A few years ago, some of my male friends joined a facebook event for a be a man day in an effort to combat the media's portrayals of manhood - machismo or uselessness. Basically, this be a man day was a call for guys to be good, decent, hardworking people and for everybody to realize that is what being a man is about.
Last week I read from 2 Nephi 1 in my seminary scriptures. Verses 21 through 27 have markings placed as per my teacher's instructions - in the margin, Lehi's 10 traits of becoming a man, then the numerals 1 through 10 in the places he mentions said traits. The list
1. Be men (not sure why that's one of the items)
2. Be determined in one mind and one heart, united in all things
3. Awake
4. Come forth out of obscurity
5. Rebel no more
6. Keep the commandments
7. Be an instrument in the hands of God
8. Seek not for power or authority
9. Have the power of the word of God
10. Have the Spirit of the Lord in you
As a side note, I believe this was the same lesson where we split up into boys and girls and made lists - the girls made a list of the top 10 things we wanted in a man and the boys listed 10 things they thought the girls would want in a man. The lists actually matched up pretty well - the order was a bit off, but most of the items were represented on both lists. We girls cheated a bit, though - we couldn't completely agree on what belonged on the list so ended up with a tie in one spot, giving us 11 items. I don't remember many specific items on either list, although I could probably make a fairly good guess at what went on them. What I do remember is that one of the tie items on the girls' list was a Y chromosome. The boys listed testosterone. Those were the only physical attributes. Both lists focused mainly on character.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Political Fundraising
A couple years ago I somehow got added to an Obama supporters email mailing list. My best guess is that it came about when I clicked on something on facebook to say that I was going to vote. I definitely never knowingly gave my email address to any political party or candidate. I never unsubscribed because I've been trying to be at least somewhat informed politically and this was giving me views and information I wasn't getting elsewhere.
Lately, however, it's mostly consisted of pleas to donate or sign cards for Barack or Michelle Obama (birthday, Mother's Day, Father's Day). Which is understandable. The thing that bothers me is that most of the fundraising emails say something indicating that if Obama doesn't win, it's because they didn't earn enough. And, yes, the dollars do matter by a lot. But.
By saying unilaterally that how much they are able to raise now will determine what the headlines will be in November, they are completely discounting the possibility that more Americans like Romney's positions and qualifications than want Obama back. Sure, the campaign emails aren't going to come out and say that people might prefer Romney for his politics or perceived ability to get the job done. But the implication that no informed voter would choose to vote for Romney is incredibly arrogant. And the implication that the average American votes entirely based on who has better campaign materials is a bit insulting.
Edit: Yesterday I got an email that said "And the only way someone like Mitt Romney -- (content removed to reduce risk of issues debate here, there being plenty of other places for that) -- defeats someone like Barack Obama, is if the other side spends us into oblivion." The specific issues I removed happen to be controversial - as in, I hear arguments for both sides. On one issue in particular I was under the impression from some political poll that more than half of the country is against Obama's position. I'm smelling some false-consensus effect. Thinking about it in those terms actually makes it slightly less irritating. Slightly. Limiting themselves to 5 emails a week would also do them a lot of good in my book.
Lately, however, it's mostly consisted of pleas to donate or sign cards for Barack or Michelle Obama (birthday, Mother's Day, Father's Day). Which is understandable. The thing that bothers me is that most of the fundraising emails say something indicating that if Obama doesn't win, it's because they didn't earn enough. And, yes, the dollars do matter by a lot. But.
By saying unilaterally that how much they are able to raise now will determine what the headlines will be in November, they are completely discounting the possibility that more Americans like Romney's positions and qualifications than want Obama back. Sure, the campaign emails aren't going to come out and say that people might prefer Romney for his politics or perceived ability to get the job done. But the implication that no informed voter would choose to vote for Romney is incredibly arrogant. And the implication that the average American votes entirely based on who has better campaign materials is a bit insulting.
Edit: Yesterday I got an email that said "And the only way someone like Mitt Romney -- (content removed to reduce risk of issues debate here, there being plenty of other places for that) -- defeats someone like Barack Obama, is if the other side spends us into oblivion." The specific issues I removed happen to be controversial - as in, I hear arguments for both sides. On one issue in particular I was under the impression from some political poll that more than half of the country is against Obama's position. I'm smelling some false-consensus effect. Thinking about it in those terms actually makes it slightly less irritating. Slightly. Limiting themselves to 5 emails a week would also do them a lot of good in my book.
Monday, July 23, 2012
Marriage Gap Stats
Last night I got to flipping through a packet of readings for one of my college classes and found some of the information in one of them pretty interesting and worth sharing. So, for your information and reading pleasure:
Husbands with high-school dropout wives earned less than single men with comparable work and education histories. The chapter did not mention how much less.
Husbands with wives with just a high-school diploma earned 4.3 times as much as comparable single men.
Husbands with college educated wives earned almost 12 percent more than comparable single men.
The effects were shown whether or not they had children and whether or not the wives were employed, although I don't know whether the amount of the difference changed across those conditions. I also don't know what sort of difference the level of college education makes.
Husbands with high-school dropout wives earned less than single men with comparable work and education histories. The chapter did not mention how much less.
Husbands with wives with just a high-school diploma earned 4.3 times as much as comparable single men.
Husbands with college educated wives earned almost 12 percent more than comparable single men.
The effects were shown whether or not they had children and whether or not the wives were employed, although I don't know whether the amount of the difference changed across those conditions. I also don't know what sort of difference the level of college education makes.
Friday, July 13, 2012
Obligatory Modesty Post
Last night, I came across a post on an LDS group blog about modesty. Specifically, about modesty in women's and girls' clothing.
I actually seem to come across those on a fairly regular basis, and this one fit the typical mold. The post itself talks about why we should be modest, what modesty really is, or how modesty should be taught. All three of these are addressed in the comments. Then someone mentions that men are very visual and women should dress modestly to help the men control their thoughts, at which point at least half a dozen people comment interpreting the previous comment as saying that men have no control over their thoughts at all and women are entirely responsible for keeping the men from ever seeing anything that could lead to an impure thought. Which is of course impossible, especially if we want to dress in such a way as to allow ourselves to move and function in society.
I've never understood how or why people make the leap from "it would be nice to help the boys out" to "girls are completely responsible for everything and boys have no power whatsoever," but I guess sometimes people have trouble with nuance. And people can get really stupid online, where every sports article leads to 100 comments about how terrible the fans of the other side are (both sides being represented), and when somebody ventures to say that there are good and bad fans on each side, everybody involved on either side insults the newcomer. If a brand-new TV show has any common threads between the first two episodes, its message boards have multiple comments about how it's stuck in a rut. And if a political article ran titled Candidate Explains His Plan For the Fifth Time, with said plan outlined in great detail in the article, at least one person in the comments section will talk about how the candidate does not have a plan. That last one might be an exaggeration, but not by much.
Anyway. The people who jump down the throat of whoever mentioned helping the boys keep their thoughts pure tend to say that modesty should be about respecting yourself. And they have a point. Modesty really is largely about respect. For yourself, yes. But also for the situation. If you go to a symphony wearing footed pajamas, for example, you are not being modest, even though you are probably more covered than anybody else there and your clothing less clingy than most. Because you are not dressed appropriately for the situation and are not respecting the people putting on the symphony. And it is also about showing respect for the boys who are trying to keep their thoughts clean but might be struggling.
But even if you think modesty is completely about respecting yourself, I think the effects of your dress on others still matters. When I respect myself, I want others to respect me. And I do not think that whatever thoughts clingy and scanty clothes will bring into the minds of at least some men are particularly respectful. So I believe that in order to properly respect myself, I should consider how what I am wearing or exposing is likely to affect a normal, respectful guy.
I actually seem to come across those on a fairly regular basis, and this one fit the typical mold. The post itself talks about why we should be modest, what modesty really is, or how modesty should be taught. All three of these are addressed in the comments. Then someone mentions that men are very visual and women should dress modestly to help the men control their thoughts, at which point at least half a dozen people comment interpreting the previous comment as saying that men have no control over their thoughts at all and women are entirely responsible for keeping the men from ever seeing anything that could lead to an impure thought. Which is of course impossible, especially if we want to dress in such a way as to allow ourselves to move and function in society.
I've never understood how or why people make the leap from "it would be nice to help the boys out" to "girls are completely responsible for everything and boys have no power whatsoever," but I guess sometimes people have trouble with nuance. And people can get really stupid online, where every sports article leads to 100 comments about how terrible the fans of the other side are (both sides being represented), and when somebody ventures to say that there are good and bad fans on each side, everybody involved on either side insults the newcomer. If a brand-new TV show has any common threads between the first two episodes, its message boards have multiple comments about how it's stuck in a rut. And if a political article ran titled Candidate Explains His Plan For the Fifth Time, with said plan outlined in great detail in the article, at least one person in the comments section will talk about how the candidate does not have a plan. That last one might be an exaggeration, but not by much.
Anyway. The people who jump down the throat of whoever mentioned helping the boys keep their thoughts pure tend to say that modesty should be about respecting yourself. And they have a point. Modesty really is largely about respect. For yourself, yes. But also for the situation. If you go to a symphony wearing footed pajamas, for example, you are not being modest, even though you are probably more covered than anybody else there and your clothing less clingy than most. Because you are not dressed appropriately for the situation and are not respecting the people putting on the symphony. And it is also about showing respect for the boys who are trying to keep their thoughts clean but might be struggling.
But even if you think modesty is completely about respecting yourself, I think the effects of your dress on others still matters. When I respect myself, I want others to respect me. And I do not think that whatever thoughts clingy and scanty clothes will bring into the minds of at least some men are particularly respectful. So I believe that in order to properly respect myself, I should consider how what I am wearing or exposing is likely to affect a normal, respectful guy.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
The Anthem
Whenever I think about it, I am a bit disappointed in the way we usually sing the national anthem. I don't mean the style (although I think it's pretty disrespectful when the performer seems more interested in showing off their talent than in honoring their country). I mean the fact that, except in church and maybe an occasional full choir performance, we only ever sing the first verse.
And the first verse is about a flag. Sure, the symbol of the country, but not the country itself. Just a piece of fabric. It isn't until the next couple of verses that Key starts to bring in the actual significance of that flag.
My personal favorite verse is the last one, which speaks mainly of our country's ideals, then makes a clear link with the banner we are singing of:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall standBetween their loved home and the war's desolation!!Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued landPraise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall waveO'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)