I've been watching 'The Facts of Life' because it's a show I really liked when I was younger and watching it now, the early years anyway, I realize how many topics they tried to talk about which shows had not, could not, or chose not to discuss. Some topics are still taboo.
In the episode I watched with my husband and daughter on Wednesday, Blair (The Spoiled One) learned that someone back in her family tree had not only fought against integration, he turned out to be a member of the KKK.
Three letters that make even this whiter that white girl's heart skip a beat with sadness and despair so I cannot imagine what they do to a person of a certain other race.* (see below)
Well, Blair overcompensated to Token Black Girl on the show and then one of the girls confronted her. Blair said something along the lines of "My grandfather was racist. What if that means I'm racist, too?"
And the friend said "Blair, you are not racist."
Ah. Remember that brief time in the 80s where if you treated people with respect and didn't let the color of another person's skin affect your feelings of them, you weren't a racist? Good times. Of course there were a lot of bigots and racists. I'd even argue that the number is still there, but they have become better at hiding in plain sight.
Now there is a no-win situation happening. If I notice a person is black, it's because I'm segregating them for their skin and therefore a racist. If I don't notice a person is black, I'm not acknowledging their culture and therefore a racist. I know that there are groups within groups that are banding together to say these things and one group thinks the former is racist while another thinks the latter is racist, but what is created is an environment where white people are not allowed to be considered "not racist". Ever. No matter what is done/not done, said/not said, acknowledged/not acknowledged, it is called out as racist.
Well, I discussed this with a friend yesterday. Yeah, she's a white girl, too, so of course our opinions are from our point of view. Keep in mind it is impossible for us to have another point of view. We cannot choose our ancenstry whether we want to or not. We will constantly be criticized for that.
Anyway, when someone was saying "Why isn't there a White Pride Day?" (which I think she and I both agree is not needed) she heard a response I rather liked where a commenter responded "Because when you are the first car in Mario Kart, you don't need the blue turtle." I don't think we need to play Mario Kart to understand that! (Although, if you do, let's just say that if you are the winner of a race, you don't need a booster pack, do you? That seems excessive.)
I'd like to take that analogy one step further. What happens when you are the first car in Mario Kart and everyone behind you is blaming you for being at the front? They are clamoring for first place and making you feel like shit at every turn whether you fall to the back of the crowd or not.
I don't agree with the term reverse racism, but I'm not sure I disagree with it, either. The fact is, I could stand before a person who is calling me a racist for this post and ask them what they want from me and give it to them and still be called a racist by someone else. Because white people aren't even allowed to win the "I don't want to be a racist, I'm not trying to be a racist, I think racism is awful," game. Because of the color of their skin.
(from above)*Wow. I struggled with the end of that sentence. Any words I chose could have been seen as racist by some segment of the population. Which is kind of my point.
Friday, September 18, 2015
Tuesday, August 18, 2015
Lemon Cupcakes
A couple of weekends ago, I catered a wedding. I have had so many compliments, it's going to my head. One of the favorite items seems to be my lemon cupcakes. Now, this is adjusted from a recipe I got on the internetz, but I made some changes.
Make your own buttermilk. Put 1 Tbs lemon juice into cup measurer, then add milk until it reaches 1 cup. Let sit 5 minutes.
First off, all the recipes I found had a version of either a lemon glaze or a buttercream type frosting. No, no, no. Do you know what I believe made mine a winner of dozens upon dozens of comments? A lovely cream cheese frosting! It gave them a hint of Lemon Cheesecake!
So, here is the recipe for the cupcakes followed by the specifics of the cream cheese frosting I use (the recipe if adjusted from my sister-in-law and couldn't be simpler!)
Tip before we get started:
Sour milk works great, too - in fact I usually avoid wasting sour milk by making cakes!
LEMON CUPCAKES (WITH TIPS FOR CAKE)
1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter (always have your butter at room temperature before you start!)
2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon corn starch
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon lemon zest
1 1/2 cups sugar
2 large eggs plus 3 large egg yolks
2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
1 teaspoon lemon flavoring
1 cup low-fat buttermilk
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. In a medium bowl, whisk flour, corn starch, baking powder, baking soda, salt, and lemon zest.
In a large bowl, using an electric mixer, beat butter and sugar until light and fluffy. With mixer on low, beat in eggs and yolks, one at a time. Beat in lemon juice and lemon flavoring. Alternately beat in flour mixture and buttermilk beginning and ending with flour mixture; mix just until combined.
Spoon batter into cupcake liners, 2/3 full. Bake 16 minutes. (Go out and buy a 24 gauge ice cream scoop/food scoop. I recently did this and will NEVER go without again! It saves time, mess, and makes the cupcakes come out evenly! Worthwhile investment, I promise!)
Top with cream cheese frosting.
1/2 cup butter (room temperature)
1 tsp lemon flavor
About 3 cups powdered sugar
Mix cream cheese, butter, and flavoring. Add powdered sugar until it is thick enough to form peak; decorator frosting. This is more powdered sugar than a carrot cake frosting.
CAKE ADJUSTMENTS
Alternatively, boil 1 cup water, 1 cup sugar, and 1/4 cup lemon juice. Thinly slice a fresh lemon. Add to boiling mixture and turn to simmer until peel is soft; about 20 minutes. Lay candied lemon around bottom of cake pan or bundt pan. Pour cake batter over top. (Save lemon sugar gel)
LEMON CUPCAKES (WITH TIPS FOR CAKE)
1 cup (2 sticks) unsalted butter (always have your butter at room temperature before you start!)
2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon corn starch
1/2 teaspoon baking powder
1/2 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon lemon zest
1 1/2 cups sugar
2 large eggs plus 3 large egg yolks
2 tablespoons fresh lemon juice
1 teaspoon lemon flavoring
1 cup low-fat buttermilk
Preheat oven to 350 degrees. In a medium bowl, whisk flour, corn starch, baking powder, baking soda, salt, and lemon zest.
In a large bowl, using an electric mixer, beat butter and sugar until light and fluffy. With mixer on low, beat in eggs and yolks, one at a time. Beat in lemon juice and lemon flavoring. Alternately beat in flour mixture and buttermilk beginning and ending with flour mixture; mix just until combined.
Spoon batter into cupcake liners, 2/3 full. Bake 16 minutes. (Go out and buy a 24 gauge ice cream scoop/food scoop. I recently did this and will NEVER go without again! It saves time, mess, and makes the cupcakes come out evenly! Worthwhile investment, I promise!)
Top with cream cheese frosting.
Frosting:
8 oz cream cheese1/2 cup butter (room temperature)
1 tsp lemon flavor
About 3 cups powdered sugar
Mix cream cheese, butter, and flavoring. Add powdered sugar until it is thick enough to form peak; decorator frosting. This is more powdered sugar than a carrot cake frosting.
CAKE ADJUSTMENTS
Alternatively, boil 1 cup water, 1 cup sugar, and 1/4 cup lemon juice. Thinly slice a fresh lemon. Add to boiling mixture and turn to simmer until peel is soft; about 20 minutes. Lay candied lemon around bottom of cake pan or bundt pan. Pour cake batter over top. (Save lemon sugar gel)
Cook 350 until done (15 minutes for cupcakes, 25 for bundt or cake pan).
For bundt, add powdered sugar to candied lemon juice/gel from pan just until you create a glaze. Pour over bundt/cake when cooled and serve.
For bundt, add powdered sugar to candied lemon juice/gel from pan just until you create a glaze. Pour over bundt/cake when cooled and serve.
Baked Beans
Pet peeve # 348
Recipe blog that post 300 pictures with text in between and bury the recipe at the bottom of the page (if they are kind enough to post the recipe that way instead of letting you pick it out of the unneccessary images and blabbering text.)
I've had requests for some recipes. I like to pin to Pinterest anyway, but there aren't enough character for the recipe so putting them here is literally just to make it easy for me to pin my own things. There ya go.
I did not have the foresight to get pictures of the baked beans last time I made them so maybe I'll make them again soon and add to this post.
Guys! To follow my recipes you usually have to have a 6th sense about food. Some measurements are estimates!
BAKED BEANS
Give yourself 12-18 hours. Add 18 hours if you plan to soak the beans yourself.
5 cans of beans (or the equivalent should be soaked a minimum of 18 hours)
I start with
1 can black beans
1 can dark kidney beans
1 can butter beans
From there, pick your favorites or whatever is one sale. I recommend the following (pick 2)
Anasazi
White Northern
Navy
(You can pick your favorite 5 beans, but variety helps. I'm not a fan of pinto or garbanzo, but they are perfectly acceptable!)
Put all the beans, drained and rinsed, into a crock pot (minimum 4 quart)
1/2 bottle BBQ sauce (something with hickory smoke is best)
1/4 cup mustard OR 2 Tbsp fresh ground mustard/dry mustard powder)
1 1/2 cup brown sugar
1/4 cup molasses
1/2 cup apple cider vinegar
2 8 oz cans stewed tomatoes (not drained)
Bacon (if desired. I've made it vegetarian and been perfectly happy!)
1 small can Green chili (not drained)
The following are "to taste", but I put a guess after it....
Pepper 2 Tbsp
Worcestershire 2 Tbsp
Liquid smoke 1/4 tsp
Lemon juice 1 Tbsp
Add all ingredients to beans in crock pot. Cook on low 12-18 hours until it starts to thicken.
If you are in a rush, after 10-12 hours you can force thickening:
1/4 cup corn starch
add just enough cold water to mix the corn starch. Add to baked beans and stir. Give yourself an hour to 90 minutes before your event for the corn starch to take effect.
Recipe blog that post 300 pictures with text in between and bury the recipe at the bottom of the page (if they are kind enough to post the recipe that way instead of letting you pick it out of the unneccessary images and blabbering text.)
I've had requests for some recipes. I like to pin to Pinterest anyway, but there aren't enough character for the recipe so putting them here is literally just to make it easy for me to pin my own things. There ya go.
I did not have the foresight to get pictures of the baked beans last time I made them so maybe I'll make them again soon and add to this post.
Guys! To follow my recipes you usually have to have a 6th sense about food. Some measurements are estimates!
BAKED BEANS
Give yourself 12-18 hours. Add 18 hours if you plan to soak the beans yourself.
5 cans of beans (or the equivalent should be soaked a minimum of 18 hours)
I start with
1 can black beans
1 can dark kidney beans
1 can butter beans
From there, pick your favorites or whatever is one sale. I recommend the following (pick 2)
Anasazi
White Northern
Navy
Put all the beans, drained and rinsed, into a crock pot (minimum 4 quart)
1/2 bottle BBQ sauce (something with hickory smoke is best)
1/4 cup mustard OR 2 Tbsp fresh ground mustard/dry mustard powder)
1 1/2 cup brown sugar
1/4 cup molasses
1/2 cup apple cider vinegar
2 8 oz cans stewed tomatoes (not drained)
Bacon (if desired. I've made it vegetarian and been perfectly happy!)
1 small can Green chili (not drained)
The following are "to taste", but I put a guess after it....
Pepper 2 Tbsp
Worcestershire 2 Tbsp
Liquid smoke 1/4 tsp
Lemon juice 1 Tbsp
Add all ingredients to beans in crock pot. Cook on low 12-18 hours until it starts to thicken.
If you are in a rush, after 10-12 hours you can force thickening:
1/4 cup corn starch
add just enough cold water to mix the corn starch. Add to baked beans and stir. Give yourself an hour to 90 minutes before your event for the corn starch to take effect.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
God's Not Dead
Because death is something that happens to things that lived. If God or god never existed, they cannot die.
So, spoiler alert; I'm going to get pretty specific about this movie which popped up on Netflix as a suggestion for me. I highly recommend you go watch it for yourself first.
And away we go.
Interestingly, (read: NOT AT ALL SURPRISINGLY) the athiests are portrayed as acerbic, damaged, cynical, dolts. At one point, the Mormon Missionary type character asked his athiest professor "What happened to you?" and the professor answered with a story about his mother. In typical Christian fashion, someone writing the script believed that those who question God's existence, do so because God "failed" them somehow.
Do you know that the real answer is? "What happened to you?" "I started to ask questions." I sought knowledge and wisdom. I began to look at other cultures and understand other beliefs and using my brain I realized it just doesn't add up.
The reality of religion is that as long as you don't question it beyond finding answer to specific religious questions, then it works. If you believe God helped you find that glove or create cochlear imlpants, you will believe it. If you look at the pair of gloves and say "Is it possible I just found these?" and look at science and say "Is it possible that humans with more knowledge on this subject than me and with more intelligence than I can understand came up with an idea to make this and it worked?" then you will start to see that the answers to your questions make more sense than God is watching a war occur in the Middle East whilst helping you find a pair of gloves.
It's all in how you frame it. Both religious folk and athiests will answer questions with words meant to support their own theory. It's just that religious folk always quote God whilst atheists have to find deeper answers that require more thought, intelligence, and reasoning.
Scriptures
While the Bible and other works of God related fiction are simply meant to be supporting statements to attest the fact that there is a god, they cannot really be separated from the idea of God because it is meant to be true stories of God's influence on humanity.
The movie begins with an argument that God must have created the world because you cannot "disprove", but that's a MacGuffin because there are arguments for the world being created by science just as efficient as arguments that it came from God. The exact point he makes is that science believes it happened this way so if you interpret Genesis differently than every generation for thousands of years interpreted it, then it says science is explaining it the way the Bible does? No, that's pretty circular by any standard. You reinterpret the bible to fit science to fit the bible?
His idea of disproving because you cannot prove is equally weak. If you cannot prove science wrong without proving it right, then you cannot disprove God's existence without proving it at the same time. The arguments on both sides are there. The ones proving/disproving God just happen to lack the evidence used in science and technology. There may be a lot of evidence to support science OR religion. Neither proves or disproves the existence of God in an of itself.
Do you know how many creation stories there are? Genesis is a creation story. Nothing more. Do you know how many cultures have stories of a "cleansing" flood with only 2 or a few survivors to carry on the legacy of humanity? In other cultures, it is clearly a parable to understand "cleansing" our souls. Or perhaps wishing to cleanse the world of hurt, war, misunderstanding, and those who don't believe the same things we do. Noah wasn't the first of these stories.
Fiction. The whole thing. So, you can't quote Matthew 3:14 to me in order to make me believe. I can whip out some fiction to quote proving you wrong just as quickly.
Perhaps Hawkings ideas are the creation story of this new religion "science".
Near the end, we had an adorable, sweet, innocent little Backstreet Boys meets Christianity band. Their words of wisdom were portrayed as some final point to prove this whole thing isn't a huge conspiracy to believe in God, but their point was LAME.
They said God has been there from the beginning. No, scripture says God has been there forever.
Which discounts every other culture that does not believe in God from the beginning of time. Before God there were other beliefs! It's so arrogant to believe that God was there when other cultures believed something different. It basically says you are right and they were all wrong. It is equally arrogant today to believe that your religion is right and all others are wrong. Many religions teach that every other culture in this world is unimportant in comparison to you because your religion is right? It fits in your brain? That seems acceptable to you?
Prayer
The reason people who believe in God need God is so that they have a "being" to pray to. They need someone to pray to in order to feel they have some power, some control over what happens. God is great when he answers a prayer. He knows what's better for us when a prayer is not answered.
When you begin to look at the world without the prayer glasses, you don't see an almight power who knows what we need and what's better for us. You see reality. Things happen because the picture is much bigger than our tiny human brains can understand. Good jobs come because we worked hard, made the right impression, and got lucky in comparison to someone else with equal qualifications and connections. We found the gloves because this time we noticed they were there or we thought of the one place we hadn't looked. Our brains are not perfect computers. We miss things sometimes and notice them at others because of how the brain processes information; not because of hiding something and then putting it back.
We cry when something touches us because of the parts of the brain that are stimulated, not because "the spirit moved" us.
When good things happen, it's because it happened. When bad things happen, it's because it happened. Whether you think that it was because of God or not, it happened and you cannot change it. Prayer is not control. It is empty words in empty space.
Agnostic
Religious people have every right to believe in what they believe in. Those who believe in God, but do not subscribe to a religion have the right to believe in what they believe in. Those who do not believe in God have the right to believe in coincidence, luck, hard work, and whatever else they believe.
In the movie, he mentions Agnostic as "having doubt". Well, Gnosis means "knowledge" and enlightment. For a long time I called myself Agnostic. In my definition it meant I had doubts therefore I sought knowledge; whether that knowledge fall into the category of science or some greater thing known as God or "The Universe".
Athiests are not...
Athiests are not angry, selfish people. This is the stereotype I would like to see diminished. Religious people have anger. Religious people are sometimes selfish. Atheists are no different.
I'm not going to own the word atheist here, but my family goes out every Sunday to help For the Love of Paws and when telling others about it, we have -more than once- been met with the response "That's very Christian of you."
What? No. It's human of us. We don't do it for rewards in heaven. We do it because our fellow man and animals in this world, right now, right in front of you, require companionship, compassion, and assistance. In a way, is it not worth more because we do not do it for reward? Let's leave God out of that one. Compassion is a trait some people possess and others do not. It is far from Christian exclusive.
Granted, the kid had a point in the movie. He accused the professor of being anti-theist. It wasn't enough to hate God, he wanted everyone to hate God. This again falls into the stereotype that athiests hate God and want everyone else to hate God as well. In reality, it's just a lack of believing in a higher power or creator.
They created this entire propoganda film and then blamed the athiest character in it for spinning propoganda! As far as I'm concerned, that moment was to deflect from the fact that this is a propoganda film!
And who is your spokesperson?
Yeah, the guy from Duck Dynasty. Yeah. He's the guy you should go to in order to support the legitimacy of your religious, God arguments. Honestly, this should be my ENTIRE POINT. You want me to take you seriously?
Let's discuss the spin those Duck Dynasty guys have put upon the world...
So many times, we argue a point based on what we think the other side believes. This movie "proves" God by creating this cartoon athiest to be the bad guy. Athiests are not like that, they do not believe those things.
I'm not automatically discounting the arguments to prove/disprove God's existence. I'm looking at the bigger picture. The arguments made by Mormon Missionary (type) were only valid to teach other Christians how to believe in Christianity.
It changes nothing about the reality, intelligence, or science to back up the real claims in this world.
So, spoiler alert; I'm going to get pretty specific about this movie which popped up on Netflix as a suggestion for me. I highly recommend you go watch it for yourself first.
And away we go.
Interestingly, (read: NOT AT ALL SURPRISINGLY) the athiests are portrayed as acerbic, damaged, cynical, dolts. At one point, the Mormon Missionary type character asked his athiest professor "What happened to you?" and the professor answered with a story about his mother. In typical Christian fashion, someone writing the script believed that those who question God's existence, do so because God "failed" them somehow.
Do you know that the real answer is? "What happened to you?" "I started to ask questions." I sought knowledge and wisdom. I began to look at other cultures and understand other beliefs and using my brain I realized it just doesn't add up.
The reality of religion is that as long as you don't question it beyond finding answer to specific religious questions, then it works. If you believe God helped you find that glove or create cochlear imlpants, you will believe it. If you look at the pair of gloves and say "Is it possible I just found these?" and look at science and say "Is it possible that humans with more knowledge on this subject than me and with more intelligence than I can understand came up with an idea to make this and it worked?" then you will start to see that the answers to your questions make more sense than God is watching a war occur in the Middle East whilst helping you find a pair of gloves.
It's all in how you frame it. Both religious folk and athiests will answer questions with words meant to support their own theory. It's just that religious folk always quote God whilst atheists have to find deeper answers that require more thought, intelligence, and reasoning.
Scriptures
While the Bible and other works of God related fiction are simply meant to be supporting statements to attest the fact that there is a god, they cannot really be separated from the idea of God because it is meant to be true stories of God's influence on humanity.
The movie begins with an argument that God must have created the world because you cannot "disprove", but that's a MacGuffin because there are arguments for the world being created by science just as efficient as arguments that it came from God. The exact point he makes is that science believes it happened this way so if you interpret Genesis differently than every generation for thousands of years interpreted it, then it says science is explaining it the way the Bible does? No, that's pretty circular by any standard. You reinterpret the bible to fit science to fit the bible?
His idea of disproving because you cannot prove is equally weak. If you cannot prove science wrong without proving it right, then you cannot disprove God's existence without proving it at the same time. The arguments on both sides are there. The ones proving/disproving God just happen to lack the evidence used in science and technology. There may be a lot of evidence to support science OR religion. Neither proves or disproves the existence of God in an of itself.
Do you know how many creation stories there are? Genesis is a creation story. Nothing more. Do you know how many cultures have stories of a "cleansing" flood with only 2 or a few survivors to carry on the legacy of humanity? In other cultures, it is clearly a parable to understand "cleansing" our souls. Or perhaps wishing to cleanse the world of hurt, war, misunderstanding, and those who don't believe the same things we do. Noah wasn't the first of these stories.
Fiction. The whole thing. So, you can't quote Matthew 3:14 to me in order to make me believe. I can whip out some fiction to quote proving you wrong just as quickly.
Perhaps Hawkings ideas are the creation story of this new religion "science".
Near the end, we had an adorable, sweet, innocent little Backstreet Boys meets Christianity band. Their words of wisdom were portrayed as some final point to prove this whole thing isn't a huge conspiracy to believe in God, but their point was LAME.
They said God has been there from the beginning. No, scripture says God has been there forever.
Which discounts every other culture that does not believe in God from the beginning of time. Before God there were other beliefs! It's so arrogant to believe that God was there when other cultures believed something different. It basically says you are right and they were all wrong. It is equally arrogant today to believe that your religion is right and all others are wrong. Many religions teach that every other culture in this world is unimportant in comparison to you because your religion is right? It fits in your brain? That seems acceptable to you?
Prayer
The reason people who believe in God need God is so that they have a "being" to pray to. They need someone to pray to in order to feel they have some power, some control over what happens. God is great when he answers a prayer. He knows what's better for us when a prayer is not answered.
When you begin to look at the world without the prayer glasses, you don't see an almight power who knows what we need and what's better for us. You see reality. Things happen because the picture is much bigger than our tiny human brains can understand. Good jobs come because we worked hard, made the right impression, and got lucky in comparison to someone else with equal qualifications and connections. We found the gloves because this time we noticed they were there or we thought of the one place we hadn't looked. Our brains are not perfect computers. We miss things sometimes and notice them at others because of how the brain processes information; not because of hiding something and then putting it back.
We cry when something touches us because of the parts of the brain that are stimulated, not because "the spirit moved" us.
When good things happen, it's because it happened. When bad things happen, it's because it happened. Whether you think that it was because of God or not, it happened and you cannot change it. Prayer is not control. It is empty words in empty space.
Agnostic
Religious people have every right to believe in what they believe in. Those who believe in God, but do not subscribe to a religion have the right to believe in what they believe in. Those who do not believe in God have the right to believe in coincidence, luck, hard work, and whatever else they believe.
In the movie, he mentions Agnostic as "having doubt". Well, Gnosis means "knowledge" and enlightment. For a long time I called myself Agnostic. In my definition it meant I had doubts therefore I sought knowledge; whether that knowledge fall into the category of science or some greater thing known as God or "The Universe".
Athiests are not...
Athiests are not angry, selfish people. This is the stereotype I would like to see diminished. Religious people have anger. Religious people are sometimes selfish. Atheists are no different.
I'm not going to own the word atheist here, but my family goes out every Sunday to help For the Love of Paws and when telling others about it, we have -more than once- been met with the response "That's very Christian of you."
What? No. It's human of us. We don't do it for rewards in heaven. We do it because our fellow man and animals in this world, right now, right in front of you, require companionship, compassion, and assistance. In a way, is it not worth more because we do not do it for reward? Let's leave God out of that one. Compassion is a trait some people possess and others do not. It is far from Christian exclusive.
Granted, the kid had a point in the movie. He accused the professor of being anti-theist. It wasn't enough to hate God, he wanted everyone to hate God. This again falls into the stereotype that athiests hate God and want everyone else to hate God as well. In reality, it's just a lack of believing in a higher power or creator.
They created this entire propoganda film and then blamed the athiest character in it for spinning propoganda! As far as I'm concerned, that moment was to deflect from the fact that this is a propoganda film!
And who is your spokesperson?
Yeah, the guy from Duck Dynasty. Yeah. He's the guy you should go to in order to support the legitimacy of your religious, God arguments. Honestly, this should be my ENTIRE POINT. You want me to take you seriously?
Let's discuss the spin those Duck Dynasty guys have put upon the world...
So many times, we argue a point based on what we think the other side believes. This movie "proves" God by creating this cartoon athiest to be the bad guy. Athiests are not like that, they do not believe those things.
I'm not automatically discounting the arguments to prove/disprove God's existence. I'm looking at the bigger picture. The arguments made by Mormon Missionary (type) were only valid to teach other Christians how to believe in Christianity.
It changes nothing about the reality, intelligence, or science to back up the real claims in this world.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Queries On the Subject of Equality...
Look, speaking of the Oscars, a certain winner mentioned equality. Now, I know I should not have glanced at the comments below it, but it happened. So, I want to ask a question...
Of the commentators who said things along the lines of "Oh yeah, a rich white lady telling other minorities how to treat rich white ladies."
Wait, Did you hear the part where she acknowledged women helping to fight the causes of minorities? I'm pretty sure that's what she was getting at. Do women not deserve equality because some minorities are still fighting for their equality? No, we ALL get to fight. Why should women continue to put their needs aside waiting for all the minorities to get equality BEFORE she gets her turn? They are ALL valid arguments. Women should not continue to be put last on the list just because you want your rights FIRST.
And number two, Who else is going to speak up in a forum where people will listen other than rich white ladies? I'm a lower-middle class white lady. Who is listening? No one, that's who.
I remember one year there was an argument because Julia Roberts starred in a film and in the same year Tom Hanks starred in a film. She was paid several million less, but her movie brought in several million more. Now, I realize the amount they get paid is based on a contract signed before the success of the film, but the article I read pointed out that the following year, they both starred in films and their wages both increased, but Roberts' was still substantially lower. While it's hard for us who struggle to make $50,000 a year to understand complaints by people making MILLIONS a year, the point is still the same.
Is the pay equal for equal work? (I apologize. I read this article years ago so I can't even begin to think where to find the information. The celebs might not even be right, but I am pretty sure it was those two.)
Of those people who said things along the lines of "Women get paid less because of life choices" ie, having babies.
Hey, fucker, are you going to have the babies? Please. You'd have one cramp and kill yourself. Allowances need to be made. I don't know any guy whose wages would be lowered in expectation that he might have to take time off work for heart surgery or cancer treatments - both of which could easily be a result of YOUR life choices and don't provide the only thing to continue human life on earth. Unless you want there to be NO MORE generations of children AT ALL, then women should not be punished for having wombs.
Of those who use the arguments that women don't get paid less, there is so much incredible evidence proving you wrong, I don't know where to begin. Just because you listen to colloquial stories of OTHER RICH WHITE MEN, doesn't make you right.
What exactly are these men / non-"female equality advocates" afraid of? That somehow if women get paid more, you will get paid less? In the long run, it's possible your raises will be slightly less in order to budget women getting equal pay, but how do you prove that? The fact is, no one is going to come in and say "Well, Sally does the same job as Sam, but he's getting $6,000 more a year so let's give Sally a $3,000 raise and cut Sam's wages by $3,000," are they?
So why are you so incredibly defensive? Why is it so important to make sure you think women are not worth as much as men? It only make YOU look bad, not women. Good job!
Monday, February 23, 2015
Who *Are* You Wearing?
I don't watch the Oscars. It's just not for me. I can't help an occasional glance at the dresses, though, partly because from a young age I remember seeing "Worst Dressed" collages on the fronts of magazines when Mom took me to the grocery store where half the time I would think "hey, that's kind of cool!" because it was creative or unique.
Today, Facebook is ablaze with all the Oscar hype. I scroll past most of it, but then something caught my eye... This #askhermore campaign. It's about asking women about more than their dress on the red carpet. They had clips of women asking "Is that what you ask the men?" and a particular celeb looking annoyed that they panned up her dress before getting to her face.
Yeah, it's degrading. From a feminist viewpoint, it's outright sexist.
But let me ask you a question. What are the men wearing? Tuxedos - all of them similar. What are the women wearing? Unique pieces of art.
What questions are they going to ask the guys? "Why did you go with the blue bow tie look instead of the red lanyard this year?"
The women wear stunning gowns. Of course that's going to be the topic of conversation.
Someone else said they could be asked about politics or their views on global warming. Uhm, unless they're talking to Bill Nye, I doubt they ask the men such pressing questions, either. It's fluff, kids. IT'S ALL FLUFF! From the nominations to the red carpet, it's about entertainment.
So while there should be some equality in the types of questions between men and women, unless all the women are hoping to show up in tuxedos next year, they probably better get used to the idea that their gowns will make the news.
ETA: Additionally, celebrities are handed gowns worth thousands of dollars (as well as jewelry) either as a loan or a gift for the purpose of mentioning the designers. If these female celebrities keep responding to "Who are you wearing?" with the equivalent response to "It doesn't matter. What matters is my mind!" they will be shopping off the rack for next year's gowns. It may be a privilege of your status to get that masterpiece of dress design on your back, but it's a privilege that will be removed if the designers feel celebrities think their dresses are not worth mentioning at all.
Good luck with that!
Today, Facebook is ablaze with all the Oscar hype. I scroll past most of it, but then something caught my eye... This #askhermore campaign. It's about asking women about more than their dress on the red carpet. They had clips of women asking "Is that what you ask the men?" and a particular celeb looking annoyed that they panned up her dress before getting to her face.
Yeah, it's degrading. From a feminist viewpoint, it's outright sexist.
But let me ask you a question. What are the men wearing? Tuxedos - all of them similar. What are the women wearing? Unique pieces of art.
What questions are they going to ask the guys? "Why did you go with the blue bow tie look instead of the red lanyard this year?"
The women wear stunning gowns. Of course that's going to be the topic of conversation.
Someone else said they could be asked about politics or their views on global warming. Uhm, unless they're talking to Bill Nye, I doubt they ask the men such pressing questions, either. It's fluff, kids. IT'S ALL FLUFF! From the nominations to the red carpet, it's about entertainment.
So while there should be some equality in the types of questions between men and women, unless all the women are hoping to show up in tuxedos next year, they probably better get used to the idea that their gowns will make the news.
ETA: Additionally, celebrities are handed gowns worth thousands of dollars (as well as jewelry) either as a loan or a gift for the purpose of mentioning the designers. If these female celebrities keep responding to "Who are you wearing?" with the equivalent response to "It doesn't matter. What matters is my mind!" they will be shopping off the rack for next year's gowns. It may be a privilege of your status to get that masterpiece of dress design on your back, but it's a privilege that will be removed if the designers feel celebrities think their dresses are not worth mentioning at all.
Good luck with that!
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Religion vs What's Right
Heavy topic today.
The LDS church, a few days ago, released a statement denouncing discrimination of individuals based on sexual orientation, etc, LGBT... for short.
In one statement, it is mentioned that "The Western democracies are based on religious principles, and people who've lost sight of that and who can't credit the importance of individual religious conscience or the free exercise of what our conscience leads us to believe, they are poorer in understanding our civilization and in understanding people of religious faith."
Which sounds great except I'd like to argue that point just a little.
The LDS church, a few days ago, released a statement denouncing discrimination of individuals based on sexual orientation, etc, LGBT... for short.
In one statement, it is mentioned that "The Western democracies are based on religious principles, and people who've lost sight of that and who can't credit the importance of individual religious conscience or the free exercise of what our conscience leads us to believe, they are poorer in understanding our civilization and in understanding people of religious faith."
Which sounds great except I'd like to argue that point just a little.
I believe that freedom of religion is designed to allow you to practice your religion. It entitles you to go to church on Sunday and/or put a cross on your front door. It was created to give you the freedom to practice your religion in your home or your place of worship.
Not in Congress.
It does NOT entitle you to sanctify laws restricting the freedom of gays to marry or asking the Supreme Court to give you an exception to providing birth control.
While the LDS church is saying they supported passing laws that did not allow gays to marry because it goes against their beliefs and are now saying that does not excuse discrimination, they are creating a double standard. Is it not discrimination to support laws that give you different rights than someone else? On a base level, not supporting gay marriage IS discrimination!
I don't feel that a church should be required by law to perform a gay marriage, but I also don't think any religious figures have the right to tell their constituents how to vote - to make them think God somehow spoke to them and told them to take away rights of others - which, by action - gives those church members permission to condemn another's lifestyle.
You can't have it both ways.
As for the birth control issue, that made me angry because if you are a publicly traded company, you should not be treated with religious freedom. Hobby Lobby is not a church. You might go to church on Sunday, but you are not God's Employers when you hire people to work at your company.
Again, you can't have it both ways! You want to be publicly traded? You have to follow the laws of the land. Frankly, it was completely ignorant. I get the idea of not wanting to condone birth control, but do they have ANY CONCEPT of how often it is prescribed for health reasons? I almost bled to death because od issues with my uterus. The birth control helped, but did not solve it in my situation, but hundreds of thousands of women who don't have sex, let alone those who are married and don't want another kid right away, use it to control pain, bleeding that can lead to anemia and a plethora of other health problems, and all kind of other issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)