I recently listened to this fmh podcast about perfectionism and the perfect mormon family (the fmh podcast is great, if you haven't already heard it).
It should come as no surprise to my friends and regular readers, but I was not raised to be comfortable with different narratives and different needs. I was not raised to be comfortable with disagreement. In fact, most things were black and white (hence I identify with Christine's experience). I believe many mormon families (particularly those with mental illness or tendencies towards scrupulosity) may have a similar experience or experiences.
I find it challenging to not give advice, to not jump in with my take, and to honor other people's feelings while still honoring my own.
That's what I want, in the end, to show love to the people in my life.
I don't have any answers on this one. This particular part of relationships is not easy. The only thing I've found that has been helpful is to acknowledge that there are multiple truth(s), even in the same family - even in the same relationship. Each person is able (or not) to acknowledge certain events, and views them in different ways. And each person processes things in their own way. I find I'm incredibly opinionated, and it's hard to not always share my opinion. But my opinion is often not helpful.
I'm doing the best I can, and I acknowledge the others in my life are doing the best they can. And, as I was discussing with my friend Kathryn the other night, time tends to bring clarity. I wish I had known that at 20.
Showing posts with label mormonism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label mormonism. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 5, 2014
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Eleven Years in the Same Location
It was incredibly surreal for me when I realized that I had lived in this house eleven years, longer than any other home growing up. We moved around a lot - back to Utah for my Dad to go to grad school - to various jobs. My parents have lived in their current home for longer, but I haven't lived with them.
My Mom would call it the family wanderlust - every two or three years men in my Dad's family would have the urge to move. It's hard to say what really was going on there. Job loss, better opportunities - in my experience, I think mormon families do tend to move around a great deal. There is a built in social safety net of sorts, so a person doesn't have to worry about trying to find the best doctor or babysitter after moving (ward members will probably know). Whenever my siblings were born, it was a fellow ward member who would come over to our house so my Dad could be at the hospital. We didn't need to live in the same town as grandparents or extended family.
I've almost lived in this current city more than where I grew up - which is also odd. I have no intention of changing cities anytime soon - I like my job and my kids are in relatively good schools. I feel a strong sense of community here.
I must have some of the wanderlust my Mom spoke of, however, because I am still interested in moving (at some point) to a smaller location. That's not the way it's supposed to work. You're supposed to buy a house before having kids, and stay in a house and maintain it (including the lawn). It's part of the American dream. It's the investment you're support to grow old on. It's like going to certain vacation destinations with your kids. It's tradition.
But I don't want to spend all my time maintaining a home. I don't mind gardening. There are many "volunteer" flowers that come up every year.
But with the house (and yard) - I feel like I'm always behind the eight ball. There is always a mountain of things to do, clean, sort, weed. My sister said I should consider paying someone to do some of that for me, and she has a point. But I don't want to pay someone to do those things for me, I want a smaller space so I can do it myself. Much like this post - it's discovering that what everyone else wants for me or thinks I should want, I don't necessarily want for myself.
My Mom would call it the family wanderlust - every two or three years men in my Dad's family would have the urge to move. It's hard to say what really was going on there. Job loss, better opportunities - in my experience, I think mormon families do tend to move around a great deal. There is a built in social safety net of sorts, so a person doesn't have to worry about trying to find the best doctor or babysitter after moving (ward members will probably know). Whenever my siblings were born, it was a fellow ward member who would come over to our house so my Dad could be at the hospital. We didn't need to live in the same town as grandparents or extended family.
I've almost lived in this current city more than where I grew up - which is also odd. I have no intention of changing cities anytime soon - I like my job and my kids are in relatively good schools. I feel a strong sense of community here.
I must have some of the wanderlust my Mom spoke of, however, because I am still interested in moving (at some point) to a smaller location. That's not the way it's supposed to work. You're supposed to buy a house before having kids, and stay in a house and maintain it (including the lawn). It's part of the American dream. It's the investment you're support to grow old on. It's like going to certain vacation destinations with your kids. It's tradition.
But I don't want to spend all my time maintaining a home. I don't mind gardening. There are many "volunteer" flowers that come up every year.
But with the house (and yard) - I feel like I'm always behind the eight ball. There is always a mountain of things to do, clean, sort, weed. My sister said I should consider paying someone to do some of that for me, and she has a point. But I don't want to pay someone to do those things for me, I want a smaller space so I can do it myself. Much like this post - it's discovering that what everyone else wants for me or thinks I should want, I don't necessarily want for myself.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Oh yeah, I used to be mormon once
It was a little over twenty years ago that I stopped believing in mormonism. I still attended the main church service (sacrament meeting), but it was under subtle and not so subtle protest. (Some not so subtle protests included doing homework during the sacrament meeting service and wearing pants I had made myself. Unfortunately I do not have a photo of myself wearing those pants, which were amazing).
So I was shocked and amused recently when one of my husband's friends didn't believe that I used to be mormon, and thought maybe I had been part of an offshoot sect.
With all due respect, I have plenty of mormon cred. Baptized at 8 - I remember going to the Washington D.C. temple with my parents, and folding my arms and being especially quiet to be reverent in the visitor's center. Just being that close to the temple was special and holy. (For the record, this would show some of my early tendency towards scrupulosity). I remember wanting to sing the "I'm a Mormon" song to other people to tell them about my faith.
And that's not mentioning the fact that one of my ancestors crossed the plains from Nauvoo, and some were polygamists. One (some amount of greats) aunt was married to Joseph Smith.
Maybe this is another version of the "She wasn't a *real* mormon" type criticism of former mormons. That's possible.
But what I hope that it is is that I have moved past processing my mormon heritage and faith (the initial insanity that some people go through upon disaffecting).
Being raised mormon is a part of who I am and won't change. And I do read blogs, listen to podcasts, participate on boards because mormons and former mormons are just so interesting.
But unlike the young family with Utah plates and three kids under the age of 4 wearing short sleeves on the hottest day in summer (and the RULDS2 bumper sticker), there's not a flashing neon sign on my head that reads mormon. (Or one that reads former mormon).
And for that, I'm grateful.
I have worked very hard to figure out what normal is, if such a thing exists.
And I have nothing against mormons/believing mormons. I know/love many people who are active, faithful people (including my parents).
It's true, there is a part of me who wants to sit down with my husband's faithful friend and explain all this mormon cred. I know who the current prophet is and I know what some of the talks said in the past general conference. Then talk about all the stuff I know about mormonism. But I want to respect his right to his own beliefs.
So I was shocked and amused recently when one of my husband's friends didn't believe that I used to be mormon, and thought maybe I had been part of an offshoot sect.
With all due respect, I have plenty of mormon cred. Baptized at 8 - I remember going to the Washington D.C. temple with my parents, and folding my arms and being especially quiet to be reverent in the visitor's center. Just being that close to the temple was special and holy. (For the record, this would show some of my early tendency towards scrupulosity). I remember wanting to sing the "I'm a Mormon" song to other people to tell them about my faith.
And that's not mentioning the fact that one of my ancestors crossed the plains from Nauvoo, and some were polygamists. One (some amount of greats) aunt was married to Joseph Smith.
Maybe this is another version of the "She wasn't a *real* mormon" type criticism of former mormons. That's possible.
But what I hope that it is is that I have moved past processing my mormon heritage and faith (the initial insanity that some people go through upon disaffecting).
Being raised mormon is a part of who I am and won't change. And I do read blogs, listen to podcasts, participate on boards because mormons and former mormons are just so interesting.
But unlike the young family with Utah plates and three kids under the age of 4 wearing short sleeves on the hottest day in summer (and the RULDS2 bumper sticker), there's not a flashing neon sign on my head that reads mormon. (Or one that reads former mormon).
And for that, I'm grateful.
I have worked very hard to figure out what normal is, if such a thing exists.
And I have nothing against mormons/believing mormons. I know/love many people who are active, faithful people (including my parents).
It's true, there is a part of me who wants to sit down with my husband's faithful friend and explain all this mormon cred. I know who the current prophet is and I know what some of the talks said in the past general conference. Then talk about all the stuff I know about mormonism. But I want to respect his right to his own beliefs.
Friday, December 13, 2013
The Personal vs. the Political
There's a concept in sociology that there is a difference between individual problems and issues. Problems, the theory goes - are more personal in nature. Social issues are when a similar experience happens for many people. I don't fully understand it myself and may not be able to articulate it clearly. It's just interesting for me that some experiences can be very common for people in similar cultures and with similar backgrounds.
For example, after all these years of reading former mormon stories, blogs, posts on the internet, there are definitely many things that people have in common after leaving the mormon church (even leaving fundamentalist religions). The experiences are not universal, but there are many hallmarks that are typical and not unusual.
I read this article in the atlantic some months back.
I am not surprised that chores are a good indicator of marital satisfaction. It seems so basic. It also seems incredibly obvious.
This quote from one of the participants in the article was interesting:
What's surprising for me is that this experience is common. It really shouldn't be so shocking for me. We still live in a patriarchy. While American society doesn't have the same strict gender roles that mormonism does, strict gender roles still exist. Discrimination against women still exists.
When something goes wrong with kids, society still (often) looks straight at the mom. Was she doing stuff for herself? Was she putting herself first? And is it her responsibility to negotiate all this stuff with her husband because ultimately she is responsible for the marriage, for maintaining the family? Some of these ugly beliefs are still out there, and still often referenced consciously (or sub-consciously).
What surprises me as well is that for me and my husband, despite being two college educated individuals, both self-proclaimed feminists, we still have run into this issue (negotiating about who does what). Truthfully, it's a bit embarrassing for me, because I've read "The Feminine Mystique". I've read lots of feminist theory and I thought my relationship(s) would be different.
It's difficult to be co-parents. It's tough to work and raise kids (and maintain a home). And it's not that one of us should stay home, or that one of us is shirking our duty. It's that these negotiations are hard. Being equitable is not easy. It has to be conscious. And it can't be assumed - it's a continuous process. Both of us grew up in families where this negotiation either failed or wasn't equitable - despite at least one set of parents being feminists.
The space between idealism and reality is larger than I'm comfortable admitting.
And it's not just about who does the dishes, but about who plans. Who picks up the slack.
For me, I appreciated the article because it's nice to know that this negotiation is not just me. This is not just my relationship - a personal thing between me and my husband. This is a societal trend that many people struggle with, some more than others. And being aware that it exists and admitting it can help promote change.
For example, after all these years of reading former mormon stories, blogs, posts on the internet, there are definitely many things that people have in common after leaving the mormon church (even leaving fundamentalist religions). The experiences are not universal, but there are many hallmarks that are typical and not unusual.
I read this article in the atlantic some months back.
I am not surprised that chores are a good indicator of marital satisfaction. It seems so basic. It also seems incredibly obvious.
This quote from one of the participants in the article was interesting:
Personally, I don't have a life. My life is my family because whatever their needs are they always come first before mine and I can honestly say that. He—and I think it's great—he does his golfing, he does his bike riding, and it doesn't take a long time and he needs that. I don't get that yet. I don't have that yet. I don't have the time or the luxury. That for me is like a huge luxury that I don't see happening in any time in the near future.Yikes.
What's surprising for me is that this experience is common. It really shouldn't be so shocking for me. We still live in a patriarchy. While American society doesn't have the same strict gender roles that mormonism does, strict gender roles still exist. Discrimination against women still exists.
When something goes wrong with kids, society still (often) looks straight at the mom. Was she doing stuff for herself? Was she putting herself first? And is it her responsibility to negotiate all this stuff with her husband because ultimately she is responsible for the marriage, for maintaining the family? Some of these ugly beliefs are still out there, and still often referenced consciously (or sub-consciously).
What surprises me as well is that for me and my husband, despite being two college educated individuals, both self-proclaimed feminists, we still have run into this issue (negotiating about who does what). Truthfully, it's a bit embarrassing for me, because I've read "The Feminine Mystique". I've read lots of feminist theory and I thought my relationship(s) would be different.
It's difficult to be co-parents. It's tough to work and raise kids (and maintain a home). And it's not that one of us should stay home, or that one of us is shirking our duty. It's that these negotiations are hard. Being equitable is not easy. It has to be conscious. And it can't be assumed - it's a continuous process. Both of us grew up in families where this negotiation either failed or wasn't equitable - despite at least one set of parents being feminists.
The space between idealism and reality is larger than I'm comfortable admitting.
And it's not just about who does the dishes, but about who plans. Who picks up the slack.
For me, I appreciated the article because it's nice to know that this negotiation is not just me. This is not just my relationship - a personal thing between me and my husband. This is a societal trend that many people struggle with, some more than others. And being aware that it exists and admitting it can help promote change.
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Confrontation
When I was growing up, I remember my Dad often saying that contention was of the devil, or a soft answer turneth away wrath. Usually these scripture quotes were brought out after a particularly contentious discussion (most likely between my sister and me). We were bright, active kids with limited resources living in a strict culture. Contention was bound to happen - even without extenuating circumstances.
As an adult, however, I've inventoried what skills in my past to let go of or work on. I've learned the importance of confrontation and conflict. With so much passive-aggression in mormonism (and particularly among women), it's rare that people say what they mean. Or that people directly ask for what they want (or express an opinion). Some of it is cultural - for the longest time, women were not encouraged to be direct - they had to seek power through other means (manipulation, etc.)
What happens when you don't confront other people, when you don't ask for what you want (or need), usually feelings are suppressed and resentment pops up. Resentment that you are being taken advantage of, that you aren't valued, that you are being ignored.
But sometimes confrontation is not useful. Growing up, it seems as if the only time confronting someone was acceptable was when you were enforcing church standards. I remember my Dad losing his temper about some kids in the church building on Sunday. That was acceptable conflict, standing up for mormon principles.
But saying no to a calling, to the PTA, to the casserole sign up sheet, that's not socially acceptable.
Another thing that tends to happen for me with conflict is that I would build up so much anger that when the conflict (inevitably) happened, I would be too angry to listen to the other person - to negotiate. So this is what has worked for me to learn more about confrontation:
*I determine if the conversation is necessary
If I talk with someone (like my boss) about a promotion, and they say it's not going to happen - confronting them weekly is not a good strategy. I need to make sure that I know what's possible and what's not. I need to make sure my expectations are reasonable.
*I determine if things are likely to change - and I figure out if I don't confront the other person, what choices I have
I'm thinking specifically of the current protests/requests for the SLC LDS church. Many NOMs and others have determined for themselves whether or not participating in these movements is useful for them.
Sometimes confrontation can bring change,other times not. For example, if I confront my boss, will things change? If they aren't likely to, I need to make some hard choices.
*I make sure I'm not angry
If I go into a conversation angry, it's sure to undermine my position. I need to be as calm and rational as possible. I'm not talking about venting or ranting, but if there is someone I legitimately need something from - getting angry at them is not useful.
*I find a good time to talk
For difficult conversations, I make sure I'm not hungry, angry, lonely or tired (HALT). If I'm any of those things, I can't be focused on communicating effectively. I need to take care of myself first, and then come back to the conversation - the next day or next week. If it's still important, I will remember what I need to say, and what specific requests I want to make.
*Determine whether or not to discuss when something comes up or later
Sometimes it makes sense to talk about things as they happen. But difficult conversations are not always appropriate (particularly in public).
A great example - the third time in a month my boss asks me to work overtime at the last minute. Not getting angry about it - but a solution could be to agree to working and then having a conversation about it. I found growing up - either the conflict would happen when someone was overwhelmed and the follow up wouldn't necessarily happen. The follow up discussion is crucial - where the employee lets the boss know that last minute requests are not okay - and works to prevent it in the future. Setting boundaries to say it won't be okay next time. And the next time, reminding the boss of the boundary and enforcing it.
*I focus on what's going on now (the present) and specific requests
While the past informs the present - bringing up past wrongs is not useful if I want to move forward in a relationship. I need to focus on my direct requests today. I need to figure out what I want (specifically) and make sure my request is reasonable. An unreasonable request would be asking someone to stop bring themselves in some way. It's about having an open conversation.
It's a balance. But the better I get with these skills, the more satisfied I feel with my relationships.
As an adult, however, I've inventoried what skills in my past to let go of or work on. I've learned the importance of confrontation and conflict. With so much passive-aggression in mormonism (and particularly among women), it's rare that people say what they mean. Or that people directly ask for what they want (or express an opinion). Some of it is cultural - for the longest time, women were not encouraged to be direct - they had to seek power through other means (manipulation, etc.)
 |
| Gourds 2013 |
What happens when you don't confront other people, when you don't ask for what you want (or need), usually feelings are suppressed and resentment pops up. Resentment that you are being taken advantage of, that you aren't valued, that you are being ignored.
But sometimes confrontation is not useful. Growing up, it seems as if the only time confronting someone was acceptable was when you were enforcing church standards. I remember my Dad losing his temper about some kids in the church building on Sunday. That was acceptable conflict, standing up for mormon principles.
But saying no to a calling, to the PTA, to the casserole sign up sheet, that's not socially acceptable.
Another thing that tends to happen for me with conflict is that I would build up so much anger that when the conflict (inevitably) happened, I would be too angry to listen to the other person - to negotiate. So this is what has worked for me to learn more about confrontation:
*I determine if the conversation is necessary
If I talk with someone (like my boss) about a promotion, and they say it's not going to happen - confronting them weekly is not a good strategy. I need to make sure that I know what's possible and what's not. I need to make sure my expectations are reasonable.
*I determine if things are likely to change - and I figure out if I don't confront the other person, what choices I have
I'm thinking specifically of the current protests/requests for the SLC LDS church. Many NOMs and others have determined for themselves whether or not participating in these movements is useful for them.
*I make sure I'm not angry
If I go into a conversation angry, it's sure to undermine my position. I need to be as calm and rational as possible. I'm not talking about venting or ranting, but if there is someone I legitimately need something from - getting angry at them is not useful.
*I find a good time to talk
For difficult conversations, I make sure I'm not hungry, angry, lonely or tired (HALT). If I'm any of those things, I can't be focused on communicating effectively. I need to take care of myself first, and then come back to the conversation - the next day or next week. If it's still important, I will remember what I need to say, and what specific requests I want to make.
*Determine whether or not to discuss when something comes up or later
Sometimes it makes sense to talk about things as they happen. But difficult conversations are not always appropriate (particularly in public).
A great example - the third time in a month my boss asks me to work overtime at the last minute. Not getting angry about it - but a solution could be to agree to working and then having a conversation about it. I found growing up - either the conflict would happen when someone was overwhelmed and the follow up wouldn't necessarily happen. The follow up discussion is crucial - where the employee lets the boss know that last minute requests are not okay - and works to prevent it in the future. Setting boundaries to say it won't be okay next time. And the next time, reminding the boss of the boundary and enforcing it.
*I focus on what's going on now (the present) and specific requests
While the past informs the present - bringing up past wrongs is not useful if I want to move forward in a relationship. I need to focus on my direct requests today. I need to figure out what I want (specifically) and make sure my request is reasonable. An unreasonable request would be asking someone to stop bring themselves in some way. It's about having an open conversation.
It's a balance. But the better I get with these skills, the more satisfied I feel with my relationships.
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Camping
 |
| Lake Sunset 2013 |
I always liked camping. And by camping, I mean real, tent camping. The description of LDS girls' camp in the feminist mormon housewives podcast rang very true to me. I have fond memories of camp. I learned a lot. I still know different ways to make fire, and how to lash two sticks together.
So it was nice to go camping with friends recently. What was interesting to me, however, was that I realized why I would not want to live on a commune. Please let me explain.
The food coordination was not really defined beforehand. We have lots of friends with food allergies, and others who are vegetarian or vegan. So it would already be difficult to find meals that everyone could eat.
Then, the person who was in charge of a communal grill didn't arrive at the campsite until 6:30 p.m., and then promptly set up their tent. So it was 8 before they started cooking, and the meal wasn't served until 9.
Sometimes I'm willing to wait to eat with other people (particularly when it's just me), but 9 is too late to eat with kids. And that's a difference among families - some families like to eat at regular times - others are more flexible and fluid. So we started cooking our own food at 6 and ate around 7.
Back to the reason I couldn't live in a commune - it would involve these types of conversations daily. It's one thing to coordinate with my own family (four), it's quite another to coordinate cooking, preparing, food with 8 other couples and their kids, given all the food allergies. And how does one make sure everyone does their share? There was one couple that seemed like they were not pulling their weight (monitoring or feeding their own child). There may have been more going on than what I observed - but it's uncomfortable to be in that situation.
The way to make it work -through communication and coordination. But living in a commune would mean constant conversations about that type of things ALL THE TIME. And from my understanding, often in communes in the 1960s, women did a great deal of work - picking up the slack. And I'm not comfortable with that either. In our camping trip, there was an equal sharing of work amongst the couples- cooking, preparing food, watching kids. But I could see that not always being the case.
I had a great time. I look forward to returning next year. I'm even open to a conversation about a communal grill - one side for folks who eat meat, and one for the vegan/vegetarians.
But I realize that living with friends all the time would not be roses and rainbows (we've returned to college dorm living!). It would be a great deal of work, communication - and would greatly depend on the people we were living with.
Monday, February 18, 2013
History as we want it to be
***Downton Abbey season 3 spoilers ahead! Don't read if you are sensitive to spoilers***
Like many Americans, I've been watching Downton Abbey. It's a good program, although at times it can be rather soapy. And a part of me is surprised by its popularity, since I've enjoyed most Masterpiece/BBC programs for quite some time. I'm not sure what's so unique about this.
However, in one of the episodes of Season 3, there was more than a small anachronism. Thomas (the valet) is a closeted gay servant. He's also caused quite a bit of trouble and drama from day one in the household. (Remember all the trouble Mary got into during the first season with Mr. Pamuk? That was Thomas' doing). In this season (after the war) he's back in a life of service.
He mistakes another servant's friendliness for a love interest (with the help of another scheming servant, O'Brien). Barrow hits on him (the character Jimmy) and is discovered by another footman.
The point of all of this is, while some of the servants are shocked and dismayed, in the end, everyone accepts that Barrow is gay. Even Lord Grantham doesn't have an issue with a gay servant. This is the same Lord Grantham who, for the record, was shocked that his daughter married a chauffeur and that his granddaughter was going to be baptized Catholic (the horrors). Also shocking for the Earl, his daughter wearing pants and another daughter writing for a magazine.
It would have been wonderful if in the 1920s, it was not a big deal for someone to be gay. If gay men and women weren't repeatedly arrested and socially ostracized. But the truth is, being openly gay was still listed as a disease in the DSM until 1986. The American Experience program about Stonewall was amazing to me. Clubs were raided and upstanding citizens were arrested, simply for being gay. Looking at Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, set around the same time, had an upper class gay character - who ends up full of despair (because at the time, gay characters couldn't be successful and happy - they were doomed to ruin).
The mormon church is far from 1920s Edwardian England, but I can quote many mormon church leaders who agreed with this disease model. In church leader Spencer W. Kimball's book The Miracle of Forgiveness, it says that it is better for someone to come home dead than dishonored. This book and its message has been repeatedly discussed in the bloggernacle, but has never been formally repudiated by the LDS church. Even in 2010, an LDS church leader (Boyd K. Packer) implied that god would never make anyone gay.
But in fiction, we don't have to be fully honest or historically accurate. Even if it is unlikely that an openly gay servant could remain in a conservative household, the creator could stretch reality. And there are many uncomfortable parts of human history, some of which we would rather ignore. I would like to pretend that the United States wasn't founded with slavery. I would like to pretend that women weren't treated as property for most of human history.
But that's not the truth.
This slate article explains that each character defended Thomas for their own reasons. So perhaps it does work. I am simply wary of revisionist history that ignores the very real sometimes violent struggle that many people had to face, for human rights. If we don't accurately depict the way things were - it diminishes how much we have had to overcome.
Like many Americans, I've been watching Downton Abbey. It's a good program, although at times it can be rather soapy. And a part of me is surprised by its popularity, since I've enjoyed most Masterpiece/BBC programs for quite some time. I'm not sure what's so unique about this.
He mistakes another servant's friendliness for a love interest (with the help of another scheming servant, O'Brien). Barrow hits on him (the character Jimmy) and is discovered by another footman.
The point of all of this is, while some of the servants are shocked and dismayed, in the end, everyone accepts that Barrow is gay. Even Lord Grantham doesn't have an issue with a gay servant. This is the same Lord Grantham who, for the record, was shocked that his daughter married a chauffeur and that his granddaughter was going to be baptized Catholic (the horrors). Also shocking for the Earl, his daughter wearing pants and another daughter writing for a magazine.
It would have been wonderful if in the 1920s, it was not a big deal for someone to be gay. If gay men and women weren't repeatedly arrested and socially ostracized. But the truth is, being openly gay was still listed as a disease in the DSM until 1986. The American Experience program about Stonewall was amazing to me. Clubs were raided and upstanding citizens were arrested, simply for being gay. Looking at Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, set around the same time, had an upper class gay character - who ends up full of despair (because at the time, gay characters couldn't be successful and happy - they were doomed to ruin).
The mormon church is far from 1920s Edwardian England, but I can quote many mormon church leaders who agreed with this disease model. In church leader Spencer W. Kimball's book The Miracle of Forgiveness, it says that it is better for someone to come home dead than dishonored. This book and its message has been repeatedly discussed in the bloggernacle, but has never been formally repudiated by the LDS church. Even in 2010, an LDS church leader (Boyd K. Packer) implied that god would never make anyone gay.
But in fiction, we don't have to be fully honest or historically accurate. Even if it is unlikely that an openly gay servant could remain in a conservative household, the creator could stretch reality. And there are many uncomfortable parts of human history, some of which we would rather ignore. I would like to pretend that the United States wasn't founded with slavery. I would like to pretend that women weren't treated as property for most of human history.
But that's not the truth.
This slate article explains that each character defended Thomas for their own reasons. So perhaps it does work. I am simply wary of revisionist history that ignores the very real sometimes violent struggle that many people had to face, for human rights. If we don't accurately depict the way things were - it diminishes how much we have had to overcome.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
The Hills are Alive....with Big Mormon Families
Over the holiday I caught a portion of "The Sound of Music", a musical that pops up every year around the holidays. Frankly, I'm not sure how the holidays and fighting the Nazis became intertwined - but there you are.
I watched this film a lot as a child, and I know the words to most of the songs. The biggest surprise came when I was 6, visiting my cousins and found out that there was more to the movie after the wedding. (In order to get us to go to bed, my Dad would let us watch the movie until the wedding, and then say "they're married now, the movie's over").
Watching it now, in my thirties, I'm amazed by how coordinated and coherent the family of seven children is. Granted, this is the 1930s and it's a musical - meaning a completely idealized life. No one thinks "Oklahoma" or "West Side Story" are real (one would hope).
But still - it seems so perfect, this large family of children (led by the sixteen year old Leisl) who works together to play tricks on the governesses and jokes about champagne.
I was thinking about it - I don't remember one time (perhaps my brother will chime in here) that all the kids went anywhere together without our parents. Not once. We would go out together, but not as a full group (that I recall). So the scene in the film where they visit the abbey rang very hollow.
Trying to get everyone in my family to do anything (by the time I was sixteen) was like herding cats.
So I thought - this movie must be what people think growing up in a big family is like. It's everyone working together, singing, watching out for one another. They get through their troubles together.
But that's not what big families are like (at least, it wasn't for my family). Is anyone really that naive?
.It's true that the Captain had a lot of money, and that definitely helps in large families.
Being in a large family is being raised to be competitive. You have to compete and out-shine to survive. My Dad also used to say "the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease" (For the record, this is a saying that has never made any sense to me. It sounds like you're encouraging someone to squeak if they want something - it's a backwards way to do anything).
There are only so many resources, and they have to be divided amongst everyone. It's not a matter of everyone pitches in - it's not always that simple or easy. My Mom would talk about a large family of girls she remembered from Utah, they all learned to sew and made their own clothes. In the 1980s, in the suburbs - all handmade clothes were unrealistic. Sure, it could happen. It's just the place where reality hits - life is not all re-made curtains.
You had to pool your resources, and you had to be very careful what you shared. I read someone who talked about hoarding Christmas gifts in a large family - and that was almost what it was like sometimes. You wanted to have your own stash of whatever because it could be gone tomorrow.
My parents have finally re-arranged the kitchen to not have food "hidden" in various cabinets - but for the longest time, the chips were in one cabinet SOLELY because they might not get eaten as quickly. At the end, it stretched believability as everyone knew exactly where the chips were.
I have a lot of advantages for being raised in the family I was. I love my siblings, and the big family reunions. We did work together, and I learned a lot.
All I'm saying is, at times I am not sure that people see the downsides to large families or challenges after watching the media portrayals. There are important pieces that are left out.
I watched this film a lot as a child, and I know the words to most of the songs. The biggest surprise came when I was 6, visiting my cousins and found out that there was more to the movie after the wedding. (In order to get us to go to bed, my Dad would let us watch the movie until the wedding, and then say "they're married now, the movie's over").
 |
| original poster from wikipedia |
But still - it seems so perfect, this large family of children (led by the sixteen year old Leisl) who works together to play tricks on the governesses and jokes about champagne.
I was thinking about it - I don't remember one time (perhaps my brother will chime in here) that all the kids went anywhere together without our parents. Not once. We would go out together, but not as a full group (that I recall). So the scene in the film where they visit the abbey rang very hollow.
Trying to get everyone in my family to do anything (by the time I was sixteen) was like herding cats.
So I thought - this movie must be what people think growing up in a big family is like. It's everyone working together, singing, watching out for one another. They get through their troubles together.
But that's not what big families are like (at least, it wasn't for my family). Is anyone really that naive?
.It's true that the Captain had a lot of money, and that definitely helps in large families.
Being in a large family is being raised to be competitive. You have to compete and out-shine to survive. My Dad also used to say "the squeakiest wheel gets the most grease" (For the record, this is a saying that has never made any sense to me. It sounds like you're encouraging someone to squeak if they want something - it's a backwards way to do anything).
There are only so many resources, and they have to be divided amongst everyone. It's not a matter of everyone pitches in - it's not always that simple or easy. My Mom would talk about a large family of girls she remembered from Utah, they all learned to sew and made their own clothes. In the 1980s, in the suburbs - all handmade clothes were unrealistic. Sure, it could happen. It's just the place where reality hits - life is not all re-made curtains.
You had to pool your resources, and you had to be very careful what you shared. I read someone who talked about hoarding Christmas gifts in a large family - and that was almost what it was like sometimes. You wanted to have your own stash of whatever because it could be gone tomorrow.
My parents have finally re-arranged the kitchen to not have food "hidden" in various cabinets - but for the longest time, the chips were in one cabinet SOLELY because they might not get eaten as quickly. At the end, it stretched believability as everyone knew exactly where the chips were.
I have a lot of advantages for being raised in the family I was. I love my siblings, and the big family reunions. We did work together, and I learned a lot.
All I'm saying is, at times I am not sure that people see the downsides to large families or challenges after watching the media portrayals. There are important pieces that are left out.
Thursday, December 13, 2012
My Mom and Pants
 |
| 1940s women's pant suit |
My Mom went back to work when my youngest sister was in kindergarten. It was a very good thing for her to work outside the home, for many reasons. I left home a few years after for college, so I haven't seen what my Mom wears to work most days.
Yet the times I have seen her go to work, I never remember seeing her wear a skirt or a dress. She may have, but I certainly don't remember it. She typically wears business casual pants (just like I do).
It always seemed odd to me that the only time I saw my Mom wear a skirt was to church. The only times I ever saw my Mom wear skirts was to church or to important events. She wore a dress to my wedding, to various funerals, graduations, etc. Somehow there is this association that skirts (and nylons) are more dressed up, are more appropriate, are more reverent.
My Mom is a very faithful mormon. She's also never been terribly feminine, like some of the mormon women I remember growing up.
Countless after school specials would decry peer pressure - but social pressure is incredibly real. You may not believe it's there, but step outside those boundaries and watch the storm.
Social norms and the vehemence with which people stick to those norms can be astounding. My Mom never wore pants to church, because it just wasn't done. I recall the serious looks that I received when I wore pants to church twenty years ago. I think someone did say something to me, although it's been so long I don't remember exactly.
Americans scoff at those British dramas where someone claims in a haughty way that things just aren't done that way - but we can't escape it ourselves. We are governed by social norms, and however we try to escape it, they are still there. Mormons have their own unique social norms, which are informed by misogyny (entrenched social roles for women and men).
One of my young woman group leaders used to wear this black dress with a white rose. It had sleeves and was long enough, but it was a cocktail dress. She looked great in it. The only reason I remember it is that it was so out of the norm, even twenty years ago. It was black, and it wasn't shapeless. I don't attend church regularly, so I assume many more mormon women wear dresses like this to church, and some may even wear pants now and then.
What we wear matters. What women wear matters.
I support the women (and men) who are protesting. Granted, the protests are around 40 years late, but better late than never. I suspect many of the protestors will receive personal backlash, some may be excommunicated.
Personally, I am grateful to all the women who came before me who protested so I could wear pants to work every day. Also grateful to those who were force fed so I could vote.
Wearing pants seems like such a small thing - but really it's not. It's not easy to play basketball in a skirt. It's not easy to wait tables, run a pre-school or mow the lawn. It's nice to wear pants particularly when there is a foot of snow on the ground.
Controlling what women wear, controlling what women look like is just a subtle form of sexism. And it seeps throughout our culture.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
The consultant
 |
| I've had this cartoon up at my work forever. |
This type of arrogant attitude has always gotten under my skin. In high school, a person was a "poser" without certain punk qualifications. In college, it had to do with whether or not I had read certain authors or watched certain movies. At my first job, it was whether or not my degree was in computer science. For the record, at least that criticism had some basis in reality; a degree in computer science meant a higher salary and less job security. If that company could keep hiring people without computer science degrees for a lot less money, they would fire the pricier computer science majors.
One sees this in former mormon circles a lot. People have to trot out their mormon qualifications for speaking up about mormonism. Born in the church, pioneer/polygamous ancestry (people don't usually mention the polygamy), mission, temple marriage, served in various callings are some of what's discussed. Then, when they don't have that history, they're criticized for not have enough experience. When they do, they're criticized for breaking sacred oaths and not enduring to the end.
So there's a vested interest in claiming people don't know what they're talking about. Personally, I believe it's a balance.
Of course people have to have a certain amount of knowledge and experience. I wouldn't want an untrained doctor operating on me or my family. And some experiences cannot be learned. I don't know what it's like to grow up as a male of color or in southeast Asia.
But it's ridiculous to always claim a person always needs certain education or experience that cannot be learned. Humanity didn't get this far by assuming a person cannot learn, that they can only learn in certain ways, with certain official qualifications.
Humans innovate. They try to make things better. Sometimes it's worth giving people the benefit of the doubt.
And if a person has read your diatribe against management hiring inexperienced people enough times that one can recognize your name and statements, maybe it's time to revisit your strategy. I certainly wouldn't hire someone so obnoxious. I would be concerned that my company or system would be dismissed - that the consultant wouldn't be working towards a solution.
*For full disclosure, I found most of these questions by googling questions that *I* have had - so I wouldn't say the original questions were completely out of line.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
The Argument
I heard part of this program last night. It was about the storage of nuclear waste in Germany. A reporter was touring a nuclear waste storage site with two advocates.
What was fascinating (to me), was that despite the fact the two advocates had never met before, they were discussing this contentious issue. (And the discussion became heated - again, complete strangers before this conversation). Each advocate (for the opposing side) understood and anticipated the other person's argument.
It reminded me of the sword fight scene in "The Princess Bride" - where Inigo Montoya and "the Dread Pirate Roberts" talk about the fighting moves they're using.
I realized - I've seen this before. I see it all the time when people discuss mormonism on the internet (or elsewhere). I've read it in discussions between former and current mormons. Two people who may or may not have access to the same sources - who may or may not be aware of all the sources. Who (probably) disagree on the meanings of basic terms (like feminism).
At one point in the nuclear waste story, someone said "Your side has never admitted that they're wrong. Name one thing that your side has admitted was wrong".
Are all controversial subjects like this? When two side of people feel passionately about an issue? Does it always devolve into always and never - rife with assumptions on both sides?
In the mormon/former mormon world, particularly on the internets - the answer is yes.
What was fascinating (to me), was that despite the fact the two advocates had never met before, they were discussing this contentious issue. (And the discussion became heated - again, complete strangers before this conversation). Each advocate (for the opposing side) understood and anticipated the other person's argument.
It reminded me of the sword fight scene in "The Princess Bride" - where Inigo Montoya and "the Dread Pirate Roberts" talk about the fighting moves they're using.
I realized - I've seen this before. I see it all the time when people discuss mormonism on the internet (or elsewhere). I've read it in discussions between former and current mormons. Two people who may or may not have access to the same sources - who may or may not be aware of all the sources. Who (probably) disagree on the meanings of basic terms (like feminism).
At one point in the nuclear waste story, someone said "Your side has never admitted that they're wrong. Name one thing that your side has admitted was wrong".
Are all controversial subjects like this? When two side of people feel passionately about an issue? Does it always devolve into always and never - rife with assumptions on both sides?
In the mormon/former mormon world, particularly on the internets - the answer is yes.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Should Romney's religion matter?
Like Gov. Romney, I was born and raised LDS. I didn't have a choice in the matter.
Many people (former mormon or not) are focusing on the religion and its beliefs. It's true that some parts of the mormon faith are secret. Some parts of its history shock adults raised in the mormon faith.
While I have many disagreements with my former religion, I'm still not sold on the notion that faith is a critical part of the U.S. presidency.
Richard Nixon, for example, was a Quaker. I am hard-pressed to find any correlation between his Quaker faith and actions in his presidency.
And former president Bill Clinton was raised a Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptist are a conservative sect, one that voted to have women submit to their husbands. Pres. Clinton and President Carter worked with a new Baptist discussion in 2006 - 2008 to move towards a more open, compassionate Baptist ministry (away from the conservative Southern Baptists).
A person's character is an important part of their candidacy and presidency. What they have done is very important. Despite vocal indications to the contrary, most of what presidents have done over the past fifty years has been about politics, growth, defense, education.
I'm reminded of the international funding for birth control and abortion. The day after a Republican president is sworn in, they cut the funding. The day after a Democrat is sworn in, they re-instate the funding. That's politics, pure and simple.
So religion becomes a side item. It reminds me of the intense scrutiny of the president's wives/spouses and children. In the end, the character of a president's family has even less to do with the presidency itself than religion does.
And that's why I'm not sure how much control a president has. They have some control, to be sure. They set direction, suggest policy, etc. But in the end, every president is constrained by the checks and balances.
I read both Dreams from my Father and The Audacity of Hope. At first I couldn't believe that the establishment was allowing someone like Barack Obama to run.
Now, I look back on what he's been able to accomplish in his presidency (particularly compared with those two books). Honestly, not much of what he set out to do.
The difference is, I don't blame him for that. The same thing happened to George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. It's true that each person had many decisions that were their own, some that I vehemently disagree with. But overall, presidents get credit when things go right, and blame when they go wrong.
Back to Romney, four years ago I wrote that I understood why he didn't want to answer questions about mormonism. I stand by that, four years later. Religion can be a factor in deciding the presidency and presidential candidates, but it shouldn't be the only factor.
Presidents can talk a good game, but in the end it's much more complicated than simple character or drive.
Many people (former mormon or not) are focusing on the religion and its beliefs. It's true that some parts of the mormon faith are secret. Some parts of its history shock adults raised in the mormon faith.
While I have many disagreements with my former religion, I'm still not sold on the notion that faith is a critical part of the U.S. presidency.
Richard Nixon, for example, was a Quaker. I am hard-pressed to find any correlation between his Quaker faith and actions in his presidency.
And former president Bill Clinton was raised a Southern Baptist. The Southern Baptist are a conservative sect, one that voted to have women submit to their husbands. Pres. Clinton and President Carter worked with a new Baptist discussion in 2006 - 2008 to move towards a more open, compassionate Baptist ministry (away from the conservative Southern Baptists).
A person's character is an important part of their candidacy and presidency. What they have done is very important. Despite vocal indications to the contrary, most of what presidents have done over the past fifty years has been about politics, growth, defense, education.
I'm reminded of the international funding for birth control and abortion. The day after a Republican president is sworn in, they cut the funding. The day after a Democrat is sworn in, they re-instate the funding. That's politics, pure and simple.
So religion becomes a side item. It reminds me of the intense scrutiny of the president's wives/spouses and children. In the end, the character of a president's family has even less to do with the presidency itself than religion does.
And that's why I'm not sure how much control a president has. They have some control, to be sure. They set direction, suggest policy, etc. But in the end, every president is constrained by the checks and balances.
I read both Dreams from my Father and The Audacity of Hope. At first I couldn't believe that the establishment was allowing someone like Barack Obama to run.
Now, I look back on what he's been able to accomplish in his presidency (particularly compared with those two books). Honestly, not much of what he set out to do.
The difference is, I don't blame him for that. The same thing happened to George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. It's true that each person had many decisions that were their own, some that I vehemently disagree with. But overall, presidents get credit when things go right, and blame when they go wrong.
Back to Romney, four years ago I wrote that I understood why he didn't want to answer questions about mormonism. I stand by that, four years later. Religion can be a factor in deciding the presidency and presidential candidates, but it shouldn't be the only factor.
Presidents can talk a good game, but in the end it's much more complicated than simple character or drive.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
Prohibition
I agree wholeheartedly.
What I found interesting, however, is the education in schools prior to prohibition. The Women's Christian Temperance Union, and the Anti-Saloon league successfully lobbied for laws to teach children about the danger of alcohol. One of the things they claimed was that one drop of alcohol could lead to alcoholism. This was part of the curriculum for children, who also pledged to never touch alcohol throughout their lives.
This was fascinating to me. First, I didn't realize that this argument (currently used against illegal drugs/drug abuse) had been used against alcohol in the U.S.
To bring it to mormonism (being raised mormon), I always thought the history of alcohol and mormons was interesting. Drinking alcohol is prohibited by mormons, but many church leaders had breweries or wineries. Brigham Young owned a bar in Salt Lake City, for example. My family legend suggests one of my ancestors owned a saloon in Utah, one of the first in the region.
According to wikipedia, it was in 1902 the word of wisdom (abstaining from alcohol) became necessary to enter mormon temples (to be married or to attend the weddings of family members and friends). This would have been right around the same time that prohibition fervor was growing in the country.
The way it was taught to me growing up, was that I should never try a sip of any form of alcohol. Period. Trying even a sip of alcohol was sinful. And, it could cut me off from the spirit, from contact with God. It's a powerful argument, to suggest that a substance immediately cuts someone off from any direction or protection from God.
As a teenager, I thought this interpretation was extreme. I didn't think that trying a sip of alcohol would lead to alcoholism, although many mormons suggested that to me. Were they just trying to get a message through to teenagers, or explaining something they sincerely believe(d)?
I am not sure that any research shows that an occasional beer or wine leads to alcohol abuse. There really isn't a clear line between a sip of champagne and buying a case of beer instead of food. In my opinion, there is a huge difference between the two, and true alcoholism takes years. If anyone can even explain what alcoholism is and who suffers from it (it's fairly controversial). Since most everyone has tried alcohol at some point, why aren't more people alcoholics?
So in my opinion, it does a disservice to all mormons to continue the strict adherence and ban on any forms of alcohol, to encourage people to refrain from trying a sip of alcohol. It's really not a black and white issue.
Why not encourage moderation? Why not learn how to drink responsibly, but also how to make up your own minds about what substances/food/cultural experiences you will embrace? Why not teach children and families what true alcoholism is, what some signs can be (when sober is your altered state of being), etc.
In terms of mormon doctrine, the strict adherence is really a modern interpretation. The Word of Wisdom was never fully required, it was just advice (as chanson points out aptly in her novel exmormon).
But mormonism (whether or not it's doctrinal or cultural) appears to be about fifty years behind the times. In this instance, perhaps the leadership is 80 years behind the times of re-examining strict prohibition of alcohol, and allowing personal responsibility and moderation.
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Death of a child
Are there worse things than the death of a child? That's what I was asking myself earlier this week. I can think of a handful of worse things, but the death of a child is pretty damn horrific.
I attended the wake of a young toddler a few days ago. The child was a relative of a co-worker; I had never met the child before.
The weight of the sorrow, the sadness and horror of it all is overwhelming. As a parent, this is your worst nightmare, you turn your back and your child is gone. There are few words to describe how sad it was. The tiny coffin is heartbreaking.
My friend was doing as best as you can, but the child's mother looked like hell.
I think it's safe to say that hell on earth is losing your child so young. It must sound like an exaggeration, but I don't think so. I don't want to describe more of what I saw, more of the pain - it's a little like child birth, you want to distance yourself from the pain and forget as soon as possible (for self protection).
_________________________________________________
So I can certainly imagine why the idea of sealing families was so appealing to early mormons, and continues to bring people to the LDS church today. When you've experienced a loss so enormous, so unimaginable, a person might do anything to feel better. You do anything to believe that death can be cheated.
My friend's family is not mormon, and there is no way I would bring this up at such a hellish time (I hope that goes without saying).
Yet I believe there is a strong, human impulse to comfort, to say that the loved one is in a better place, that we will be with them again. And who am I to get in the way of that? I have no answers.
For my non mormon readers, Joseph Smith said he had a vision of his brother Alvin*, and he encouraged him to start performing baptisms and sealing ordinances by proxy. This would get around the religious questions of the time - what would happen to someone who died before they heard of mormonism, or who wasn't "saved". All of a sudden, it didn't matter if your loved one wasn't mormon or around to be mormon, you could still be with them in the afterlife. Of course, there are all sorts of caveats, but for such loss, it makes sense that families would do anything to dull the pain.
Some of the caveats were that the baptism needs to be performed with people here on earth, who have physical bodies. Mormonism has a unique emphasis (to my mind) on the physical body. It has to be done in the mormon temple, where only the most worthy mormons can enter. The baptized, deceased person (in the mormon version of purgatory) would then be free to accept the baptism, and then eventually be married (by proxy) and be in heaven with their family. The exact details are confusing, and can cause hours of debate with some circles of mormons (I could link to faithful mormon discussions here, but choose not to). But the point of all this is the ability to feel some slight comfort in the face of such sadness and grief.
This is simply what I was thinking about, after watching such a loss from the outside earlier this week.
*I found this article on the mormon curtain that discusses Alvin's death. The article is about 2/3rds down the page by Steve Benson. I haven't checked the references, so please take this with a grain of salt. It certainly seems very plausible to me that at Alvin's funeral, the minister did not give comfort to Joseph Smith's family and that later, the idea of baptism by proxy was more attractive.
I attended the wake of a young toddler a few days ago. The child was a relative of a co-worker; I had never met the child before.
The weight of the sorrow, the sadness and horror of it all is overwhelming. As a parent, this is your worst nightmare, you turn your back and your child is gone. There are few words to describe how sad it was. The tiny coffin is heartbreaking.
My friend was doing as best as you can, but the child's mother looked like hell.
I think it's safe to say that hell on earth is losing your child so young. It must sound like an exaggeration, but I don't think so. I don't want to describe more of what I saw, more of the pain - it's a little like child birth, you want to distance yourself from the pain and forget as soon as possible (for self protection).
_________________________________________________
So I can certainly imagine why the idea of sealing families was so appealing to early mormons, and continues to bring people to the LDS church today. When you've experienced a loss so enormous, so unimaginable, a person might do anything to feel better. You do anything to believe that death can be cheated.
My friend's family is not mormon, and there is no way I would bring this up at such a hellish time (I hope that goes without saying).
Yet I believe there is a strong, human impulse to comfort, to say that the loved one is in a better place, that we will be with them again. And who am I to get in the way of that? I have no answers.
For my non mormon readers, Joseph Smith said he had a vision of his brother Alvin*, and he encouraged him to start performing baptisms and sealing ordinances by proxy. This would get around the religious questions of the time - what would happen to someone who died before they heard of mormonism, or who wasn't "saved". All of a sudden, it didn't matter if your loved one wasn't mormon or around to be mormon, you could still be with them in the afterlife. Of course, there are all sorts of caveats, but for such loss, it makes sense that families would do anything to dull the pain.
Some of the caveats were that the baptism needs to be performed with people here on earth, who have physical bodies. Mormonism has a unique emphasis (to my mind) on the physical body. It has to be done in the mormon temple, where only the most worthy mormons can enter. The baptized, deceased person (in the mormon version of purgatory) would then be free to accept the baptism, and then eventually be married (by proxy) and be in heaven with their family. The exact details are confusing, and can cause hours of debate with some circles of mormons (I could link to faithful mormon discussions here, but choose not to). But the point of all this is the ability to feel some slight comfort in the face of such sadness and grief.
This is simply what I was thinking about, after watching such a loss from the outside earlier this week.
*I found this article on the mormon curtain that discusses Alvin's death. The article is about 2/3rds down the page by Steve Benson. I haven't checked the references, so please take this with a grain of salt. It certainly seems very plausible to me that at Alvin's funeral, the minister did not give comfort to Joseph Smith's family and that later, the idea of baptism by proxy was more attractive.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
Grow where you are planted
I wrote this post at latterdaymainstreet (MSP) about living in the midwest - in this particular state and location. Enjoy!
Saturday, February 19, 2011
self control and mormonism
I heard this article on npr the other day. It brought up some great points about allowing children to be responsible for themselves, delayed gratification, etc.
Like many mormons/former mormons, I grew up in an environment that was not terribly permissive. I was raised to be independent, but there was quite a bit of self-denial. It's that line between being cheap and being frugal - some of it was necessary for survival. I think it's safe to say that in many mormon families, there wasn't a lot of choice or accountability. One didn't get to "choose" to go to church, stake dances or seminary. Choice and accountability are important. If you don't choose to clean up your room, you miss out on a fun activity, etc. It's hard to explain, a person needs to be able to actually choose to do or not do something, not some sort of half-hearted attempt at "you *chose* to get baptized" (yeah right!).
For the baby boomer/conservative mormon parents, often something needed to be done simply because the parent said so and it was the right thing to do. period. And this method has its place as well, in moderation.
What the strict authoritarian family structure leads to people who don't have a great deal of internal knowledge or working boundaries. It's hard to internally figure out what *you* want, what *you* are feeling, to know your limits, if you're never allowed to explore them.
Some people leave the LDS church and really push the boundaries with self-destructive behaviors. It's a stereotype. Of course, I found many non mormon freshman who had the exact same response to leaving home. As soon as they were no longer under mom or dad's thumb, they threw caution to the wind. It happens. I'm not suggesting that experimenting isn't a part of life - and an important one. Not everyone reacts the same way - I have found over the years one can not make any generalizations about former mormons (and some current mormons).
The point of all this rambling is, raising children mormon does not necessarily do them a service in developing these internal compasses. Mormonism is intensely external. If nothing else, there is this belief that if you feel differently, if you receive a different answer, you're wrong, it's your problem (you're not righteous, whatever that means) or ask again. (I'm referring directly to the book of mormon, book of abraham, but even thorny questions about Joseph Smith's polygamy).
I can't say as a parent that I will be any better at this. From what I've figured out so far, limits and boundaries in parenthood has been critical. Routine has been important.
But I'm trying to also respect my kids for who they are, and allow them some age appropriate freedoms. I think moderation is the key. Moderation with important boundaries, health, safety, violence towards themselves or others.
I think kids are also watching parents (and other adults) to figure out how to respond to life. How to resolve conflicts. How and when to do stuff you don't want to do. How to handle grief and loss. How to have fun and let go. How to find that life between extreme self-denial and healthy, responsible self- control. And it should go without saying that the self-control is very different for each person/family.
Like many mormons/former mormons, I grew up in an environment that was not terribly permissive. I was raised to be independent, but there was quite a bit of self-denial. It's that line between being cheap and being frugal - some of it was necessary for survival. I think it's safe to say that in many mormon families, there wasn't a lot of choice or accountability. One didn't get to "choose" to go to church, stake dances or seminary. Choice and accountability are important. If you don't choose to clean up your room, you miss out on a fun activity, etc. It's hard to explain, a person needs to be able to actually choose to do or not do something, not some sort of half-hearted attempt at "you *chose* to get baptized" (yeah right!).
For the baby boomer/conservative mormon parents, often something needed to be done simply because the parent said so and it was the right thing to do. period. And this method has its place as well, in moderation.
What the strict authoritarian family structure leads to people who don't have a great deal of internal knowledge or working boundaries. It's hard to internally figure out what *you* want, what *you* are feeling, to know your limits, if you're never allowed to explore them.
Some people leave the LDS church and really push the boundaries with self-destructive behaviors. It's a stereotype. Of course, I found many non mormon freshman who had the exact same response to leaving home. As soon as they were no longer under mom or dad's thumb, they threw caution to the wind. It happens. I'm not suggesting that experimenting isn't a part of life - and an important one. Not everyone reacts the same way - I have found over the years one can not make any generalizations about former mormons (and some current mormons).
The point of all this rambling is, raising children mormon does not necessarily do them a service in developing these internal compasses. Mormonism is intensely external. If nothing else, there is this belief that if you feel differently, if you receive a different answer, you're wrong, it's your problem (you're not righteous, whatever that means) or ask again. (I'm referring directly to the book of mormon, book of abraham, but even thorny questions about Joseph Smith's polygamy).
I can't say as a parent that I will be any better at this. From what I've figured out so far, limits and boundaries in parenthood has been critical. Routine has been important.
But I'm trying to also respect my kids for who they are, and allow them some age appropriate freedoms. I think moderation is the key. Moderation with important boundaries, health, safety, violence towards themselves or others.
I think kids are also watching parents (and other adults) to figure out how to respond to life. How to resolve conflicts. How and when to do stuff you don't want to do. How to handle grief and loss. How to have fun and let go. How to find that life between extreme self-denial and healthy, responsible self- control. And it should go without saying that the self-control is very different for each person/family.
Friday, October 22, 2010
Live and let Live
A good friend of mine was visiting recently. We were discussing various topics, and somehow the topic of mormonism came up. She is not mormon. I mentioned that if she (or other close friends) were considering joining mormonism, I would have to speak up.
Now I need to give some caveats here. Ultimately, whatever decision my friends made would be their own. I would understand and respect whatever they decided. I do try to live by the "Live and let Live" philosophy. Yet with that said, mormonism and mormon theology is something I know quite a bit about. And being raised mormon, there was quite a bit I was not exposed to.
So just as if I were single, I would not date someone who was an active mormon, I would discuss mormonism with close friends who were considering converting to mormonism. I am not talking about a co-worker acquaintance who was thinking about it (which did happen, btw, long before I had searched out any former mormons on the internet). I'm talking about a close friend whom I respect.
This position is not a comfortable one for me, because I know and care about quite a few active mormons. I would simply share some pieces of information that I have learned, and allow my friends the privilege of following their own consciences. I would probably discuss various doctrines about race, gender and sexuality. I would also probably discuss various truth claims. Everyone (even now) is invited to also examine mormonism from a faithful perspective as well, starting at lds.org and examining the Book of Mormon and other publications.
And I would hope that any of my close friends who were considering converting to mormonism would talk with me first. I know that might not always be the case, and may be asking quite a lot. But I support open and honest information sharing. Mormonism does encourage a "milk before the meat" principle, which I personally do not think is fair to intelligent adult investigators.
Now I need to give some caveats here. Ultimately, whatever decision my friends made would be their own. I would understand and respect whatever they decided. I do try to live by the "Live and let Live" philosophy. Yet with that said, mormonism and mormon theology is something I know quite a bit about. And being raised mormon, there was quite a bit I was not exposed to.
So just as if I were single, I would not date someone who was an active mormon, I would discuss mormonism with close friends who were considering converting to mormonism. I am not talking about a co-worker acquaintance who was thinking about it (which did happen, btw, long before I had searched out any former mormons on the internet). I'm talking about a close friend whom I respect.
This position is not a comfortable one for me, because I know and care about quite a few active mormons. I would simply share some pieces of information that I have learned, and allow my friends the privilege of following their own consciences. I would probably discuss various doctrines about race, gender and sexuality. I would also probably discuss various truth claims. Everyone (even now) is invited to also examine mormonism from a faithful perspective as well, starting at lds.org and examining the Book of Mormon and other publications.
And I would hope that any of my close friends who were considering converting to mormonism would talk with me first. I know that might not always be the case, and may be asking quite a lot. But I support open and honest information sharing. Mormonism does encourage a "milk before the meat" principle, which I personally do not think is fair to intelligent adult investigators.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Family medical history
When I go into doctor's offices, usually one of the forms they ask me to fill out has to do with family medical history. I am fortunate to have extensive knowledge of my family medical history. I'm not sure if that's unique to my family, but it might be. Many people (i.e., not LDS people) don't always know the names of their great-grandparents, much less some of the diseases they suffered from.
Some time ago, one of my grandmothers sent out a genealogy chart with dates of family members (births and deaths) and what they died from. It was pretty amazing, if you think about it.
Fortunately (or unfortunately for the doctor), that also means that I bring up this knowledge in the appointment. And, I have almost all of the diseases at some point in my family history on one or both sides. Allergies, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, glaucoma, Alzheimers, high cholesterol, etc. etc. Most doctors will remind me that usually, one's parents and siblings are the most important factors. One's paternal great-grandmother's health history is useful, but not as useful. And in the end, diseases aren't governed solely by our genetics, there are many other factors that might be involved.
Predictably, the doctors ask about the ages when various family members were diagnosed...it's usually over the age of 50 and for many, over the age of 75. So many family members have been fortunate enough to live long, healthy, productive lives.
In other words, knowing that someone had gall bladder problems in their early 80s...it's hard to say if this is an instance where information is useful, or immaterial.
Some time ago, one of my grandmothers sent out a genealogy chart with dates of family members (births and deaths) and what they died from. It was pretty amazing, if you think about it.
Fortunately (or unfortunately for the doctor), that also means that I bring up this knowledge in the appointment. And, I have almost all of the diseases at some point in my family history on one or both sides. Allergies, diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure, glaucoma, Alzheimers, high cholesterol, etc. etc. Most doctors will remind me that usually, one's parents and siblings are the most important factors. One's paternal great-grandmother's health history is useful, but not as useful. And in the end, diseases aren't governed solely by our genetics, there are many other factors that might be involved.
Predictably, the doctors ask about the ages when various family members were diagnosed...it's usually over the age of 50 and for many, over the age of 75. So many family members have been fortunate enough to live long, healthy, productive lives.
In other words, knowing that someone had gall bladder problems in their early 80s...it's hard to say if this is an instance where information is useful, or immaterial.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
In or Out
So recently, there has been all sorts of discussions in faithful mormon circles about feminism.
Which is great. I am supportive.
Before you read any more of this post, know that I am supportive of people inside the LDS church trying to change the misogynist status quo. And yes, I did call the status quo misogynist. And no, I don't think I'm going to back away from that term, which some people will find offensive. Or possibly angry. But I look at the definition of misogynist, and I observe what's going on in the LDS church, and I can't help but think they're pretty close to one another.
With that said, I can't help but wonder what's different about today, 2010 - than 1993. Or 1979. Time has passed, of course. But many of the situations that those feminists found themselves in, the power structure, the hierarchy - it's all still there.
An argument I've heard points out how the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) gave women the priesthood (there is currently a woman apostle) and lost 25% of their membership. But honestly, I would suspect that a significant number of LDS have left over this issue or other discrimination issues. We don't really know how many people have left, of course, but we can guess. Some of the arguments then say "Well, we didn't want you anyway"...which is quite humorous (to my mind, and reminds me of the violent femmes song).
Those grapes taste awfully sour.
I get in trouble every so often by applying corporate metaphors to religion. But some of the best advice I ever received was that if I was miserable at a job for over three months, it was time to start looking. I've heard all sorts of arguments about whether or not you can change a corporate culture - from within or without. And I've seen both things happen, internal changes and external changes.
But honestly, if you know you are in a dead end job, and you can't tell if you're doing any good at that job - sometimes it is time to move on. Or to think about moving on. When you are spending so much time wondering what you are doing there, wondering where the time went - having panic attacks about your job - it's time.
Life is too short.
Without question, there is an iron ceiling in mormonism (as opposed to the glass ceiling).
Perhaps that will change. I would love to be proven wrong. And I am not advocating that feminists leave the LDS church. I just cannot see any way to change the culture as it stands today, personally. The LDS leadership holds all the cards. There is no reason for anyone to change - to change the rhetoric.
Which is great. I am supportive.
Before you read any more of this post, know that I am supportive of people inside the LDS church trying to change the misogynist status quo. And yes, I did call the status quo misogynist. And no, I don't think I'm going to back away from that term, which some people will find offensive. Or possibly angry. But I look at the definition of misogynist, and I observe what's going on in the LDS church, and I can't help but think they're pretty close to one another.
With that said, I can't help but wonder what's different about today, 2010 - than 1993. Or 1979. Time has passed, of course. But many of the situations that those feminists found themselves in, the power structure, the hierarchy - it's all still there.
An argument I've heard points out how the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) gave women the priesthood (there is currently a woman apostle) and lost 25% of their membership. But honestly, I would suspect that a significant number of LDS have left over this issue or other discrimination issues. We don't really know how many people have left, of course, but we can guess. Some of the arguments then say "Well, we didn't want you anyway"...which is quite humorous (to my mind, and reminds me of the violent femmes song).
Those grapes taste awfully sour.
I get in trouble every so often by applying corporate metaphors to religion. But some of the best advice I ever received was that if I was miserable at a job for over three months, it was time to start looking. I've heard all sorts of arguments about whether or not you can change a corporate culture - from within or without. And I've seen both things happen, internal changes and external changes.
But honestly, if you know you are in a dead end job, and you can't tell if you're doing any good at that job - sometimes it is time to move on. Or to think about moving on. When you are spending so much time wondering what you are doing there, wondering where the time went - having panic attacks about your job - it's time.
Life is too short.
Without question, there is an iron ceiling in mormonism (as opposed to the glass ceiling).
Perhaps that will change. I would love to be proven wrong. And I am not advocating that feminists leave the LDS church. I just cannot see any way to change the culture as it stands today, personally. The LDS leadership holds all the cards. There is no reason for anyone to change - to change the rhetoric.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Out of touch with Feelings
Some years ago, various well-meaning friends and counselors/professionals mentioned to me that it sounded like I "was out of touch with my feelings".
At first this statement really p*ssed me off. I had no idea what they meant, AND even worse, I had no idea what I could do about it. It sounded like a bunch of woo, or even worse, horse pucky. Being someone who excelled at lots of things over the years, it was also hard to hear that maybe there were some things I wasn't so great at.
Perhaps this is a nice way (euphemism) to say "heavy denial", and if so, it was/is true.
I was in denial about lots of things for many years - even long after I had been an active mormon. Through study, time and cognitive behavioral therapy, I think I have a better handle on what this means, on what it means to be out of touch with one's "feelings".
Basically, when growing up, some people are raised in families where authentic feelings are *not okay*. If someone is angry, scared or sad, these are not acceptable feelings. It's not good to be negative, and particularly be negative outside the family. There are rarely appropriate outlets for these feelings, and if there are, they are rarely taught/learned. Even at a time where someone was very sick or at a funeral, sometimes these feelings are not accepted. Think ("you're going to take drum lessons and you're going to like it - no matter what you want"). For the record, I am not saying that my own family never allowed outlets for feelings, just that it was something that I believe we struggled with.
Another friend talked about "choice" and "accountability" within families. This goes hand in hand with acknowledging and honoring feelings. Having choice means that children/family members are free to decide if they want to do something. They are free to say no. They are free to be sick (if they are sick).
Accountability means that if a person says no, or show up or does something, that there are consequences (positive or negative).
So for me, getting in touch with what I'm feeling is to think about specific feelings (anger, sadness, fear). I no longer focus on what other people around me are feeling. Other people and their opinions are important, but it goes back to that internal boundary I have talked about before (is it true? is it not true? and letting the not true stuff go). I may have another post on the internal boundary thing.
Again, figuring out what others were feeling was a skill I learned very well from a young age (either from being raised mormon or being raised mormon in my family). It was better/easier/a coping mechanism to keep track of how everyone *else* was feeling, than my own wants, needs, likes or dislikes. What I liked wasn't so important, how I felt wasn't important because it wasn't useful. It didn't get me anything.
What was important was the family, the church, my peers, people joining the mormon church, etc.
I'm not suggesting that people should be completely self-focused or self-indulgent (that's another can of worms). But when I was able to start to separate what *I* wanted, my expectations of myself vs.other people and their expectations of me, it became easier to navigate relationships. Also, separate out what I could control, and what I could not control (other people's feelings or responses).
Talking about those authentic feelings can get scary for some families/some family systems. Sometimes people will claim someone is being "selfish" for setting boundaries, for being accountable for the things they offer to do and don't. A big part of being accountable is saying yes, but also being accountable to say no and not feeling guilty about it.
I would much rather any friends of mine said "no" to a party or gathering than show up and complain or be in a bad mood the whole time. I'd rather they took care of themselves. Honestly, gatherings where everyone genuinely wants to be there are so much better. You can tell when someone feels obligated or doesn't want to be somewhere.
I think this is a different message than what's given in some organizations (the LDS church, but other organizations as well). And it's unfortunate - because it means that people "fake" what they are feeling, fake friendships or relationships.
It's certainly an easier business model to force people to do things no matter what and not accept no for an answer. Or to use guilt, passive-aggression, intermittent rewards, etc. to get what you want. But the people who actually want to do something and be somewhere...they're the most motivated, and their enjoyment and gratitude shows.
PS. I don't know how mourning and grief play into this, but I think part of the feelings thing is accepting that some things/people/relationships are not the way you want them to be. Then after that acceptance, figuring out what you can do about it.
Each person comes up with their own answers to these questions, and their own decisions (and accepts the various consequences).
And PPS. This is even more complicated for men, who are taught from a very young age that most feelings are not okay. A good reference for that (I still need to read it myself) is "I Don't Want to Talk About it: The Secret Legacy of Male Depression" by Terence Real. I'll read it and review it here at some point.
At first this statement really p*ssed me off. I had no idea what they meant, AND even worse, I had no idea what I could do about it. It sounded like a bunch of woo, or even worse, horse pucky. Being someone who excelled at lots of things over the years, it was also hard to hear that maybe there were some things I wasn't so great at.
Perhaps this is a nice way (euphemism) to say "heavy denial", and if so, it was/is true.
I was in denial about lots of things for many years - even long after I had been an active mormon. Through study, time and cognitive behavioral therapy, I think I have a better handle on what this means, on what it means to be out of touch with one's "feelings".
Basically, when growing up, some people are raised in families where authentic feelings are *not okay*. If someone is angry, scared or sad, these are not acceptable feelings. It's not good to be negative, and particularly be negative outside the family. There are rarely appropriate outlets for these feelings, and if there are, they are rarely taught/learned. Even at a time where someone was very sick or at a funeral, sometimes these feelings are not accepted. Think ("you're going to take drum lessons and you're going to like it - no matter what you want"). For the record, I am not saying that my own family never allowed outlets for feelings, just that it was something that I believe we struggled with.
Another friend talked about "choice" and "accountability" within families. This goes hand in hand with acknowledging and honoring feelings. Having choice means that children/family members are free to decide if they want to do something. They are free to say no. They are free to be sick (if they are sick).
Accountability means that if a person says no, or show up or does something, that there are consequences (positive or negative).
So for me, getting in touch with what I'm feeling is to think about specific feelings (anger, sadness, fear). I no longer focus on what other people around me are feeling. Other people and their opinions are important, but it goes back to that internal boundary I have talked about before (is it true? is it not true? and letting the not true stuff go). I may have another post on the internal boundary thing.
Again, figuring out what others were feeling was a skill I learned very well from a young age (either from being raised mormon or being raised mormon in my family). It was better/easier/a coping mechanism to keep track of how everyone *else* was feeling, than my own wants, needs, likes or dislikes. What I liked wasn't so important, how I felt wasn't important because it wasn't useful. It didn't get me anything.
What was important was the family, the church, my peers, people joining the mormon church, etc.
I'm not suggesting that people should be completely self-focused or self-indulgent (that's another can of worms). But when I was able to start to separate what *I* wanted, my expectations of myself vs.other people and their expectations of me, it became easier to navigate relationships. Also, separate out what I could control, and what I could not control (other people's feelings or responses).
Talking about those authentic feelings can get scary for some families/some family systems. Sometimes people will claim someone is being "selfish" for setting boundaries, for being accountable for the things they offer to do and don't. A big part of being accountable is saying yes, but also being accountable to say no and not feeling guilty about it.
I would much rather any friends of mine said "no" to a party or gathering than show up and complain or be in a bad mood the whole time. I'd rather they took care of themselves. Honestly, gatherings where everyone genuinely wants to be there are so much better. You can tell when someone feels obligated or doesn't want to be somewhere.
I think this is a different message than what's given in some organizations (the LDS church, but other organizations as well). And it's unfortunate - because it means that people "fake" what they are feeling, fake friendships or relationships.
It's certainly an easier business model to force people to do things no matter what and not accept no for an answer. Or to use guilt, passive-aggression, intermittent rewards, etc. to get what you want. But the people who actually want to do something and be somewhere...they're the most motivated, and their enjoyment and gratitude shows.
PS. I don't know how mourning and grief play into this, but I think part of the feelings thing is accepting that some things/people/relationships are not the way you want them to be. Then after that acceptance, figuring out what you can do about it.
Each person comes up with their own answers to these questions, and their own decisions (and accepts the various consequences).
And PPS. This is even more complicated for men, who are taught from a very young age that most feelings are not okay. A good reference for that (I still need to read it myself) is "I Don't Want to Talk About it: The Secret Legacy of Male Depression" by Terence Real. I'll read it and review it here at some point.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)