Angela’s shoes

Yes, I watched the September Apple event live.  Tweeted up a firestorm about it. Mainly snark.. but hey.. I was engaged right?  I’m also really looking forward to the series 3 watch.  I can’t wait to get one, and have it send out an alert every time some cute random guy wants to talk to me.  

“No, I’m not having a cardiac event, it’s your “ask for my number” alarm.”

Yeah, this is why I'm still single.  Anywhooo...

Back to the event…

When Apple’s head of retail, Angela Ahrendts, stepped on stage to go through changes to retail operations, all I could focus on were her shoes.  They were some kick ass shoes.  I loved them.  They were back matte (maybe a suede) open toed boot-heel. Did I mention I loved them?  I paid absolutely no attention to the presentation.  Just thought about the shoes.  How I wish I had the balance to wear that skinny (and high) of a heel, on stage.  Then I thought, this is one reason why I could never be an exec - I could never wear that type of shoe.

*insert record scratch audio*

What.  Did.  I.  Just.  Say?  I think I need to rethink this….

Ahrendts gets through her presentation, walks offstage, and Tim Cook comes back.  His shoes?  Looked like a pair of Vans from a distance.  Every other exec’s (all others were male) shoe wear?  Flat tennis/Van like kicks, everyone. I didn’t notice any dress shoes.

Overall, the menswear was more casual than Ahrendts.

Some of the dress code differences may have just been personal style, but I’ve noticed similar trends in my own life.  Women tend to dress “better” than most men in business situations, at least in my industry.  Most women in positions of power, wear heels. I’ve also noticed that when I dress ‘fancier’, people do treat me differently.

Why?

I have no real hard data as why, but it seemingly isn’t a figment of my imagination.

Apparently, women who wear more masculine attire tend to be hired more than women whose attire is more feminine.  We suffer from an additional double standard that men are allowed to wear basically the same clothes day in and out (from top execs to presidents), but women aren’t.

So, we have to dress more like men in order to get hired, dress more like women after we do and better not wear the same thing twice?  Are people really watching what I'm wearing THAT closely?  Talk about creepy.

Is wardrobe yet another form of unconscious discrimination?

I don’t know, but I still wish I had Angela’s shoes.

The Not Giving a !@$ Tree

Angry tirade incoming...

The Giving Tree (by Shel Silverstein) would make me cry when I was younger.  The tree was such a heartbreaking tale to me, but I could never quite put my finger on why it affected me so much.  Silverstein was writing a story about the Joy that comes from selfless love.  Why did it make me sad?  When I really started to think about the story as an adult, I started to understand my underlying feelings.  That sadness turned to anger.

I know, a kids book? Anger?  Really?

Let me explain.

Now, interpretations of the story have the tree as a mother or friend.  I'd argue that there could also be a romantic relationship interpretation.  The following can apply in any of the interpretations.

The boy uses the tree.  She wants him with her, so she does everything she can to make him happy.  At first, it's apples.  Then, leaves and branches.  Finally, she gets chopped down leaving her nothing but a stump.  She gave up her essential self as a tree for someone else.  Someone else who didn't seem concerned by the loss of who she was, as long as he got what he wanted.

He never said thank you.  He never said he loved her.  He left her to pursue other women.  He hallowed her out, depriving anyone else of enjoying what she had to offer.  When all she has left is a stump, what does he do?  He sits on her.  He <edited for coarseness> her!  And, she was HAPPY?

This is exactly what is wrong with our society.  We glamorize the wrong kinds of sacrifices and set up the wrong examples of healthy relationships.

We tell little girls that this is what you do in a relationship.  Give until there's nothing left and be happy about it.  Put your happiness in someone else besides yourself.  Follow someone else's purpose for you, not the purpose God has laid out for you.

I do believe that sacrifices are essential parts to living a disciplined, purposeful life. Those sacrifices, however, need to be the right kind.  The kind that help mold you into a better version of yourself and purpose (some might interpret this more as passion, either works).

You sacrifice partying to get through school.  You sacrifice money to spend more quality time with family.  You sacrifice your time taking care of a loved one.  You sacrifice popularity, opportunities, and friendships to do what's right.

There's nothing wrong with sacrifice, as long as it isn't a sacrifice of your core self.

The Giving Tree compromised her essential self by giving everything she had away in order to be happy with just that one boy.  She went from healthy, fruit bearing tree to lifeless stump.

Who considers this healthy life choice?

This is why I get so angry with this book.  People read it to their impressionable children as a "good" story.  It isn't.  Not even close.  I would not want any child of mine to think this is acceptable behavior out of their friends or romantic partners.  Pick people who help you grow, not those who cut you down and strip you bare.

No healthy relationship should require you to sacrifice who you are or your essential purpose in life.  If you find this difficult to understand - I have better things to do and they don't include you.



If I were to rewrite this book? I'd call it The Not Giving-a-@#% Tree.

• Want to have some of my apples?  Fine, don't be greedy and leave some for others.
• Want to swing in my branches?  Fine, just play nice with others.
• Want to build a house?  Fine, build it out of that heifer you are running off with.
• Want a place to sit down? Fine, you can bring a chair or sit your behind down on the grass.
• Want me to be anything else other than a tree?  I don't give a @#%, I'm a tree.  Deal with it.

The Big Little Lies

***Spoiler Alert*** This week is referring to the book “Big Little Lies” by Liane Moriarty and hits a little on the HBO series based on the book.

Please do not read if you haven’t read, and plan on reading, this book or watch the show.  If you have read, or do not have plans to, then feel free to continue.

I was reviewing my monthly budget a few weeks ago and realized that I had not ever, once, finished an audiobook I had purchased through my Audible account.  I looked into canceling my account and I found out that I’d lose the monthly credits I had built up if I did.  Bummer.

So, as to not “lose” money, I went on a quest to find audio books that I actually thought I might listen to.  I’m more of an “eye” person when it comes to books and my ears typically preferred music, so wasn’t having much luck.  Then, I saw Big Little Lies.

I had seen the ads for the HBO show.  I remember Shailene Woodley running down a beach, Reese Witherspoon with the guy from Parks and Rec (not Chris Pratt, Rob Lowe, or Ron Swanson - it’s the other guy), and Nicole Kidman.  Nicole Kidman!

Aside: I’m not a big fan of Shailene Woodley.  She probably is a wonderful person, but ever since an article on her where she described re-usable feminine hygiene products, I’ve been creeped out and don’t go out of my way to watch her movies.

The TV show has Nicole Kidman and Reese Witherspoon.  It has to be classy, right?  So, I purchased the BLL Audiobook, along with a couple others from different authors. *BOOM* Credits used, time to cancel the account.

I downloaded the audio, and started on my journey to a Sydney suburb with lots of rich white people.  I wasn’t expecting to enjoy it, but I found myself not able to stop listening.  I’d listen while in the shower, in the car, at work (which led to some very bad spelling and poor spreadsheet execution, but I digress).  I even started watching the show before I had finished the book.  

Another side note:  the book is better than the show, unless you want to see Kidman’s boobs, the book doesn’t have those. I believe they may have gotten their own credit at the end of the show.

So what is so compelling about the lives of three suburban Australian mothers?  The story itself was well crafted.  You don’t know who the victim is until the end.  You see the juxtaposition between what actually happened and the recounting of events through the eyes of those around them (throughout the book and show, the story is interrupted by interviews with witnesses).

*Spoilers incoming*

What really got to me was something on a much deeper psychological level.  Each of the three main protagonists were abused in some sort of way and each were in different phases of recovery.  Madeline was the furthest along, Jane’s in the middle, and Celeste really hasn’t started yet.  Their stories, when told together, mainly get to the crux of recovery from abuse.  It also delves into the internal conflict that happens when women are abused.  Some of it, to be honest, was a little scary to me.

Madeline’s husband left her right after their child was born.  He just told her “I can’t do this” and walked out.  She was left to fend for herself and her child.  She put her head down, got a job, raised her daughter.  She eventually met Ed, married and had two more kids.  Her marriage with Ed seems pretty stable (in the book, the show handles her marriage a bit differently).  She still harbors resentment for her ex, who now lives in the neighborhood, is remarried, and is back in his daughter’s life.  Madeline is struggling with the “injustice” of it all.  He’s married, has a beautiful wife, is a doting dad for his new daughter, and his older daughter eventually moves in with him, leaving Madeline behind.

How can someone who was such a complete dick, end up getting the perfect life?  How does that even happen?  Aren’t people supposed to reap what they sow?  How long do we harbor anger? How can someone who wrongs you so completely not have any lasting effects?  Her story focuses on her anger, and the struggle to let it go.

Jane’s pregnancy was the result of a one night stand that morphed into sexual and emotional assault.  The father of her child turned out to be a callous, horrific, mean person.  I won’t go into details of the assault, but he broke her down as emotionally as he did physically.  Jane left law school to have her child, and spent the first few years of his life making ends meet as a bookkeeper, silently worried about whether her son would be genetically predisposed to violence and cruelty.  A running storyline is that her son was accused of choking a girl in class and subsequently bullying her.  She defended him as any mother would, but was also afraid he might have done it.

How do we pick up the emotional pieces once the physical ones are healed?  How long do we let that power linger over us? How long do we harbor fear? How many of us hold on to fears as if they are real tangible things?  Like a poisonous snake we are holding by the head and we’ll get bit if we let go?  Her story is about fear, and the struggle to let it go.

Celeste.  Poor Celeste.  This is the real gut wrench of the book as you slowly come to realize that her perfect marriage is a sham.  He beats her and sometimes she fights back.  She loves him, she feels he loves her.  She thinks about leaving, but realizes she could never love anyone else.  She keeps this to herself, never telling anyone about the abuse.  He never hits her in places where it is obvious, so no one suspects.  Plus, who'd expect such a beautiful couple to have such an ugly secret?  The abuse continues to escalate to a point where she is in bed for several days “sick”.  She then finds out, through one of her twin sons, that her other twin son is the one abusing the little girl at school and not Jane’s son.  She also finds out he has been bullying another girl as well.  All that time, she didn’t think her boys had seen what their father did to her.  She finally realizes that her boys are as affected as she is.

How do you come to grips with reality?  How long to you harbor the lie?  How long do you convince yourself that it’s ok, or will be ok?  How long do we stay in situations that aren’t healthy?  The scariest parts of this book, to me, are the rationalizations Celeste uses to stay.  You don’t get the internal dialogue in the show as you do in the book.  As you read (or listen to it), it makes perfect sense:

• “I escalated it”
• “I should have just walked away”
• “I shouldn’t have said it”
• “I shouldn’t have asked him to do <X>”
• "I have so many things that others don't, I have no right to complain". 

How many times do we say these very same things to ourselves?  Her story focuses on the lie she’s been living, and the struggle to let it go.

I won’t ruin the murder mystery and plot twists only to say that while the story focuses on the lives of Celeste, Jane and Madeline, the other mothers have their own stories.  We get flashes of those stories in how they each react to the events surrounding the murder.  You understand more of their motivations and their own lies that they’ve been living - e.g. Tough Renata’s marriage has its own issues and mellow-tree-hugging Bonnie is fighting her own demons.

This was such a good book. Frightening, but good.  If you don't plan on reading it, please reconsider.  If nothing else, maybe you can learn the spot the big little lies your loved ones might be telling you (or you might be telling yourself).

Can An Intelligent Woman Be Pro-Life?

I’ve been writing this blog weekly for over a month now, and I’ve yet to explain my Pro-Life stance, specifically on abortion.  I mentioned I would at some point, so I figure now is as good a time as any.  If it wasn’t this, I’d be pounding my keyboard angrily complaining about the loss of 1st Amendment rights in this country.  *sigh*

Just to be unpredictable, I’m NOT going to use theology or religion in my argument.  Yeah, I bet you weren’t expecting that, were you?  I’m full of surprises.

If I look at the (albeit “controversial”), definition of life out on wikipedia, I see 7 basic items:  cellularly structured, requires/uses energy, grows, adapts, responds, reproduces and is able to remain consistent.  This is “controversial” because no one seems to want to put a stake in the ground.  Maybe people are concerned about making mistakes and not classifying things appropriately.  Seems like science worries that it’s defining something using undefinable terms.  Yeah, I had fun reading that abstract (Too cheap to actually buy the report).  People worry about fringe items like viruses and AIs.  Are they alive?  Do they have rights? Yeah, people are asking and waxing philosophic on these questions.

So what does it mean to be alive?  If you look at a fertilized human zygote, embryo or fetus, does it meet any definition of life?  

Does it require energy?  It has to attached itself to the uterine wall for nutrition, so … Check.

Is it cellular in nature?  Check.

Does it grow? Check.

Does it adapt?  Not sure when this starts, but eventually certainly does.

Does it reproduce?  It has cellular reproduction as it grows and changes, if we’re talking sexual reproduction, even out of womb children aren’t capable until a certain age.   So, kinda-Check.

Does it respond to stimuli?  Not sure when this starts, but eventually yes.  So, kinda-Check.

Does it stay cohesive?  Check.

So not a complete home run, certainly, but all of these come online during the gestation.  It’s just a matter of when.

So, why not wait to declare a human person until all items are met?  Let me respond with another question.  Why does the Migratory Boat Treaty and Lacey Acts protect bald eagle eggs?  

It’s “not” a bald eagle. The egg doesn’t fly around pooping on cars.  We don’t have images of eagle eggs painted on the back of redneck trucks.

Sure, bald eagles are an endangered species, but the egg isn’t an eagle yet if we use the definition of when does a human become a human (by pro-choice standards).

So, why can’t I have a bald eagle egg omelet?

Now, I really don’t want a bald eagle omelet.  I barely eat chicken eggs.  But, the point I’m trying to make here is that the fertilized egg, if left alone, will eventually result in an eagle as we visualize them today.  It, for all intents and purposes, is an eagle and is treated and protected as such.

So, why don’t we view zygotes, embryos and fetuses the same way?  Regardless of whether you believe life begins at conception, the mere fact that this is a human person in the early stages of development should provide some level of protection.

When discussing this view, I’ve gotten a few interesting challenges.  One of which is: “If I were to put the tissue on a petri dish, it wouldn’t survive”.  Well, if I placed a newborn baby on a lab counter without food and physical protection from the elements, it would die as well.  The only difference is the newborn probably would last a bit longer.  It would also communicate more through crying.  I doubt abortion would be allowable if the embryo or fetus could scream.  

I also feel this way about lobster restaurants.  No one would ever pick one out of the tank if they were cute, fluffy and screamed when placed in the boiling water.  We humans are weird this way.

Now, the other argument I’ve heard is whether the “tissue” is viable outside the mother’s womb.

THIS is what really scares me.  The idea of “viability” coming into play.  I get nervous when I hear it’s ok for someone to make a decision about life based on “viability”.

What is meant by viable?  In this context, it’s a statement of whether the child would survive outside the womb (which starts around week 22ish, I know someone will correct me here).  But, there’s another side.

Amniocentesis is a procedure which can detect chromosomal abnormalities (such as Down’s Syndrome) or other disorders (e.g. spina bifida).  The linked article calls out 200,000 procedures a year (not sure if that is worldwide or just in the US).  The mean abortion rate (across multiple studies) for those found to have Down’s Syndrome is 67%.

Wow.  It makes me sad to think people are aborted just because they have developmental issues.  I'm not trying to judge here, I can only imagine the difficulty with raising and caring for a child with birth defect or condition.  I just can't help but wonder about where the line is.  Who decides whose life is worthwhile?

At what point do we start crossing into aborting due to other birth defects?  When will we hit a line we won’t cross?  We have a VERY bad track record when deciding who has a right to live and who should die.  Eugenics, when taken to it’s farthest extreme, is what leads to Nazi death camps.

My other big fear is what are the next logical steps.  

Most people I speak with will tell me that don’t like or want abortion (even if they support a woman’s right to have one).  If “reproductive rights” advocates succeed, and abortion becomes an acceptable and normalized form of birth control, what does that mean for us 10, 50, 100 years from now?

Oh, and before you start to argue about how abortion will never become normalized, consider the recent case against a Washington florist who refused to make an arrangement for a same-sex couple's wedding.  What did the Washington Supreme Court decision say?  They said laws provide “broader societal purpose”.  Meaning, it isn’t about the explicit nature of the law, but the implicit reasoning behind the law.  Making a law provides (or even forces) societal changes.  Making abortion a “right” effectively uses the law to make a societal change in how abortion is viewed and treated.   Granted, I’m not a lawyer, so feel free to argue with me.

Going back to the longterm view, when will the first man challenge child support in court?  When will “her decision” to have a baby turn into “her responsibility to provide for the child”?  When will the argument of “I offered to pay for the abortion and she refused” become a legitimate defense?

Let’s look at it through a different lens.  When will the mantra of “If you can’t feed’em don’t breed’em” turn into policy?  When will subsidies be capped for households who need help?  Can’t feed them?  Well, I guess you should have thought about that before you had a kid.  Once abortion becomes acceptable in the mainstream, this isn’t an illogical leap to make.

Is this what we want for our future?  I surely don’t.  Which is why I believe we need to redraw the abortion line and act like we never stepped over it in the first place.

This is a veritable Pandora's Box of "we don't want to go there".

Now, before all you upset feminists burn my Vagina Card, let me make a disclaimer.  

I don’t want to see women stuck in situations they don’t know how to recover from.  I don’t want to “force” anyone into anything.  In my opinion, abortion is just an after effect of unprepared women being used, undervalued and thrown away.  

I want women to have choices.  I want them to have GOOD choices.  I want them to understand how NOT to get pregnant.  I want to help women get into positions where they can take care of themselves and handle what life throws at them.  I want to help women understand how not to date total douchebags.  

Instead of pouring tax money into “reproductive rights” policies that provide abortions, let’s spend our money, time and energy on building a society where women have more opportunities and success.  Let’s build a society that doesn’t penalize mothers (side note - want to know what is one factor in the gender pay gap?  Time away from work, which hits mothers hard). 

And, while we are at it, let’s teach men how to truly value women and enable them to be better fathers (paternity leave, anyone?).

Let's eliminate the root causes, not the children.

Why I’m Not Marching Today

I’d like to march for equality - pay, benefits, and opportunities.  I’d like to march for keeping America inclusive.  I’d like to march for a country that still believes in, and promotes, freedom.  I’d like to march to promote a society that values all people.  I’d like to march to keep America as a global beacon for hope in a world so afraid for its children.

But, I can’t.

Let’s look at https://www.womensmarch.com/principles/ for the 8 Principles of today’s event in DC (and various cities around the world):

• Ending Violence - I’m onboard, but it needs to be holistic, not just an attack on the 2nd Amendment
• LGBTQIA Rights - I’m onboard, as long as religious rights are kept in balance
• Worker’s Rights - I’m onboard, again, balanced along with keeping a healthy economy
• Civil Rights - I’m onboard
• Disability Rights - I’m onboard
• Immigrant Rights - I’m onboard
• Environmental Justice - I’m onboard, as long as we collaborate to find ways to help the environment while keeping businesses viable

And, of course,

• Reproductive Rights - and this is where I fall off the collective uterine soapbox.

Specifically, the site states the following:  “This means open access to safe, legal, affordable abortion and birth control for all people, regardless of income, location or education.“  The march itself is sponsored by and partnered with groups such as Panned Parenthood, #VoteProChoice, Emily’s List and NARAL Pro-Choice America.  Of the speakers, a couple of names popped out as extremely vocal pro-choice advocates.

Essentially, this morning’s activities will be, in part, to promote state funded abortion.  I can’t support this agenda at any level.  I’m not asking you to agree with me, just respect the fact that I have a respect for all life.  

There are so many other issues that I’m on board with here.  I’d like to be able to help give voice to help our communities move forward in a positive direction.  Maybe if abortion was a small slice of the overall agenda, maybe not so big of a deal to join in.  However, most feminist groups (and people) I’ve come across, seem to place “reproductive rights” as a cornerstone issue.  As a matter of fact, it’s the second issue listed in the march’s Unity Principles.

What would happen if I showed up today in a (possibly) emotionally charged situation and started a conversation about being pro-life?  Would I have been welcomed?  Should I have tried it?  In my experience, I often get shut down when the conversation starts, sometimes with hostility.

I’m not much on drama.  I've gotten to the point where I don't really talk about it much in public, face to face.  I just don't want to be attacked.  Instead, I spend my time helping with pro-life organizations, prayer and donations.

With discretion being the better part of valor, I decided it was best NOT to attend any of these marches.  I’m not sure my voice would have been welcomed. And, there’s a certain level of hypocrisy to that.

What the Pro-Life Movement Gets Wrong

What the Pro-Life Movement Gets Wrong

Let me be fully transparent here, I’m a pro-life advocate.  This hasn’t always been the case, but I’ve been for a couple of decades now.  I’m also the person who is considered the opposite of the political average in the group I’m in.  My conservative friends find me more liberal.  My liberal friends find me more conservative.  Me? I find myself just right J

I’m not looking to debate why I’m pro-life at this time.  I just wanted to give you a background on me, and where I’m coming from as you, hopefully, keep reading.  I promise to discuss this in more detail on a future date.

Now, this past weekend, KY politics went a bit sideways with bills passed affecting everything from bathrooms to unions.  One big-ticket item was the 20-week abortion ban.  We have some not so happy, and some happy, Kentuckians right now.  And, to be honest, I wasn’t 100% happy with the bill either (Civil action?  Really???  Thanks Obevin).

I’ve spent the past few days discussing this particular bill mostly with people who identify as pro-choice.

One particular conversation occurred (oddly enough) through an online dating site.  Well, I figured one way to get to know someone is to hit all the taboos upfront, right?

I asked one of the gentlemen what he thought of the past weekend.  He said of republicans, “they want government out of every aspect of their lives except for controlling their women.“  Huh, I know many conservatives and while the former is mostly the case, the latter hasn’t been.

Heading out to lunch with a friend a few days later, I mentioned the conversation.  Her response?  “He’s right”.  Double Huh.

My conservative, pro-life friends aren’t jerks (well, except for a few of you, but I love you anyway).  Why are they painted as women haters?

As I was re-reading the section of the bill that allows for fathers to pursue civil action, it hit me.  Somewhere along the way, we’ve lost sight of a very important person – the mother.  What levelheaded individual would allow for a mother to be sued by the father, especially in cases of coercion and force?  Apparently, our Kentucky Legislature and esteemed governor would.  Entirely the wrong message to send to women.

The pro-life movement dialog that I’ve run across in social media and the news is specifically, and solely, focused on the life of the child.  Not many pro-life advertisements really bring the well being of the mother into the picture (let alone to center stage). 

Women over the course of humanity have gotten a pretty raw deal.  While we’ve been around for millions of years (including our ancestors), we still don’t have equal pay.  We still carry pepper spray and Tasers when we walk alone at night (and sometimes during the day).  We still can’t drink from open containers we’ve left unattended at parties.  We still feel we have to achieve more in order to get the same level of respect.  And, we still receive mixed messages about who and what we should be:

·      ‘You can have everything, but you still better look pretty doing it!’

·      ‘Be a strong woman, but don’t be a bitch!’

·      ‘Be sexually liberated, but don’t be a whore!’

·      ‘Don’t eat animals treated with hormones, but take these pills to mess with your hormones.’

Hell, we’ve only been allowed to vote for less than 100 years.

We women have a lot of pent up anger and frustration. So, yeah, expect us to kick, fight, scratch to keep what we’ve been denied for so long – control of our lives.  This is what we pro-lifers forget when we start our rhetoric.  It’s about more than just the child – there’s another person involved who is completely losing their mind wondering what the hell they are going to do. Her life matters equally.

We need to send the right message to women, and to mothers – we care about you too.  We don’t want to control you; we just don’t want to see a unique person destroyed.  We want to help you as much as the child.  We have entire networks of ministries and organizations just for that purpose.

If we pro-lifers really hope to win the battle against abortion, we need to focus and communicate our entire story of love, hope and options.  We also need to be very clear about what we’re NOT about.  We aren’t about controlling, or limiting, anyone.  As a matter of fact, it’s just the opposite.  We want everyone to have the chance at reaching his or her full potential – including the unborn.

We also need to stop demonizing pro-choice advocates who are just trying to help women gain and retain control of their lives. While we are focused on the child, they’re just focused on the mother.  We can’t belittle people for that.

In fact, I’d argue we should be working together to help build a world where women feel valued and are able to achieve greatness.  I think we can all agree on that.