you.  Some good fortune might fall into your lap because you are lucky or because you possess innate talent.  That's great.  But again, you wouldn't deserve it because you're a man. You wouldn't deserve bad luck because of that, either, and I never want you to think that men should "atone" for misogyny by groveling, worshipping, being downtrodden, or experiencing hatred and discrimination themselves. That's misandry and not any better than misogyny.

I want you to grow up understanding that you should respect everyone.  I also want you to understand that this does not mean you should be blind to any of their differences.  Human beings are diverse creatures.  Why should we pretend otherwise?  Celebrate it.  Marvel at variety. And when I say appreciate everyone, I include women.  This might be a more difficult one for you. Not because I don't believe you're capable of treating women with respect, but because you will be surrounded by subtle... and sometimes not so subtle... implications that women are beneath you or indebted to you.  Women don't have to act a certain way for you.  They don't have to cater to you.  Nothing you do, nothing you are, will ever merit a woman altering her appearance or sleeping with you.   Treating a woman nicely or lavishly does not earn you a place in her heart, home or bed.  On the other side of the coin, if you've had a pleasant dinner with a woman and she pays for it, you don't owe her anything more than a sincere "thank you," either.  My hope is that you'll be the type of person who might, on another occasion, treat her in kind and pay for the next meal, but that isn't a requirement.

All women will differ from individual to individual. You might find that you develop preferences. You might like girls who play sports.  You might find yourself drawn to blue eyes.  These preferences do not devalue the women who don't meet them.  If you meet women without stretch marks or cellulite, it isn't a sign that they are somehow better than other women. I will say that while marks and such shouldn't be considered flaws--the overwhelming majority of women of all shapes and sizes have them--you aren't required to find them sexy or appealing, just as a woman isn't required to find innocuous parts of your body sexy or appealing.  If you do, that's not a problem.  But they never merit disgust or teasing or even remarking upon if you don't.  How you would feel if a girl constantly told you how much better you'd look if you had less knobbly knees or shorter toes?  I suspect you'd try to avoid such an unpleasant person.  I wouldn't want that for you.

Finally, let me get this out of the way before the end: Puberty.  It happens.  For girls, this usually means breasts, periods, and raging hormones.  For boys, this usually means voice changes, facial hair, and raging hormones. Note that I said "raging hormones" twice; it isn't just you.  Never make someone feel embarrassed or ashamed of simply growing up.  I trust that you and other boys and girls are capable of communicating if and when you are all right with looking or touching. With that said, it's wrong for girls to make you feel uncomfortable by laughing at your voice cracking or touching you without permission.  It's wrong for you to make them uncomfortable by staring at their bodies or teasing them when they get their periods or touching them without permission.  You all might do these things without thinking sometimes; the main thing to remember is when you notice that you're doing it and it's making others seem uncomfortable, stop. And of course, if they ask you to stop, stop.  Please also remember that silence is never an invitation.  Oh, and by the way, you don't have to go around talking about periods, but they aren't "gross" or "freakish."  They allowed you to be here in the first place.

It's true that as your mother, I will probably hold you in higher esteem than others.  But I will not value you any more highly because you're my son rather than my daughter.

I love you,
Mom

Feminism and Personal Choice.

"I thought one of the reasons for feminism was so that women don't have wear those anymore?" Mr. Nerd asked as I giddily bounced around the house wearing my new corset.  I paused, thought for a moment, then replied, "No.  We have feminism so that women can choose whether or not they wear corsets.  And right now, I'm choosing to wear one."  Even though Mr. Nerd said this in a teasing manner, it resembles a common misconception: that being a feminist means dressing a certain way... or not in certain ways.  Doing jobs and activities long reserved only for males.  Voting.  Getting a higher education.  Working outside the house.

It doesn't mean any of that.  Imagine for a moment that a man doesn't vote in an election because he decides he doesn't approve of any of the candidates.  No one would claim that he is somehow "setting back" his sex.  Yet if a woman does the same, she will often have people telling her that she ought to proudly proclaim her equal status with men by voting.  As if she needs to tangibly validate her equality somehow.  But does that actually demonstrate equality?  While I think it important that we work toward goals like decreasing wage gaps and erasing culturally-permitted misogyny, a large part of feminism is, or at least ought to be, about allowing and respecting women's individual choices.*

Necklace from: http://www.zazzle.co.uk

As in the corset example, this extends to clothing choices as well.  When Mr. Nerd and I started dating eight years ago, I showed a lot of skin in my "going out" clothes.  I now find that I wear fewer mini skirts and a lot more modest pieces: maxi skirts, sweaters, higher necklines.  Looking back, I realize that this fashion transformation took place around the time I got married.  I noticed that Mr. Nerd liked more modest pieces, and I began wearing more of them. I now like wearing clothes that I know make him happy.  I like wearing his favorite colors.  I usually avoid orange because it's the color of his alma mater's football team's rival (although he's lucky I don't look absolutely amazing in orange ;-)).  But even though I let a man influence my clothing choices, I consider myself a feminist.  I make the decision to wear what pleases my husband.  It is one of the ways I show appreciation for him.  I wouldn't let some random man-- or woman, for that matter-- dictate any part of my wardrobe, but Mr. Nerd is not some random man.  And I feel comfortable doing it in part because he doesn't demand it.

Feminists avoid forcing women into a neat little box, and not all feminists are women.  It isn't a she-woman man hater's club.  I consider most men I know feminists.  They might initially balk at this label, because in popular culture the word has taken on some unfortunately negative connotations**, but if I asked them whether a woman ought to have the right to vote, or get an education, or ought to have the same career opportunities with the same pay as men, they would say yes.  If I asked them whether a woman "belonged" in the work force or at home, they would look at me strangely and say "whichever works for her."  In our house, I do most of the cleaning and cooking, and Mr. Nerd does most of the yard work and handles bills (though admittedly I do know how to do that).   It works for us, and we actively enjoy our respective roles.  But had Mr. Nerd ever said that women shouldn't do yard work or manage finances, I would have gone running in the other direction.  I could go out and mow the lawn today, and although he might be surprised because it is out of character (and because it's nighttime and raining... ), the fact that I'm a woman wouldn't even cross his mind.

I am not weak, unintelligent, or anti-feminist because I sometimes dress modestly, have a very "traditionally feminine" role in my marriage, and listen to the opinions and sometimes accede to the preferences of a man.  On the contrary, I am a feminist because I think women have just as much right to choose those things as they do to make any other lifestyle choices.





*Of course, I would love those choices to be informed ones, but I would say that about people's choices in general.

**I think this is so sad. Who came up with such stereotypes as "Feminists hate men" and started bashing feminism?  Some might.. just like some men who like having civil rights probably hate women.  I could dig deeper into the logical fallacies of this statement, but that would take another post. You might have seen the "I need feminism because..." pictures on various websites and school campuses.  I'd like to add to it:  I need feminism precisely because there are people who are offended by the "I need feminism because..." campaigns.

Thesaurus Thursday: "Beleaguer."/People are Nosy.

Today's word is "beleaguer," a verb meaning to harass or besiege.

If you have ever been questioned about or chastised for what you choose to wear, whom you choose to associate with, or what you do in your spare time, here's a word of warning: you will be beleaguered by "well-meaning" individuals to an even greater degree if job prospects are involved.

*********************

I was thinking about this the other day.  The laundry list of questions and advice regarding your personal life during job hunting would border on offensively intrusive at any other time.  I'll give you some examples from my past experience:

Make sure you don't put anything inappropriate on Facebook.
If I spewed hatred on my page, talked about illegal activities, or was obviously emotionally unstable, I could understand concern.  I don't/am not.  You might find out that I (gasp!) like bras.  Also, sometimes I talk about boobs on my blog page. I have them.  A lot of other people have them. Pretending that they aren't there is a bit silly.

Isn't talking about bras/boobs inappropriate?
Is it?  Please give me a non-sexist answer to this question: Why? 

Ahhh!  So NSFW!

Are all of your friends' blogs/pages free of questionable content?
If you have read 1984, you should understand why this question scares me.

Make sure your blog's content is OK.
One moment... Yes, it's fine. It hasn't had an emotional break down and run away.

Are all of your pictures safe for employers to look at?
All of my wedding photos contain subliminal messaging telling viewers to ruthlessly pursue world domination.

No, I mean the pictures on your blog's page.
Bras usually cover as much if not more than bikinis.  I always thought going to the beach was a G-rated activity.

I haven't been in a while; maybe I'm remembering it wrong?

But sometimes in bras you can see a glimpse of what's underneath.
You know, I saw a man topless on Facebook once.  He didn't even have a bra on.  I've been shocked about the lack of an outcry.  I mean, think of the children.

You need to make sure that no one can get your personal information.
I'll do everything within my power to keep away creeps, but if you believe that not having a Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/other account means that people can't easily access your personal information if they really want it, I have a mansion on Mars to sell you.

Don't post anything offensive online.
This is related to the first but usually refers to objectively offensive content.  It's an instruction that basically assumes that I'm stupid and/or a bad person-- why else would I post something offensive?  I suppose a lot of Twitter users might be offended by the occasional update about how much I dislike horribly botched grammar.

LEFT TACKLE. 

I just posted something offensive.

You need new clothes.
Please note that the clothes I'm currently wearing don't meet the criteria for an office dress code because I am at dinner with my husband and not at an interview.  Does job hunting make everyone think that they have the right to comment on every. single. outfit. I wear in public? (The answer is, apparently, "Yes.")

Don't dye your hair/get anything pierced/get tattoos during this time.
While I would check out a dress code to make sure that I could easily comply with it, I would neither respect nor work for someone who wouldn't hire a competent, qualified individual on the basis of physical appearance.

Network/refine your resume/do X and not Y in an interview...
All suggestions regarding resumes, applications, interviews, and networking have been filed under "Advice given by 10+ people.  This morning."

Try to act like all you ever do is go to church.
...
...
...
...  Seriously?

The Cultural Definition of a Word Matters.

Definitions of racism from the dictionary:

1  a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.

2  a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine.

3  racial prejudice or discrimination.

Some people might think it presumptuous of me to even talk about racism. I am white, and I grew up in the South.  But there is power in open, honest, respectful reflection about sensitive issues, and I believe we all can benefit from it.

I love it here in the South for many reasons: the weather, the food, the geography, many parts of the current culture (nowhere on Earth is perfect).  But I am not proud of our history.  Some people do cling to it like an old, ragged security blanket*, but many of us acknowledge that our ancestors did terrible things, know that there are still places in which prejudice abounds, and try to be better people because of it.  

Personally, I like pickup trucks, country music, fried chicken

and equality and basic human rights.

I have noticed, though, that white Southerners often shout "racism" whenever someone dislikes them just because they are white people from the South.  Does that ever happen?  Of course it does.  But I don't think it's racism.  They are using semantics- yelling the above definition in purple at the top of their lungs- to compare a few people hating or hassling them to an entire system of hatred and disenfranchisement that black people have endured in this country and often still encounter every day.  

Yes, "racial prejudice" is one technical definition of racism.  And it isn't a good thing.  But do we not see the two other definitions?  Can we not see how much worse those are?  Let's call the abhorrence of a certain race hate, stupidity, prejudice, arrogance... but let's stop calling it racism.  I think this is one case in which language needs to evolve.  Racism's cultural definition is written in blue, and I think it's the one that matters.  Slavery happened.  Jim Crow laws happened.   While I don't think we need to spend our lives atoning for the faults of others, we at least need to remember that and admit that it's worse than being called a c******.  

Protesting integration in Little Rock.

This happened.

No one has ever thought me stupid just because I'm white.  No one has ever barred me from a restaurant or concert because I'm white.  No one has ever denied me the vote or good medical care or a decent education because I am white. That all might happen in a few individual cases, but it doesn't happen because of a screwed up legal system or a widespread belief that skin pigmentation or ethnic background means something about one's intellectual and emotional capabilities.  

There are, unfortunately, always going to be people who hate.  There are people who would hate me because I'm from the South, or female, or Christian, or because I have one leg longer than the other.  And sure, there are people out there who would hate me because I'm white.  But the moment I call it racism, Ygritte's words echo in my head:

You know nothing, Jon Snow.



*Not a sweet, threadbare one with bunnies on it.  One with lice.  There is a difference between being interested in/knowing your heritage and thinking that it was a better time before slavery was abolished.

    

Intolerance Isn't Awesome.

Some of you might have seen posts I share from the page "Science is Awesome" on Facebook.  Many of their posts are entertaining and interesting.

Like the best protest sign anywhere, ever.

However, there is an awful tendency on their posts for people to intelligence-shame and mock Christians and religious people in general.  As many of you have probably realized if you read through previous blog entries, including one posted earlier this year about the TV show Bones, I have no problem with people who choose not to believe in God.  Over the years, I have developed an intensely personal and life-and-love-affirming interpretation of the Bible, but I don't mind if an individual has a different interpretation or even has decided, "Hey, I don't think I like the Bible much."  I don't take it as an affront if someone is a non-believer or believer in a different faith.

What I do take issue with is a page called "Science is Awesome " actively encouraging knee-jerk reactions and judgment over rational, calm scientific debate.  People spout statistics* without citing sources or get their information from a single source and don't acknowledge that bias.  They don't distinguish between opinion and fact.  (Some of them would probably just have to pipe up here and go "Yes, you're right!  The religious crazy people do those things!"... Sure, some do.  But I'm seeing it from both sides, and actually far, far more on this page from the people who claim to despise religion's "aversion to science.")  Some are compelled to bring up religion on completely innocuous pictures of cakes, animals, trees, you name it.

"Speaking of cookies, do you know how cheap eggs are at Costco?  

They jack up the prices at groceries.  It's the economy.  It's all (president)'s fault."

Don't be That Guy ^.

Some of you might not know that starting a blog was completely out of character for me.  Sharing my thoughts had never before been one of my aspirations.  In the past, I've actually wanted to be devoid of opinions so that I never had to disagree with anyone, ever.  I was a serial people-pleaser.  When I thought that someone was offended by something I said or did, I felt anxious and guilty.  But while reading through some of the less snarky and more reasonable posts on "Science is Awesome," I had a revelation:

I love science, and I love Jesus.  I majored in psychology (some debate whether it is a "hard" or "soft" science, but no one will ever convince me that physiological psych wasn't a "hard" science course), minored in chemistry, and fell in love with a math and physics nerd.  My beliefs and opinions about science and religion have worth and merit.  They've been carefully considered and thought through.  I don't have to care what other people think of them.  If other people don't agree with them, 

Whatever.  

But people need to realize that you can be accepting of others' opinions and values while holding your own.  Being tolerant doesn't mean being wishy-washy and without convictions.  Just as you don't have to meet everyone's definition of physical perfection, you don't have to meet everyone's definition of emotional and/or intellectual perfection.  

Would I love to get along with everyone?  Of course.  Is that possible?  Of course not.  That doesn't mean I won't try my darndest to be kind and respectful, but, well,

I happen to think that disagreeing without backing it up is unscientific.  I believe that name calling and intolerance clouds judgment and inhibits quality interactions and so has no place in a supposedly scientific community.**  Besides being rude, it accomplishes nothing.  Let's do some observational research (I imagine a "true" experiment would reach the same conclusions, but observation is what we have to work with): how many times have you seen someone change his/her thought process or behavior because another person called him/her an ignorant [insert curse word here]? If a comment was made without thinking, perhaps, but otherwise, most likely never.  I'm not saying don't bother thinking people can change.  I am suggesting that there might be a better way to present an argument than with the subtlety, tact, and pleasantness of a foghorn.

Science is indeed awesome.  Calling entire groups of people dumb?  Treating science like an exclusive club?  Alienating people from a fascinating discipline by treating other human beings who don't agree with everything you believe like dirt?

Not awesome.




*Often truly worse than lies and d*** lies.
**I do think that there are some things that it is understandable to be upset about without "backing up" an opinion, of course.  Murder, rape, lying, physical and emotional abuse, sexism, racism, ableism, bigotry... I don't think being horrified by those is wrong.  I don't think calling someone out on those is wrong.  Fighting hate with hate, though, is still unlikely to help.

No Bones About It; This is a Sensitive Issue.

I love Bones.  Yes, I know sometimes the science is a little more like magic than actual science.  It's my nerdy guilty pleasure.

If you watch the show, you probably know that Temperance "Bones" Brennan has always been an atheist, considering it the only purely rational option.  I have never had an issue with this.  My beliefs haven't been and will not be affected by a TV show.  If she were a real person, I would say she could believe whatever she chooses if it feels true to her and doesn't hurt anyone else.  What I was frankly astonished by was the outcry among many atheists when, in the most recent episode, Bones had a near-death experience and was given a reason to question her staunch non-belief.  

My first reaction to the comments was confusion.  It was as if having a single episode that pertained to the possibility of a higher power immediately made viewers think the show was going to become a live action church.  Yes, there have been more episodes dealing with the supernatural, but it still seems like the show is far more about solving murders and the interactions between Brennan/ the squints/Booth and the FBI.  (Also, I can't exactly see the series ever becoming fit for Evangelism TV, especially when a psychic was a staple of a few episodes!)  My next reaction was sadness.  There was a depressing level of prejudice and hatred in some of the comments. "If she becomes a believer, I will never watch again!" "She is smart enough to realize that there's not a God." "The show is turning into more atheist-gets-religion crap."  

All right, I will admit, my very first reaction- and it was an un-Christian one- was anger.  "Wow, these people are so judgmental!   Believers can't be intelligent?  Leonhard Euler.  Done."

So he wasn't the best dressed believer in the world; no one can say he was unintelligent.

Then I acknowledged that usually people do not actually mean "intelligent" when they say it in this context; usually they mean "rational" (and for the ones that do mean "intelligent," what's the point of getting angry at them?).  And you know what... belief in God isn't actually rational.  My question is, why insist that everything in the world be rational?  Personally, I have never understood why complete rationality should be an aspiration.  Faith is an act of trusting blindly; if you don't want to trust blindly, no one's forcing you (and if they are, they really shouldn't; I've always considered force to be the antithesis of true belief.)  I'm not ashamed to admit that there is no scientific proof that my God exists.  I believe He does and will without any hesitation tell others that He does. I have had small miracles in my life that I believe prove His existence, but they are not what scientists call "proof," rather "anecdotes"... sort of like what Brennan went through in the last episode in a less dramatic, didn't-actually-die-for-two-minutes way.

If religion gives people, including Brennan's character, hope, comfort, and/or a purpose for whatever reason, and they want to believe that they were created by and/or are watched by a higher power, isn't it rather selfish to want to take that away from them for any reason?  I don't mind if she ends up not believing in God.  If the writers and actors want to say she's still "too rational" to believe in the end, I will still watch and enjoy the show.  I think some Bones viewers, though, are projecting too strongly their own disbelief onto her character.  Part of me understands, because I think all people like to "click" with characters in books, shows and movies.  It makes them easier to understand if they believe as we do.

Probably why this book is so often assigned reading.

Still, isn't the idea "I think believers don't make any sense, and therefore her scientist character should not either" just as misguided as a Christian's desire to force theism on others because he/she doesn't like what atheists believe?  I think my initial anger was also due to this: it has been my experience that those who are first to negatively judge others for believing in God are also those who spend the most time calling for a tolerant and equal society.  Keep in mind that I'm not talking about those who criticize believers who act hatefully; although I think too often people make the mistake of blaming God for the faults of His followers.  See this earlier post for more reflections on that topic.

I know that there are annoying believers.  I also know that there are annoying atheists.  And annoying agnostics.  I can be annoying (though I try not to be, I swear!).  What many don't seem to realize is that people's personalities are usually pretty set in stone, and moving between these three groups shouldn't change anyone so drastically that they lose what makes them... them.  Just because we hear most about the Tom Cruises of the world who start to believe in something and, er, create a huge stir, doesn't mean that is the most common occurrence.  I don't see Brennan's character changing much if she ends up believing in God; she strikes me as one who would believe quietly and keep right on going as usual.

It probably wasn't rational to cry during this scene, but I don't care.  I cried anyway.

I also know that I am generalizing, and a lot of atheists watching the show probably don't care one way or the other and are content to enjoy the show whether or not the main character "gets religion."   Perhaps many feel the same way I do when I hear people saying, "Christians are hypocrites and only promote hate," because they only judge by what they see in the media.  I just find it sad that the ones with extreme opinions are the ones who get so much air time, as it were.  I think it is time that people who want tolerance and are willing to extend it to all peaceful human beings, not just those who believe in that which they approve, made their voices heard.

The Troll Supporter: A Worse Kind of Hate?

Trolling is part of a larger trend of people feeling more at ease saying things online that they would not say in person.  There are various reasons given for this "disinhibition effect."  This effect can be fairly harmless, with people simply sharing more about themselves than they normally would, but it can also be taken to an extreme: No one knows me here, so I can say anything.  Anything at all. Even if it is mean, false, rude, or crazy.  It'll be fun!  

"Dance, puppets, dance!"

In my opinion, for trolls, the internet is like an invisible shield between them and consequences.  I've gotten to the point that I no longer want to smash my computer to bits when reading trolls' comments, because I've accepted that such behavior is often a plea for attention or a manifestation of personal problems on the part of the person and therefore should be ignored. Remember, if you respond, the troll wins.  Not responding can be difficult, though, and I think I've realized why.

*************************

"Whatever you think or believe should be able to stand up to mockery if you truly believe in it."

"You do not have the inalienable right not to be offended."

"The fact that you are getting so worked up about this only means that you are insecure."

What these three statements have in common: while they might have a grain of truth in them, they are almost always used by people trying to justify their or others' mean-spirited remarks, bullying, or prejudice.  I do think that we have become too politically correct and a bit too sensitive about many things; for example, if someone cheerfully wishes me a happy Chanukah, I am not going to get angry because they didn't use the generic "Happy Holidays" instead to include my own holiday.  I think that the truthful part of these statements would be best summed up: carefully try to ascertain if what was said was meant to offend before taking offense, otherwise you might indeed seem overly sensitive. When it gets ridiculous, though, is when someone says something that is obviously not meant kindly- often far from it- and then tries to blame everyone else for getting upset.

Think of this scenario: Jimmy is crying on the playground because Tommy broke his nose.  Jimmy is the elder, bigger and taller of the two, but he also has a mental handicap.  Jimmy's mother tells Tommy's father about it.  Tommy's father says that it was her son's fault for being "too slow to stand up for himself and use his own physical advantage."  She gets angry at the father's lack of compassion.  He tells her that she has no right to be angry at him for telling her "the truth."

 

"I don't know why I was fired.  I only told HR the truth when

 I said that our boss is dumb because she's blonde."

Is this fair?  Of course not.  It's horrible (and I would not want to see how Tommy turns out).  But it's a similar situation to one that we see played out in online conversations every day.  A troll will say something cruel or ridiculous and get tons of angry responses, but then the troll supporters will come out of the woodwork with the sentences listed above.  I have much less patience with troll supporters than trolls and dislike their comments more, because they truly seem to want their arguments validated more than they desire reactions, even though, when examined closely, their arguments are utterly narcissistic.  Translations of the the three sentences:

"I enjoy making fun of people, so I'm going to do my best to make it seem OK."

"My ability to say anything I want is more important than your little 'feelings.'"

"Obviously, because I am the one staying calm during this conversation on a hot-button issue, my thoughts are right and yours are wrong."

Inevitably, the 1st amendment will be referenced when the second argument is used in the first rendition's prettier language. Yes, we get it; we have freedom of speech.  And yes, nowhere in the Constitution or its amendments does it specifically give us the "inalienable right not to be offended."  But when did it become anything other than common human decency to at least try not to offend?  I truly want to know; when did the Golden Rule go out of fashion?

About Me/A Break from Thesaurus Thursday.

Hi everyone.  I didn't have any words that really inspired me to put them in Thesaurus Thursday today, so I thought today's post might let you get to know a little bit more about a facet of myself that I don't often talk about publicly.  I could even get a bit of flak for it, considering the climate of the internet (universally troll-ish).  All I ask is that you read it with the intent of learning about another individual, and not with the intent to deride, degrade, or insult.


I am a Christian, and I don't hate you.

This is, unfortunately, a message that people don't get very often from those associating themselves with an organized religion.  Of course, it doesn't help that the people who naturally enter the spotlight are doing or saying something supremely controversial; your average Christian certainly doesn't wind up on the 6 o' clock news.  I think everyone has the right to his or her own opinion, and I don't think that any part of the Bible can be interpreted only one way (Jesus spoke in parables, after all, didn't he?).  I believe the New Testament trumps the Old Testament because Christ died to save us for our sins, and thus the Bible sends a message that every single person on this Earth is loved by a God of mercy and grace, not a message of "an eye for an eye" or "stone the adulterer."  In my personal view, you don't even have to believe to be loved by God.  You don't have to go to a certain church; you don't have to hold certain political views; you don't have to be or act a certain way.  You are loved.  And if Christ loves you, then I will do so as well.  The one thing Christ made clear when he spoke was that the first and foremost commandment was, "Love thy neighbors as thyself."  Oh, how sad He must be to see our world today.

I am a Christian, and I believe in modern science and history.

No, I don't believe the world is 6000 or 7000 years old.  I believe it has indeed existed for millenia.  Yes, the Bible says the Earth was created in seven days, but it also says that a day is as a thousand years to Him.  It gives the distinct impression that time as we know it is something humans care much more about than God.  Who can truly say how long seven days is to God without seeing through God's eyes?  I also don't think that the Big Bang theory rules out God's existence any more than saying we have a common ancestor with monkeys means that we are monkeys and thus He didn't create us.  I don't really find the idea that we are "related" insulting or extreme.  If He is omnipotent, He could have created a common ancestor just as easily as anything else, right?

No, I am not "shocked and disturbed" that Christmas was deliberately scheduled on an old pagan holiday to garner interest.  This is something people like to point out and always seem to say "Christians HATE it when you tell them this, because it shows that their religion is a fraud."  I don't really understand this logic.  I don't hate it, and I don't know many other Christians who particularly care either, besides the ones that like to roam the internet riling up people (and there might be some doubt as to the true beliefs of many of these...).  If you do not believe, that is up to you, but I would hope that it was a very personal choice and not one made just to feel superior to "the ignorant religious people." Do people really think that Jesus will believe that we are celebrating the solstice instead of His birthday?  I cannot be 100% certain, but my heart says no; if I am thanking Him in my heart for coming down and being born to rescue me, I don't think it really matters if we celebrate on the "real" date.

I am a Christian, and sometimes I am afraid to admit it.

I do not think that Christians have been nearly as persecuted throughout history as other groups, although there has been quite enough of it.  I do think that Christians nowadays are automatically at a disadvantage, not economically or politically, but as people who want to live freely, because we live in a culture that implies that simply stating our beliefs to others is "pushy" and "insensitive to the multicultural world in which we live."  So we cannot very easily do what we are told to do, which is simply to share the good news.  Nowhere does it say "Thou shalt convert everyone to whom thou speakest or thou shalt goeth to Hell."  Just share the good news, that's all.  If others don't want or choose not to believe it, again, we love them and move on.  But that is rather difficult if we can't speak up in the first place, or if people do not listen to us without jumping immediately to the conditioned response- and I believe it is conditioned- "this person is forcing me to believe his/her opinion."

I think that we should all- religious or atheist or otherwise- be able not only to practice our religions or spirituality in peace, but also to share and explain them in peace.  This is becoming increasingly difficult.  And peaceful interaction between a lot of people, especially groups of people, is often in short supply.


I can only hope that kindness and love will triumph in the end.  No matter what you believe, I hope you can agree with that.