-It's pretty interesting that Obama gives more to charity than Mitt Romney, considering that Obama does not belong to a Mormon church that requires a payment of 10% of his income plus monthly "generous" offerings in order to attend children's weddings in the temple, or in order to maintain good standing in the social community, by way of a Temple Recommend. 

But don't for a second think that I believe this is any good evidence that Obama is not:

• the Devil, or working for him
• Muslim
• wanting to destroy America

His donations could all be a clever ploy to appear good. After all, look at how well he hides the fact that he's white! Sneaky bastard.

-Indiana Republican Rep says that Girl Scouts are "bent on promoting communism, lesbianism, and subverting traditional American family values". Yes, because studies show that the sophisticated flavour of a box (no pun intended) of chocolate mint cookies is best appreciated with the chaser of vulva-licking, and who eats more boxes of Girl Scouts cookies than Girl Scouts themselves? If Girl Scouts sold Salty Oyster Cookies, I'd say that you have a very compelling (and yummy) theory, Bob Morris. Unless you're  thinking of all the porn-watching, Marx-reading, Pill-popping slumber parties the Girl Scouts organise, but I still wouldn't be quick to quash these long-standing hallowed events because every girl who attends is guaranteed eighteen new badges to sew on her sash! That's a lot for just one night!

-Hey, you're better safe than sorry. I mean, what if that man threw his stick and you felt inexplicably drawn to running after it and picking it up with your mouth, to return it to him, AND THEN HE KILLED YOU? Or, what if that man watching the aerobics class looked at your bum and then THOUGHT ABOUT IT LATER WHILE HE ATE A BIG MAC? Or what if that suspicious car that was so brazenly stationary CONTAINED PEOPLE READING SCRIPTURES?

Man, Brigham Young University/Provo is a scary place. 

-Apparently, Rep. Walsh's  ex-wife has been suing him for the last nine years for over  $117,000 in child support payments. I find this guy to be skeevy. In this video, in this discussion, he ignores all of the most important points about this issue of health insurance vs. religious rights. 

This whole contraception thing is this simple: 

1. Contraception is a health issue.

• Not all women's bodies can handle having nine children. Not all women's bodies can handle having one child. 
• Some women use contraception to eliminate their periods so they can stop experiencing severe PMS or PMDD symptoms. 
• Some women use contraception so that they are not buckled over in excruciating pain and vomiting for a week every month. 
• Some use it because it's been shown to reduce some female cancer risks and they have a strong history of those cancers in their families. 
• Not all women using contraception are single whores. Some of those sex-having whores are married.
• It is not the business of any employer, religious or not, to know why a woman is using contraception. Religious freedoms do not ever trump freedom of privacy of an individual or protection of an individual. 
• By the way, THE SAME APPLIES FOR ABORTION. 

2. Health benefits are a form of pay for work.

• Employees consider health benefits when they are considering where to work. 
• Just as an employer does not have the right to dictate how an employee spends her pay cheque, or to withhold pay because he doesn't agree with how she spends it, he doesn't have the right to dictate how she uses her health insurance. 
• Health insurers are ethically required to provide the best insurance for the individual paying for it. 
• Who is paying for it? The employee, with their labour. Without the employee, the employer doesn't have to pay for anything. It's the labour that requires the insurance as form of payment to the employee. 
• An employeer should have the right to not offer ANY health benefits at all. If you have a problem with health insurance paying for contraception, don't offer any health coverage. Then see how many people are willing to work for you. (Can someone confirm whether or not it's legal for a company to opt out of providing benefits altogether?) And if you don't like the consequences of not having people willing to work for you, because they'd rather work for the other company that does offer them health benefits, take comfort in the fact that at least you're a morally righteous little company/hospital/school, now aren't you? Cootchie cootchie coo!
• If it's illegal for companies to opt out of providing health insurance, then that is what they should be arguing against. Let them cease co-paying for health insurance altogether. Let's see if they have the balls to actually follow through on that. THEY WON'T. I'd bet you Texas they won't. UNLESS, they start paying people a lot more money to make up for the lack of health insurance benefits. 

This Walsh guy quotes Thomas Jefferson as saying, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical." 

No one is trying to force Catholic-run institutions to give money for the propagation of opinions. 

Next argument? 

"We do what God says, not what the state says." Right, okay. So, tell me what God says about how to handle women's health problems. What does God say about PMDD? What does God say about period agony and hormonal problems? 

-

"It has been my experience that when dealing with females, you need to treat them as though they have a mental disorder… especially those that are constantly seeking equality in the workplace, the military, and in the home. Women need to know their place and need to know when it is okay for them to speak. They were put on this earth for two reasons..., and two reasons alone: taking care of their husband, and giving birth to his children… that is all. Any woman who tells you otherwise is obviously touting the liberal agenda of equality, and they need to be told the truth of their purpose. It is a disorder that can be fixed, but not until they go through several years of therapy to understand that they need to be subservient." - Rick Santorum

This isn't a real quote. It's satire. But, check out these quotes from very recent talks and teachings in the Mormon church. 

So, why does the church get Brownie points for teaching such similar principles, only more nicely? Just because the church doesn't say that our ONLY purpose is to be wives and mommies? Why is it just so much better to say that it's our main purpose, our most important and holiest purpose? 

-Taken from a conversation from a Facebook group and from people who will go nameless: 

"A friend of mine is separated from her husband and very close to divorce. She went to [Latter-day Saint Family Services] for counseling because it is free for her and money is an issue. They told her that if she files for divorce they can't help her any more because they only work with people who are trying to stay together. WTH? What kind of policy is this??"

In response:

"OMH!! I had a horrible experience too!! They will not tell you ever it's ok to get a divorce. Not even if your spouse is beating the crap out of you daily. Our counselor told us that if I filed for divorce I was ruining an eternal family & I would have to explain that to our children. Nevermind the reasons that got us there. My leaving was wrong regardless. She told me I needed to be stronger and less sensitive about the things he said to me without knowing the horrible things he had said. She also said that if my husband needed me to alphabetize the pantry to keep him happy and feeling loved that is what I should do. Never again will I use them for any counseling. Sorry, They do so much damage. I've heard many horror stories from friends as well. END RANT.... :("

Another response: 

"we went to lds counselling once here in the uk to get help with our middle childs behavior problems was told to stop bf my youngest at 18 months as it might turn him gay...i carried on till he was 3..."

What is the explanation for all this fear-mongering, prejudice, and attempts to control other people's private behaviours and life choices? Er, "intellectually disabled" people are more likely to be right-wing. Or, to quote the title of this psychology journal,

Lower Cognitive Ability Predicts Greater Prejudice Through Right-Wing Ideology and Low Intergroup Contact

No, that doesn't mean that if you're right-wing that you're stupid; I used to be right-wing and I was never stupid. But if you do have a lower cognitive ability (note: not merely uneducated or inexperienced, but are actually cognitively impaired) you are more likely to be right-wing and to stay away from and hate people who are different than you.

This Wikipedia article explains that conservatives' brains are less able to process conflicting information, and more able to feel fear and perceive threats. Also, a study in 2009 found that among students applying to U.S. universities, conservatism correlated negatively with SAT, Vocabulary, and Analogy test scores.

And of course, as you've probably heard, Fox News viewers know less about the world than people (like me!) who watch no news. Last year, a study from the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe false information about politics. Shocker.

Sigh. That's all I can handle of This Week in Crazy Stupid Conservatives. I need a break. 

• Make Valentines for the kids and rush-ship a box out to them that's going to be late because I'm a loser who kept struggling to keep track of the dates and thought I had more time before Valentine's Day.
• Read Old School by Tobias Wolff for my English class, whilst doing background research on the writers and historical references in the book, so that when the prof asks, at least one person will be able to contribute, although, 1. sometimes I think he asks only because he knows that a good professor is not supposed to talk the ENTIRE time, and 2. I probably will end up sounding like an idiot anyway because he stares expressionless, which is unnerving, and because he has this impatience, it seems, for people who can't effortlessly spit out three hundred of the most articulate words possible, and knowing that in advance, I get flummoxed and my brain freezes and I say stupid shit. Sigh. 
• Read my Anthropology text book, seeing as I missed three or so classes recently. Figure out what I'm behind on over on the Moodle thing. I hate Moodle. I hate technology interfering with my education. Just give me a book to read, lecture at me, ask questions, give me assignments. That's all I want. That said, my Anthro prof is really, really good and works hard and I THINK she's a single mom. I like her. 
• I should probably read my Contemporary Art textbook some time, seeing as I bought it and all. So many artists that I've wanted to research and write about here. 
• There's an essay of sorts I have to write for Gender & Social Justice. 
• My English prof is willing to give bonus marks for whatever writing assignments we want to do. I want to write about the opening of Under Milk Wood by Dylan Thomas. "It is spring, moonless night in the small town, starless and bible-black, the cobblestreets silent and the hunched, courters'-and-rabbits' wood limping invisible down to the sloeblack, slow, black, crowblack, fishingboatbobbing sea." Holy hell. How much can I write about this sentence alone? I LOVE IT.
• I need to get some submissions of poetry together for Room and The Malahat.
• Write more poetry. 
• Finish reading Sex at Dawn and The Ethical Slut so that I can
• write a blog post about polyamory, which a few friends are really wanting me to write. 

That's enough, I think. 

Problem is, I have the attention span of a puppy. It's sometimes worse than others. It never used to be so bad but I'm pretty sure that the internet has rewired my brain. How quickly can I fix this? (Ha.) What should I do, besides check my email and Facebook less, force myself to read one article at a time, force myself to keep reading a book, and try meditation? 

I tried meditation this afternoon and it was awful. It was a guided body awareness meditation and the woman told me to be aware of my bones and muscles and skin in my calf and guide that awareness up like a laser beam (but also to be aware of my breathing!) and I gave up. I cannot be aware of the various pieces of anatomy of my calf from the inside out, never mind both calves, never mind whilst being mindful of my breathing. Screw that. Instead, I went downstairs and ate a fajita with fresh orange juice and it was gooood!

I met over fajita with my friend Michelle who wanted help sorting out her Philosophy dissertation. I couldn't believe she even proposed to tell me about it, never mind hinted at even the faintest hope that I could be of any aid whatsoever. BUT. I totally understood it all! And it's freaking awesome. I'm really excited about it. It really gets to the heart of where the sacrifice of women began, why the Holocaust happened, why war exists, the connection to rationality and subjectivity, and I don't want to say more because I haven't asked. It's amazing. So, ideally, I'd like to have time in the next two weeks to read it, see if I actually can help organise the arguments (I am a pretty good linear thinker), and, at the very least, mark it up with red pen for when she's ready to edit grammar. Not only was I excited about her ideas, I was excited that I understood them (phewf!), was able to ask relevant questions, and it got me wanting to finish my BFA as soon as possible so I could go to grad school and one day write my own dissertation on something philosophical. 

But first! I need to get over this ADD! I'm being a terrible student. ...I think it requires candy.

So, this: 

Heh. 

Freedom of religion, Anna, and others, does not mean that a religious person or group gets to control, manipulate, or pressure the freedom and civil rights of others. Let your religious beliefs dictate your own practise of contraception or not, your own practise of marriage, but when you start trying to decide other people's choices for them, you're crossing the line that separates your freedoms of from their freedoms of. 

But for new readers, I'm mentioning it again because if any book can heal the planet, it's this book. Even when I was still a believing Mormon, I believed that this book did more for me and could do more for anyone than any book of scripture. Some of you won't agree and that's fine—this is just to say that you might want to make this another book of scripture, IT'S THAT GOOD. Well, this and Snooki's book. Total twinsies.

So, it's called The Mastery of Love by don Miguel Ruiz, the writer of The Four Agreements, which everyone who has ever taken anything personally and been offended should read asap. Both of these books are written very plainly and clearly; anyone can read them and understand them. Or, I sure hope so. It's so powerful and will fill you with peace, as enlightenment and self-forgiveness and other-forgiveness comes to your mind. 

For any readers who hate me and read my blog just to add something new to their brew of disdain and loathing (oh yes, these people exist and every time they visit, my web metrics programme lets me know) please don't let the fact that this recommendation is coming from someone you disrespect so much stop you from giving it a shot. I am recommending this book only because it can heal so many hurts, so many insecurities, and breed love. And yes, as much as I probably don't like or respect you either, I do wish you happiness and peace.  

The best part is that you don't even have to go buy it. The author has made it available to listen to on YouTube. How wonderful is that? 

I seriously needed to listen to it/read it again and since I "lent" my copy to Kendra, and it's always sold out when I go to the bookstores here, I can now listen to it regularly. I think once a month sounds about right. 

On February 7th, the LDS Church's press release said of the Prop 8 ruling:

"California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view." (Emphasis added.)

Reeeeally? Huh. Define "always". 

"...the one-wife system not only degenerates the human family, both physically and intellectually, but it is entirely incompatible with philosophical notions of immortality; it is a lure to temptation, and has always proved a curse to a people." (Prophet John Taylor, Millennial Star, Vol. 15, p. 227)

"Monogamy, or restrictions by law to one wife, is no part of the economy of heaven among men. Such a system was commenced by the founders of the Roman empire. [...] Rome became the mistress of the world, and introduced this order of monogamy wherever her sway was acknowledged. Thus this monogamic order of marriage, so esteemed by modern Christians as a holy sacrament and divine institution, is nothing but a system established by a set of robbers. [...] Why do we believe in and practice polygamy? Because the Lord introduced it to his servants in a revelation given to Joseph Smith, and the Lord's servants have always practiced it. 'And is that religion popular in heaven?' It is the only popular religion there, [...]" (Prophet Brigham Young, The Deseret News, August 6, 1862)

"We breathe the free air, we have the best looking men and handsomest women, and if [non-Mormons] envy us our position, well they may, for they are a poor, narrow-minded, pinch-backed race of men, who chain themselves down to the law of monogamy, and live all their days under the dominion of one wife. They ought to be ashamed of such conduct, and the still fouler channel which flows from their practices; and it is not to be wondered at that they should envy those who so much better understand the social relations." (Apostle George A Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, page 291)

"I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly. Why is this? Because God loves that man, and because he honors his word. Some of you may not believe this, but I not only believe it but I also know it. For a man of God to be confined to one woman is small business. I do not know what we would do if we had only one wife apiece." (Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22)

Now, if when the church says "We have always had that view" it was referring to the 1835 edition of the Doctrine & Covenants, where it says that polygamy and fornication are crimes, then I apologise. Except that they have the tricky problem of explaining why Joseph Smith was practising polygamy while he wrote that, and with a sixteen-year-old. And lied about it. (Rough Stone Rolling, page numbers to follow.)

It looks to me like maybe polygamy was instituted because men couldn't keep it in their pants, and there was some biblical justification for it, and it was the only form of non-monogamy that religious leaders could justify to a group of puritanical Christians, and monogamy just wasn't going to cut it, obviously. And you know why? Because many men, even most, have difficulty keeping it in their pants without having some kind of trouble (such as infidelity, porn usage, flirting, masturbation—all of which have been religiously and socially damned). You know why? Because that's what men are like. (But not just men!) I'll write a lot more about male sexuality next week. 

And you know why it never occurred to them to make all this sexiness egalitarian? Because patriarchy doesn't care about equality! Patriarchy cares about what is best for men.

Kind of looks to me like this whole polygamy thing—that was only rescinded because the USA said that if Utah wanted to become a state, it had to make polygamy illegal, and the church already made law-abiding one of the thirteen Articles of Faith—was maybe one of those things spoken by the prophets when they were "just being men and not prophets". But I'm sure all the other less obviously wrong stuff was totally from God. Ahem.

If you think about it, the LDS church, with its polygamy roots, and its polygamous Celestial Kingdom, where men will have multiple wives but where women won't have multiple husbands or be able to get it on with their sister-wives, is not all that different from the belief system that causes men to fly airplanes into buildings. All that's missing is the suicide doctrine and the hateful doctrine on the "Other".

And as for why IT DOES NOT MATTER ONE BIT that the majority of people of California voted, by a slim margin, to keep marriage between a man and a woman? Because the majority of any group should never be able to take rights away from a minority group. Gay couples should have every single right that marriage allows a straight couple to have. That's how civil rights work. Civil rights don't care what your religion says because not everyone has the same religion and you can't prove anything by use of religion. We shouldn't be able to make your celebration of Christmas illegal. We shouldn't be able to take away anyone's right to free speech. And so on. 

My friend Jared Anderson: 

1) We do not live in a theocracy. The government is responsible for providing rights for its citizens, which means that there can be more types of marriage than you might personally approve of. For the same reason cohabitation cannot be illegal. Unmarried people have kids all the time, and your tax dollars support services for them.

2) The idea that the courts "overturned the will of the people" sidesteps the issue that the government has a responsibility to protect the rights of minorities. Would you support legislation that made interracial marriage illegal? How about interfaith marriage? 

Still sure that nothing should ever trump a majority opinion (even in a democracy)?

As for Prop 8, thank you. Thank you Prop 8 for being the catalyst for the two-year process that was leaving the Mormon church, undoing the worst decision I've ever made, and for which I'm still experiencing occasional shock waves of trauma that make me bawl my head off, and struggle to hold back vomit, and I'm not exaggerating for effect.

Oppressive inequality attacks people at their very souls, at their very essences. It forces people into internalised oppression, where people believe the messages they are told and willingly oppress themselves so that they don't have to feel oppressed by anyone else. Self-abuse is less painful than abuse externally given. So, when we feel trapped in a situation of abuse, our vulnerable minds will search for any way out, and that way may be acceptance of the abuse. We'll simply stop believing that we are abused and start believing that there is something inferior or special about us that requires the abuse. Inequality is abuse.

Gay people are ceasing to accept internalised oppression. 

I am ceasing to accept internalised oppression. 

Glory, glory hallelujah. 

I want to get some dating frustrations off my chest.  

If you think about it, dating to find a committed long-term relationship is, by definition, disappointment. Either someone likes you more than you like them, and you feel that uncomfortable feeling of wanting to like them more so that you don't have to hurt them and so that you can be done with dating, but being unable to like them more; or you like someone more than they like you which is frustrating and heartbreaking; or neither of you feel any chemistry and it's just an awkward and disheartening meet-up. If none of these situations are taking place, you're either resigned to being alone, or you're with someone. Therefore, dating sucks. 

And, you know, after an almost-12-year marriage, much of which was unsatisfactory and yet took up all of my twenties, and after a year of being single (and celibate!), I'm tired of loneliness. 

I don't feel desperate but I do feel hungry for comfort, stability, unity, support, love, fun, excitement, and lots of playful and emotional sex. I know that I'm not desperate because I spend very little time feeling depressed, I like doing things alone, and I'm still picky. I know that I'm a little more hungry than is probably healthy because I spent too long in a relationship that promised to go nowhere, mistaking his occasional generous and tender affection for love, and being more accommodating than I should have been. But only for five months!

It was a good thing, overall, because it helped me to recalibrate my needs vs. wants and my emotional independence. I'm too lazy to explain what I mean by that. 

All I want is someone confident enough to be with me, but who isn't snobby and condescending, so bored and unimpressed by everything. Confident, down-to-earth, outgoing, intelligent, funny, attractive to me, sex-positive, artsy, passionate; with excellent communication and relationship skills, some direction in life, some friends; and ideally, with no children of his own. (Because while a part of me would welcome more children, there's a reason why I stopped at four, and being around someone else's children would just make me miss my children so much I don't think I'd be able to withstand it.) Oh, and he has to be liberal, but that really didn't need specifying did it? [Insert all kinds of obvious stuff here.]

Is that really so much to ask??

And in return, I can offer gajillions of love, admiration, affection, patience, devotion, forgiveness, laughs, open-mindedness, and excellent communication and relationship skills, and even testimonials vouching for this. Ha. ;-) I would even consider having another child.

Why is confidence the first quality I'm looking for? Because my recent relationship has caused me to realise that having different levels of self-confidence is one major contributing factor to having chemistry and relationship problems. A few different problems can arise: needing to criticise in order to knock the person down a notch, withholding praise and matched enthusiasm to foster insecurity, unmatched comfort levels with the same sorts of friends and situations, different communication styles needed, and just general uneasiness, etc.

So, then, what is "confidence"? Is it the same thing as arrogance? Is it the absence of insecurities? Can you be confident overall but with an Achilles heel?

I love hanging out with Michelle and Robert, two brilliant, accomplished, and confident intellectuals who always have something to teach me. We had a good little chat tonight about confidence and how it can be perceived as arrogance by people who are insecure. Robert said that everyone has vulnerabilities but insecure people can't share or discuss them. True, that!

My friend Julie is a powerhouse woman who takes no BS from anyone, is successful at everything she pursues (MA in History, pro photographer, small business owner, researcher, among many things not least of which is a mom of three special kids) and probably intimidates a lot of women despite being very chatty and friendly. I would describe her as a confident person. She says that arrogance is when you can't consider that you might be wrong. Good point.  

And yet, [gorgeous] Michelle wrote a paper on abortion, presented it at a conference and people were able to ask questions. Someone raised her hand to say, "This paper is so well-written—how does someone argue against it?" And Michelle replied, "You don't." We both roared with laughter when she told me this, and I loved her self-confidence. She didn't sound arrogant, she sounded self-assured.  

Sometimes, the self-assured play at arrogance to be funny, in kind of the opposite way that some people are self-deprecating to be funny. Self-deprecating humour probably does come from a feeling of insecurity and arrogant humour probably does come from a feeling of over-confidence. But that doesn't mean that what is said is really believed by the individual. 

Joelle and I talk about this sometimes. We agree that there's nothing wrong with thinking that you make the best cookies or tiramisu (she does!!) or that you have gorgeous hair or wrote a killer paper on abortion (heh) or whatever. Everyone should feel so confident about various things about themselves and be able to occasionally say so, because saying so does not take away from other people who also are the "best" at something. I think the problem is when you think you're a more valuable human being for it, or when you are not willing to hear what other people have to say, or when you're convinced that you literally are the best at something that is subjective, or when you boast in order to make people feel bad.

There's a huge difference between smugness and excitement. Also, I'm less likely to be critical and suspicious of someone who is occasionally smug if they are also open and humble about their flaws. 

I'm unimpressed by people who never express self-confidence, who never pat their own backs, but who also can't handle criticism and challenges to their world views. 

And I'm unimpressed by people who can suffer criticism but who never state their awesomeness confidently about anything, or who politely, almost apologetically, say that they're good at something, because a lack of confidence is a real turn-off. If you can't have fun with yourself and celebrate yourself, how can I do that with you? If you don't think you're great, it's going to be hard for me to think so.

When you feel great about yourself, you can have flaws and vulnerabilities and not feel too badly about them. Vulnerabilities are attractive! Who wants to be with someone who's perfect? I don't find perfection easy to relate to. Only excessively insecure people can't own their flaws and vulnerabilities. And when you feel great about yourself, you can hear your friends' accomplishments and boastings and not feel threatened. You can say, "Yes, you ARE awesome!" and mean it. 

If it's okay that I like Joelle more than I like Billy-Jean (rhetorical person), um, is it okay if I like myself more than I like Billy-Jean? We all want our kids to grow up liking themselves, thinking they're good enough, thinking they're awesome at something, right? So, why don't we feel entitled to that kind of confidence ourselves? 

If we know that we are better at skiing than Bob and smarter than Sally, is there ever an appropriate context and manner to state so, or do we have to make pretenses to modesty that no one believes before we can be liked, because it's okay to be a phony liar but not be confident?

Another thing to consider is how quick we are to label a woman as arrogant or opinionated compared to a man. When it comes to being vocal about anything, I think we're quicker to accept a man's voice and be annoyed with a woman's. Who do we hate more: Martha Stewart or Donald Trump? Would The Colbert Report ever fly with a female host? 

Anyway, I'm beating around the bush. As you might have suspected, the point of this is just to say: don't tell me that I can't boast about my spanikopita because, eaten fresh, it really is the best you'll ever eat.  

The end.

Daily Gratitudes

1. How amazing is sunshine, right? Right? Today, I think I would sacrifice your children to the sun god(s), I love the sun that much. Not my children, but your children I'm totally okay with, the dirty nose pickers. 
2. My day started off crummy, a very sad mood carried over from a sad weekend of non-Paulness and dating frustrations, and ended with me feeling pretty fantastic. I credit insipid pop tunes, my favourite shirt, my hair looking good, messages from two women I'm interested in meeting, and smiles from strangers.
3. My evening ended well at The Fort where my friend Robert's Shakespeare by the Sea idea was being judged by a panel of "Awesomeites" in an Awesome Shit competition with the chance to win $3500. It was great and made me fall in love with Victoria again because of all the cool businesses and cool ideas that can exist here, without it being a big city. 
4. After telling my English prof why I thought I'd do terribly on my English midterm and having him say that if I do, I might be able to rewrite it, I was able to relax a bit. I definitely think I could have done better but I don't think it was terrible. 
5. I spontaneously had lunch with the first place winner of that writing contest. We got on very well, had a nice conversation, and he confessed that he wrote about a friend and he interviewed her and used a fair bit of her verbiage, so much so that he felt compelled to mail her half his cheque! So, it wasn't even written by one person, but two. And that he did it for a school assignment in September. So, I'm feeling even better about my second place win.

"Okay."

"Do you realise that there's no certainty at all, only perception? I can't handle that there's NO certainty."

"About?"

"Everything. Including identity. There's no self. You might think you're something but what if other people think you're wrong? Who decides? Majority vote? What if the majority are not very smart? There's no reality, really. Just perception. We just make up what we believe about ourselves, because it's convenient, a story we need to believe. But what if it's false?"

(And yes, this sounds obvious, I know, but it just struck me again today for a specific reason and it was a serious bummer.) 

"Okay, well, I had a bad day and I need to tell you what happened and you help me figure out why I feel this way. So, I know reality doesn't exist and everything," she said patiently and sweetly. "But let's just say it does for the purpose of this conversation." 

I laugh. "I love that you understand me and my anxieties."

"I adore you!"

Shucks. Sometimes when people aren't looking, I grow on them.

[Note: Approximate recollection of conversation.]

Recently, Someone-I-Know was talking with Someone-I-Don't-Know and SIK said that he or she did not believe in God and SIDK said, "Oh, I feel so sad for you! That's so sad! I KNOW that God is real and he loves us!" And SIK said, "I'm not sad at all. I'm perfectly comfortable not believing in God."

I might think that some aspects of believing in a specific religion is really sad, but I'd never think to tell someone that it's sad that they believe in a god, just as I'd never say, "How sad for you that you love your spouse!" just because I can't imagine loving them. (Although, it is sad for people who love spouses who hurt them. But that's when I would make the comparison directly to specific religions, not the basic god concept.)

So, for SIK, and my Spanish blog reader-friend—who wrote me to ask me what I can do now that is so great that I couldn't do when being an active Mormon (Answer: Be happy and make sense of my life and world and the people around me!) and to say, "I can't imagine happiness knowing or thinking that God doesn't exist"—and for you, reader, here the top reasons why I'm so much happier and at peace now that I don't believe in God. (I will say that the first two or three times I felt hit with this reality, I was devastated. But that disappeared as things make more sense and as scientific answers for things replace supernatural answers.)

1a. I have no reasons anymore to be uncomfortable around people who drink, do drugs, are transsexual, are gay, are polyamorous, etc. I used to think I was really tolerant and compassionate and now I see that I still had some feeling of superiority for the choices I made in my life. It was a compassionate superiority, kind of condescending, but superiority nonetheless. At the very least, I felt discomfort.

That has completely disappeared. I no longer have any reason to believe anything about other people's lives and decisions other than, "whatever works". If they are happy and healthy and feel loved and are able to give love and treat people (and animals, and the environment) the way they want to be treated, then they're obviously doing it right. 

With all the different circumstances we come from, all the unique experiences people go through and unique combos of input that make us who we are, it only makes sense that there would have to be unique formulas for us all to be happy and fulfilled, because we're too fundamentally different to find happiness and comfort in the exact same ways. 

The comfort I'm able to feel with people who live life in different ways is wonderful. The love and respect I am able to feel for all kinds of people has blossomed into this beautiful thing that has brought me so much joy that I didn't know I was missing out on. You're able to respect and love people so much more when you're loving them inclusive of their decisions and not in spite of them. You have more of them to love. And the respect means that I feel we are on equal footing. I don't have the smugness that comes from being magnanimous with my love and tolerance; it's effortless because I find nothing wrong with these people in the first place. I can be open to hearing and appreciating their stories and experiences and I feel celebration with them that they have been able to find peace and joy in this often painful world. 

This has been the sweetest discovery and reward, far outweighing any potential personal pleasures that being faithless before the god concept allows me. And these people whom I no longer struggle to tolerate and understand and respect, are the people who are most tolerant and loving of me. So, I feel more unity with the world and less lonely.

1b. This also means that there are so many more people to bond with romantically. So, I no longer feel like I have to find one perfect person now in order to stop worrying if I ever will. [Ed. note *cough* Okay, so this week may not be the best week to publish this post I wrote weeks ago.]

2a. The only thing stopping me from achieving is me. (Well, and society, and the weather, and possible airborne diseases, etc.) There's no specific plan for me up in the sky. I can do anything! I don't have to worry about things not working out because they aren't "meant" to. I don't have to ask for advice as to whether or not I should make a certain career choice, and then stress about whether or not I interpreted the faintest of feelings and thoughts in my head as being from God or from my own desires, as if my desires should not be enough to guide me. 

2b. If something in life doesn't work out, I don't have to puzzle over why, including guesses as to God's desires and plans. I no longer have the "But I prayed about it! And I felt so sure by the Holy Ghost that it would work out!" dilemmas. I can just accept that something didn't work out and move on. 

Life has more promise now, more inherent possibility. I can choose from all kinds of decisions and life formulas until I find something that works, and then when it stops working, I can choose something different.

3. With all superstition and pattern seeking efforts gone to make sense of God and sense of life, I have so much more mental and emotional energy to expend on other things. I have this feeling of lightness, and more focus (something I struggle with enough as it is). 

4. I no longer expect greatness from people. When you believe that you're a god in embryo and the purpose of your life is to become as perfect as possible and then continue on that path of perfection in the next life, you have pretty high expectations of yourself and others and you're frequently disappointed when you don't meet them.

I'm becoming less and less perfectionistic about people, myself included, because I no longer believe in some master standard for everyone. What one person thinks of as a moral choice may not be by someone else's standards, because maybe they place a higher value on how certain actions affect society while someone else places more value on how those same actions affect the individual or the family. Both people could give compelling arguments for who is right and since there's no one great moral decider, since there isn't some man in the sky who gets the last word, these discussions never arrive to an ultimate truth for everyone (and they never did even under the god concept). There isn't an ultimate truth for everyone as to how they should raise their families or how they should make the best cup of coffee. These things are subjective. 

This has caused me to see my mother and my family very differently from how I have before. The Mormon church has done a lot to tear me away from my family. It has made it very difficult to see them kindly and to respect them. More and more, the thought comes to me, "Crap. What if my mother deserves respect for this choice of hers? What if she's right that I judged her self-righteously?" 

How ironic would it be if I was able to build a good relationship with my mother, able to love her, because I'd LEFT the Mormon church? 

The church might SAY that we should love everyone, but it doesn't give really great lessons on how to do that, or on how to get over judgemental thoughts without also being condescending and patronising. Saying to yourself, "Oh, they know not what they do" is condescending. What if they know exactly what they do and they still think it's good and you don't? It's really hard to feel respect and love for them. 

But anyway, this point differs from point number one because it's a more specific kind of tolerance and acceptance for everything, not just big moral choices. I don't have to be perfect at ANYTHING at ANY point and neither does anyone else. It's all good just the way it is, right now. If I don't like some behaviour of someone's, the problem is more likely to be mine than theirs. And if someone else doesn't place self-improvement as a priority, and pleasure is their ultimate goal in life, it doesn't bother me. I don't want to marry them but I can still respect them. 

And if my kids make mistakes, I'm not devastated. 

Self-improvement is no longer my idol by necessity. It's optional. And that brings relief to me and the people around me. 

(This was more of a Mormon church thing, less of a belief-in-God thing.)

5. I don't feel so frustrated at not understanding things because there may not be any answers and I'm okay with that. I can find whatever answers science can give me and then I can revise my understanding based on new answers, without feeling my foundation shake, without it affecting my pride. I used to believe that certain very specific doctrinal and moral ideas were truth, which made it trying when other ideas didn't fit in with them, because if X is true, then Y must be true, but Y isn't true, so... WHAT DO I DO WITH X? When X insists that it's true, no matter what, then Y is very stressful. But if X is all, "Hey, I'm just as true as we know things to be so far, I can become untrue at any time with further information," then I can relax about not understanding Y. 

Make sense?

I think that about covers it.

Some days I'm agnostic, some days I feel like I can commit to atheism. Meh. Either way. We can't know, or we can. Or we can't. 

I believe that everything has energy. Someone recently referred me to The Secret Life of Plants wherein it discussed experiments done on plants and, somehow, researchers were able to find that a specific plant had a negative reaction at the time when its owner died part-way around the world. (Huh?!) And that when plants were cut and abused across the room from other plants, the unharmed plants reacted. I haven't read it yet (Russel Books didn't have it today) so I can't say more than that about plants. When it comes to people, I definitely think that we can pick up on the energy and emotions of other people. We can know when they are not being truthful and we can know when they're hurting and we can know when they're people who can heal us. I know that unseen and unheard things happen around us all the time. Bees see things we don't see, dogs hear things we don't hear, but that doesn't mean they're hearing angels. Just because things are mysterious, doesn't mean they're of a heavenly order. It only means we don't know yet. And I'm so okay with that. 

Daily Gratitudes

1. I really have an excellent support network, holy cow. Therapist friends (and girlfriends of friends—thanks, Dena!), and psychologist friends, and just really loving friends. Thank you, people, for being so nice to me. 
2. I ordered a sunny side-up day today and that's what I got. It was beautiful. 
3. I have a cute date coming over shortly. Scrabble and wine, I think. 
4. Joelle! Finally! She's on contract with the radio station. She hasn't been up until this point, and now she has a bona fide career. SO. HAPPY. Well done, woman! Mwah. 
5. I discovered this Rilo Kiley song on Dooce's blog. Love the lyrics. Go look and listen! Even the sweary bits. "And some days when you're on, you're reeeally f***ing on and your friends they sing along and they love you."

At the top of that beam is a platform on which sits the framing of a red chair and if you could sit up there, you would be gazing at the cityline of downtown Seattle. A camera was up there and it captured live feed of the city, which was fed into a big red coffee cup mug that rested on the green table, and when people looked into the mug, they could see the city. 

Because the artist's work was so philosophical, I totally got it. Or rather, the artist agreed with and liked my interpretation, which was that it was a statement about The American Dream, which tells people that they can become anything they want, that if they work hard enough, they can have success. The red chair on the lofty platform represented the dream, the goal, and it's significant that it was not a realised chair, it was only the outline of one. And the yellow beam is merely the straight and narrow pathway to the goal. It's so obvious, right? Get an education, network, work hard, boom! Success. Except that the pole goes through a roof and it's smooth, which makes it difficult to grip and climb. So, yes, we can see the goal and we can see how to get to it, but how the hell does one actually do it? The reality is that people face insurmountable obstacles and they need help. If you are born into a family that is so poor for any one of many possible reasons, and you go to a crappy school with no textbooks and not enough desks and no lights, because tax dollars are not pooled and distributed equally, and so poor neighbourhoods get inadequate schools and rich neighbourhoods get luxury schools, and you have to drop out anyway to get a job to take care of your mom who has health problems she can't pay to fix, you're going to have a reeeeally hard time pulling yourself out from that depressing and oppressive situation to become a CEO of a corporation. Just as one example. 

The table and chairs were a little bigger than was comfortable, which could be a symbol for how people will stay in poverty, and will remain uneducated because even though it's not ideal, even though it's uncomfortable, it works well enough. The colours he chose were bright and attractive but also a little off-key, like a minor key in music. This could be suggestive of The American Dream sounding and looking good but there's just something about it that doesn't sit right, that is maybe even a bit sinister. 

Anyway. I liked this artist's work and him.

But today, I left class early. I couldn't make it through the full one and a half hours. I am no soldier. I left after one hour. And the only way I could endure the hour, was to give my brain something to do. I mean, imagine having to listen to someone talk with this obnoxiously hypermasculine bravado about the importance of his "pieces" and "iterations" like a video of him walking across a road and waving at vehicles. Or hitting golf balls at a sheet of steel, whilst wearing golfy clothes and shaking his bum in that way golfers do as they adjust their positions, and smacking gum, in a closed gallery room, and broadcasting the sound of it on speakers, filming it and then displaying the film. Profound stuff. 

First of all, I quickly lose patience with artists who just present their work in this proud kind of way and are vague about it, like we're just supposed to get how it's important because it's so self-evident. It's so pretentious to be unwilling to explain what your work means. It's like saying that you shouldn't have to because only dummies wouldn't understand, or you shouldn't have to because meaning is unnecessary for something to have... meaning, or... what other alternatives are there? Maybe you don't know what it means, yourself, and you're pinching yourself that you fell into this career where people around the world give you money to present your mindless crap that they're afraid to ask you to explain, and you act as though part of your art's purpose is to be inarticulate?

Secondly, this guy instantly turned me off. He reminded me of my ex-landlord who was a business owner and a control-hungry conservative hyper-masculine but in an out-of-shape-and-guido-like-way jerkface. And if you watch Breaking Bad, just picture the DEA brother-in-law character, but with darker hair and less laughing at his own jokes. Less jovial. This man brought out the lesbian in me. I tend to like most people but that tendency malfunctioned here. 

So, I wrote a poem during class. (It's an exaggeration and meant to be humourous, of course. Because poetry is not a hate-language.) It's very simple and doesn't use many poetic devices, because that's representative of what I felt his art was like. 

Intro to Contemporary Art: Visiting Artist #4

Shut up.

Oh my hell, shut up!

Why do you talk that way?

You've been talking that way for

what must be at least ten seconds now.

Of course your work "focuses on masculinity". 

Oh! Duelling, blurry penises that ejaculate. Original!

A man who is interested in ejaculation. Do you need

some boobies to go with that?

Your reeking masculinity makes me retch.

Why do you speak so self-importantly? 

Why does every tiny thing sound like a pronouncement?

"I did... I did... I made..." Ba ba da dah!

Gasp! Look what you did! What a big boy!

I hate your voice. Shut up. 

I can think of three hundred people 

off the top of my head

who would hate this presentation. 

I think you're a little bit gay. 

(Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

No man is so into making plurry penis art without being a bit gay.

Methinks your "masculinity" protesteth too much.

What time is it? Is it midnight yet? Is that Christ in the distance?

Why do diabetics get all the best excuses for leaving class?

I just love how you're mocking golf and golfers

whilst saying, "this first iteration", and saying

that this video of you hitting golf balls 

against a sheet of steel in Wales

has elements of "painting" in it. 

And I'm writing a poem, making fun of you,

whilst you make fun of golfers! Irony, FTW.

Okay, "sculpture" I'll give you. The golf balls

indenting the steel sheet is sculpture. But so what?

Why should we caaaaare?

"The self". If I hear this one more time....

I can't believe you didn't notice that

you just referred to Catholics and Protestants as "races". 

If you insist on keeping the lights off,

so we can't write notes or hate poetry,

can I sneak out of...?

Daily Gratitudes

1. It was sunny today. Carl, a total stranger, sat at my table in the library cafeteria whilst I talked to Joelle on the phone, using my earphones, which made me look like I was talking to myself and listening to music. And he contributed to the conversation a couple of times, which was very funny.
2. Today was the day of men. Five men wrote me and two phoned, to check in, see how I was doing, talk photography, talk camping, talk sunsets, etc. This was unusual. Seeing as I'm sad over a break-up I didn't want but had to have to save my little heart, it was nice to not feel so lonely, and to sort of, kind of have options, even if I'm not interested in any because I'm sad and meh. 
3. My English prof was more bearable today. He has a tendency to be soporific and impatient and pretentious. But today he was much more relaxed, funny, good humoured, and a bit cute. I think it's because he was wearing a nice sweater, casual cotton deck (?) shoes, and no tie. 
4. School so far is rillyrilly easy. I don't actually know yet if I'm all happy about this. It's so weird how we're coddled. Few assignments at all; we're toootally told what will be on the exams; and for English, we were told what pages to read from this Ethel Wilson book, we can write something in advance, we can bring all notes and books with us to class.... It's weird. I didn't study at all for my Women's Studies midterm because we just had to know some terms and so many of them are just part of my everyday conversations with friends. I'll be surprised if I didn't get perfect. There were only six questions! Crazy. On the one hand, I feel like I'm not learning a lot and I think of how the college I went to was so much harder and the teaching better. On the other hand, my biggest priority in life right now isn't really academia. It's to settle in to Victoria, make friends, and find someone to settle down with. And to pleasure most of the city and develop a crack habit, obviously. If I have time. So, school is busy enough to give me something to do, and I'm working on my degree, but it's lax enough that I can read other things that interest me and I can try to meet people. 
5. I had a very vivid dream that I was spending time with my six-year-old. It was divine. I miss my children a LOT right now, so much so that I can't bear to talk to them. And I have no money to visit Alberta quite yet and even if I did, the thought of being in Alberta, alone, in February makes me feel a panic attack coming on and I wonder if I can pay someone to come with me. Okay, so I managed to work a gripe into this "gratitude". The point was that I woke up happy when I was expecting to wake up sad. I still remember the soft feeling of my daughter's skin and the innocence of her eyes.