Happy Holidays!

Hello everyone! Sorry that I've been away for awhile; you know how hectic the last couple of days before Christmas can be! On the bright side, we're home in Utah with my family, and Christmas is just the same as it was when I was a kid. I love it (and I love that my mom goes to such an effort to make Christmas such an enjoyable time for her family). So it's definitely a blessed time of year!

Of course, there are the little issues that always pop up (such as when my parents' dog, Shila, tried to kill my cat, Maxine... ok, maybe I'm being a little melodramatic, but I can tell you that these two definitely don't like each other!) Then there was the issue trying to print out the pictures for our Christmas cards; we couldn't really find a good one, and then when we did, we couldn't get the red eye out. Combine that with the relentless traffic and the people who act like their world will end if they don't grab the last item off the shelf, and I ended up feeling pretty crabby.

Then I stopped to put it all in perspective. I'm here, in my childhood home (which is full of the Christmas spirit, if I do say so myself), with my beloved husband and soulmate, my wonderful parents and brother, and Dan's sister and brother-in-law right down the road. We're all healthy, we DEFINITELY have enough to eat (have you seen the dinners my dad makes?), and most importantly, we're all together, enjoying each other's company. Do the little things like crowds and red eye in a photo truly matter? I think not. I'm so blessed, and I hope that we all remember how lucky we truly are. (And, if you have a chance to bless another family who is in need, please do so. I can't tell you the joy we felt when we delivered our angel tree presents to the little boy we "adopted." I loved buying gifts for my family, of course, but the joy of buying for a child who lacks even the most basic things in life was overwhelming.)

Once again, merry Christmas and a happy 2008! I hope to be on here sometime in the coming week, but we all know how Christmas celebrations can take up a lot of one's time :) So, if I don't "see" you all before then, I'll see you once again in 2008!

Having Boys As Friends Can Boost Girls' Drinking

I read a rather disturbing article here on MSN today. Researchers have found a link between having friends of the opposite sex and increased underage drinking, especially for girls.

I wonder why this is? Is it because girls are more likely to be socialized to be compliant and agreeable, so they go along with their friends' (usually guys) suggestion to drink, even if they don't want to? Is it because girls want so desperately to be accepted by the opposite sex that they'll do whatever it takes to be considered "cool"? (Obviously boys have that issue, too, but it seems to manifest itself differently).

I found this study very intriguing, and it really caused me to think exactly how the interactions between adolescent boys and girls are so fraught with tension and the desire for acceptance. So what can be done to prevent these friendships from facilitating negative consequences? Well, we need to, first and foremost, raise our girls to say "no." This applies to drinking, having sex, and anything else that is potentially harmful to our daughters. We also need to raise our sons to respect women, so if girls say, "no," our sons know they mean it, and it's not something "fun" to do to try to convince them otherwise. And what about good old-fashioned parental supervision? I think today, parents are too often removed from their children's social lives, and that is a definite factor in underage drinking and teen sex/pregnancy.

It's A..... Girl!

No, not for me, sillies (although I wish!) Helena Bonham Carter and Tim Burton recently welcomed their second child, a girl. Yep, I'm one of those people who likes to follow the lives of celebrities. Not because I'm obsessed with them, but because their actions often provide good blog fodder (Britney Spears, anyone?)

But I really like Helena Bonham Carter, because I think she's a perfect example of how a woman can be strong, intelligent, capable.... and still a very feminine, very beautiful individual. I've loved her in almost everything I've seen her in, and I can't wait for Sweeney Todd to come out. Of course, I also adore Johnny Depp, who I firmly believe is one of the best actors ever, and with Alan Rickman and Sacha Baron Cohen, how can the movie be anything but a success?

Speaking of Bonham Carter, that reminds me. I also need to check out her portrayal of Anne Boleyn, my all-time favorite historical person ever, in the 2003 made-for-TV movie Henry VIII. I would imagine that she would portray the part wonderfully. After all, she has all the right traits: striking beauty, fiery temper, and an aura of intelligence. Hmmm, I guess I know now what my plans will include over Christmas break: Sweeney Todd and Henry VIII. Quite the entertaining (and, at times, bloody) combo, wouldn't you say?

The Good Old Days?

I've been reading some rather disturbing comments on another bulletin board I frequent. The topic is Hillary Clinton and her presidential race. Now, I have no problem with people disliking/disagreeing with Hillary (after all, wouldn't it be a boring world if we all agreed?), and I'm not even 100% sure yet that she'll get my vote; I have to research her policies some more. But what disturbed me was comments made by women that said, "Women should never be president."

This threw me for a loop. I can understand if you don't want Hillary to be president, but women in general? I would think comments like this would come from white, conservative Christian 80-year-old men, not women in their 20s and 30s.

When pressed as to why exactly women shouldn't be president, many responded with, "There are some things men are better at, and leadership is one of them. In fact, I miss the good old days, when we had respectable men leading our households and treating us women like ladies."

Ahhh, yes, the good old days. When husbands and wives were considered, in the eyes of the law, to be one person: the husband. When corporal punishment inflicted on wives by their husbands was accepted, after all, he was only looking out for her best interests, correct? When marital rape was unheard of; after all, the husband and wife are the "same person" so he can do what he wants with "his" body, correct? Nothing says love like forcing your wife to have sex against her will. When white, middle class women had no other option but to be a homemaker. When minority women had to slave away at menial jobs and still do the "women's work" at home, because that was beneath the husband. When women couldn't cast a vote for lawmakers who would determine the policies and laws that women would be required to obey. Gee, sounds very idyllic, doesn't it?

All I can say is, thank God we've come as far as we have.

Womb for Rent?

This article on MSN is pretty interesting. It describes a clinic in India, where women from the US can go to have someone else carry their baby via surrogacy (they choose the Indian clinic as opposed to US clinics due to the country's less restrictive laws surrounding surrogacy). As I was reading it, I had a million different thoughts bouncing throughout my mind, so I thought it would be beneficial to write them down.

My first worry was exploitation. Are these poor women in India volunteering for surrogacy because they want to, or because they feel forced to? Luckily, that fear was soon put to rest; many of the women interviewed said they eagerly volunteered to be a surrogate because the money they would receive ($5500) was equivalent to 10 years salary for them. Many women wanted to use their earnings to buy a brick house, provide for their daughters' dowries, or provide education for their children. For women who often make $25 dollars a month, as one woman did, or $1.20 to $1.45/day, as another woman did, I can understand that the money they receive from surrogacy will allow them more opportunities than they'd ever dreamed.

My second thought, however, was, "How is this any different than purchasing a woman for prostitution? Or how is it any different than objectifying a woman via pornography?" Yes, the intent in this case is not sexual, but you're still purchasing a woman's body. I'm not saying I'm entirely against it (I can understand where these women are coming from), but at the same time, it makes me a little uneasy that women are being reduced to mere breeders. Yes, giving life to another human being is one of the greatest joys a woman can experience, but I tend to look at it differently when it's a mother pregnant with her child, rather than just a stranger acting as an incubator. The first instance is noble, the second.... well, I'm still undecided on that.

Thirdly, the doctor involved in this clinic refuses to provide services for gay and lesbian couples. This really struck me the wrong way; yes, she's entitled to determine whom she will assist, but it seems so discriminatory; much too discriminatory for my tastes. Trust me, with all I've seen in the news recently (Baby Grace, anyone?) heterosexual couples most definitely do not have the market cornered on being excellent parents.

Finally, I just have to ask, what on earth is wrong with adoption? Yes, I understand the desire to carry a biological baby to term is very strong (ask my husband; it's one of the things I talk about the most). Yes, I can't wait to be pregnant, and yes, I would be devastated if I couldn't carry a baby biologically. But if I couldn't, I know for a fact that I would not be doing surrogacy, IVF, or any other such procedures. Why? Well, I'm a firm believer that you don't have to give birth to a child for it to be yours. As long as their are children languishing in orphanages in China, Guatemala, Korea, Russia, and countless other locales, I am going to procure my family that way (and, for the record, we plan on adopting a child regardless of if we can have biological kids or not; our ideal plan is to have two biological kids and adopt one). Our reasoning for this is simple: why not help a child who is already on this earth? Why not give them the life that every child deserves? Why does it HAVE to be a biological child? That's what I don't understand.

Of course, it goes without saying that I am pro-choice in all areas, so if women want to become mothers via the surrogacy route, I wish them all the luck in the world. But I wish that women (and men) would realize that a child doesn't need to possess the parents' DNA in order for it to be their child, and there are plenty of children out there who need loving homes.

Some men...

I was reading an advice column in the newspaper last week; I think it was Ask Margo (which is written by Ann Landers' daughter) or something along those lines. The letters that are printed continually shock me and cause me to reflect, "What century are we living in again?"

This little gem was from a man with four children (and one on the way), and he was angry because his wife didn't do the housework. He then went on to say that they could afford to hire a housekeeper, but he didn't want to pay money for doing what he considered to be his "wife's job."

This irritated me on so many levels. First of all, why is it the wife's job to clean? Ok, I agree, if one person is a stay at home spouse with no children, then yes, she (or he) should do the majority of the housecleaning, simply by virtue of being home more. Of course, they shouldn't have to do it all, because once the working spouse comes home, the duties should be shared equally. It's certainly not fair for one spouse to work 8 hours a day, and the other be required to work (for no pay) 24 hours a day.

But when children enter the picture, all bets are off. Does this guy not realize that raising children IS a full time job? Sure, if he just wants them plunked down in front of the television all day, I'm sure his house could be spotless. But that's not how you raise children. Truly raising children involves reading to them, learning with them, taking them out to experience the world. If I am blessed to be a stay at home mom, our days will be spent at the library, the children's museums, the zoo. Sure, I'll try and tidy up, and the kids can help me as part of their chores (and it'll be a great opportunity to teach my son(s) that both guys and girls do housework). But housework is not going to be my main focus; I want to spend those precious childhood years actually raising my kids, not just watching them while I keep the house spotless. Whatever housework I don't get done during the day will be split equally between Dan and myself once he gets home.

Finally, this guy has some warped ideas about what is expected of his wife. Just because she has two X chromosomes doesn't mean that she has some intrinsic cleaning capability wired into her brain. And if she doesn't want to do it, and they can AFFORD a housekeeper, then why not? You would think that would be a great way to show his love for his wife. My husband, for example, changes all our cars' oil, rotates the tires, and fixes the brakes when needed. It just so happens that he loves doing this. But if he didn't, and we could afford to take it to a mechanic, I certainly would! There is no way I would say, "You have to do the car maintenance, because that's a husband's job. I'm not paying for a mechanic even though we can afford it." So why is this guy expecting a woman--a pregnant one, no less--to watch four young children and keep the house spotless? Seriously, he has some warped priorities. If I were him, I would be grateful that my wife was a stay at home mom who can raise our children with our specific values and morals; what a noble career! I would be thanking her for raising up the next generation; never once would the thought of criticizing her for the housework not being done even enter my mind!

No wonder some feminists see marriage and family as bondage. I personally think marriage and family are life's greatest blessings, but if I had a husband like the one listed above, I very well could think differently.

Women in TV

The other night, I was watching a rerun of Friends (I admit, I never really got into this show at all; I was watching it solely because there was nothing else on). It was supposed to be a "what if" episode; what if Phoebe was a successful business woman, etc. What bothered me is that Monica's storyline was, "What if Monica was an obese 30-year-old virgin?"

This irritated me at MANY levels. First of all, why is it that the "fat girl" is the virgin? What, nobody would want her because she weighs more than 120? Why wasn't Phoebe the "successful, business-oriented 30-year old virgin"? Why does a person's weight have to correspond to their sexual attractiveness?

And just as I hate it when women are objectified just because they are thin, young and beautiful (think Playboy; blech), it irritates me just as much when women who weigh more than the cultural ideal are mocked and made fun of. It wasn't like Monica was obese but still beautiful, sexy, etc. Nope, she had dowdy hair, an annoying voice, hideous clothes and was constantly stuffing her face with food. So all of these traits are common in obese people? Wow; who knew? /sarcasm. No wonder women have body issues and constantly feel the need to weigh a certain amount; who on earth would want to be the obese woman that television constantly portrays? What about showing a larger woman who IS beautiful, well-dressed, desirable? Trust me, there are plenty of them!

And finally, what's this big obsession with a woman's virginity? That has to define her? She's not a 30-year-old New Yorker who works as a chef (I think? I told you; I don't know Friends). Nope, she's a 30-year-old obese [defining a woman by her appearance] virgin [defining her by her sexual status]. Why would this even be an issue? Is this really how we categorize women?

Don't get me wrong; I think there is nothing wrong with waiting until you find the right guy to lose your virginity; I waited until I met my future husband, and I am so glad I did. I, personally, am a firm believer in waiting until you're in a committed, monogamous, loving relationship to have sex (and this standard applies to both sexes; not just women). So if the fictional Monica hadn't found the right guy yet, who cares? That's really supposed crucial to the storyline? Why do we have to define a woman by her virginal status (or lack thereof)? This is just another manifestation of the Madonna/whore complex that plagues so many women today. You're seen as prissy/undesirable if you're a virgin, and you're a "slut" if you have sex. Gee, that's a great way to define women, isn't it? Yet our society does, and it's no wonder, since we see it perpetuated on TV constantly. When is that going to change?

Winter is most definitely here!

Well, my usual 12 minute commute took almost 45 minutes last night; I don't think I went over 18 mph the entire way home. Yep, it was snowing that bad, but I honestly didn't mind it (after awhile, anyway. At first I was definitely frustrated!). As I was inching along, my mind wandered to those people who lived hundreds of years ago; going 18 mph in a coach or on horseback would have seemed amazingly efficient, but to me, it was frustrating. But then I thought, "Why? What do I HAVE to do that is so urgent? Why are we always in such a rush?" We often move through life way too fast. Everything is at the speed of light, and we don't take time to just stop and enjoy the moment. So, last night, as I was driving slowly home, I took time to enjoy the beauty of the snow around me, the twinkling Christmas lights, and the crisp night air.

And it was beautiful. And calming. And refreshing. I think it's increasingly important, no matter how fast or slow our life seems to move, that we take time and truly enjoy the moment. Because, right now, that's all we have.

Some Eye-Opening Experiences Christmas Shopping

Today, I decided to use my lunch hour to get some Christmas shopping done for my husband (honey, if you're reading this, you might want to stop now, unless you want your surprise to be ruined. Ok, thanks.) Anyway, as this is our first Christmas together as a married couple, I wanted to get him an ornament commemorating that milestone.

I was disappointed, however, because all I found were ornaments that said, "Our first Christmas together." No, this isn't our first Christmas together; it's our first as husband and wife, yes, but it's our eighth Christmas together.

I think the reason this bothers me is because it somehow paints the unmarried relationship as less important, less tangible. Now, let me be the first to say that I think marriage is a wonderful, beautiful thing, and it SHOULD be celebrated. But why is it that just because we signed the piece of paper, we now are officially a couple? What about the previous 7 1/2 years, in which we were committed, monogamous, and completely in love? Do those years and milestones not count for anything? Why is everything measured solely from the date of marriage? It seems as though that would invalidate the many tangible and real experiences leading up to one's wedding.

And what about those who choose, of their own volition, to abstain from the legal aspect of marriage (such as Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, or Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon) while still living out the ideal of marriage in every other way? It also seems to be a slap in the face for the many homosexual couples across the nation, who, as much as they would desire it, can't get married. We're saying, "Sorry, guys (and girls), it's only the LEGAL marriages that count. Your relationship? Well, sorry, but that's not real."

Even when we were looking for wedding invitations and the like, it bothered me. There was this one GORGEOUS invitation, but I was irked by the wording of (something along these lines), "From this day forward, I promise to love you, honor you, and forsake all others." Now, I don't have a problem with the loving, honoring, and forsaking all others part (indeed, that's what we put in our vows), but I do have an issue with the first part of the sentence. So it's only from the wedding day forward that you need to love, honor, and be faithful to your partner? The many months or years before the wedding somehow don't count, because, what, you don't have the piece of paper? You can go ahead and treat the relationship as somehow "less real" because you haven't had the big wedding and reception yet? (This is also my main issue with bachelor parties, or "the groom's last night as a single guy," as some men like to claim. No, his last night as a single guy was the night before he met his future wife. It's most definitely NOT the night or two before his wedding, and it's most certainly not an excuse to have naked women dancing lasciviously all over him. But I digress). Dan and I were as in love and as committed to one another from the time we met in 2000 as we were on our wedding day earlier this year (and, indeed, still are). All a wedding does is make the relationship legal; it shouldn't make it any more valid or committed. If it does, then you probably shouldn't be getting married.

Some may say I'm reading too much into this (and that could be a definite possibility), but it just sort of rubbed me the wrong way. Not too much, of course, and yes, I still ended up getting Dan a cute ornament. It's a snowflake that says, in silver writing, "Our first Christmas together 2007." We'll hang it every year on the tree, and when our kids ask about it, we'll say that was the first year we were legally married, but we'd been married in our hearts from the moment we met.