I keep coming back to this subject because it has been weighing on me for a couple years now: do I have the right to claim "Christian" as a label for myself? Do I need that label to help complete the picture of who I am?
I find myself torn. It feels like a lie to say that I am a Christian, but it also feels like a lie to say that I am not a Christian.
It feels like a lie to say that I am a Christian because the title "Christian" comes with all kinds of baggage. As soon as I tell anyone that I am a Christian, I have to spend several minutes explaining that I am not the typical Christian. I'm not homophobic (I stopped hating myself a while ago), I'm a feminist, I generally vote liberal, I don't attend Bible studies, I swear, and I get drunk. I am so different from the typical Christian that perhaps claiming the title is a misrepresentation of my identity. And what if me claiming to be a Christian is a misrepresentation of what true Christianity is supposed to be?
But it also feels like a lie to say that I am not a Christian. Christianity is where I come from and is what I know. Although I have rejected a lot of what I thought I believed several years ago, I have not rejected Jesus or God. But at the same time, it's not like there is an active pursuit of them. It has been a couple years since I have voluntarily gone to church, I haven't cracked open my Bible in a while, and prayer is an irregular habit. I don't spend a ton of time "in community" with Christians, much less discussing Christian things with them. (Or if I do discuss those things, often I'm picking away at and deconstructing them.) Moreover, saying that I am not a Christian comes with baggage too. It implies that one has tasted Christianity and has chosen to reject it; that is not the case with me.
I have so much uncertainty around this issue. But frankly, I'm overall happy in life. This issue isn't crushing me. So maybe I don't need an answer to the question.
Sunday, November 15, 2015
Monday, November 2, 2015
Failures of my Youth Group--Part 2
When I was in seventh grade, my cousins from the Portland area came to
visit us over a three-day weekend. This inevitably meant that they would
come to church with us on Sunday morning. I didn't realize this at the
time, but this was probably a bad idea to begin with for them since my
aunt and uncle were atheists, and my cousins were pretty much as well.
However, at the time, I was under the impression that they were
Christians.
One of the cousins was about my age, so he and I went to the Junior High youth group. The meeting probably started off with some stupid game, and then we moved into the lesson. The discussion leader posed some questions throughout, and I was surprised to see my cousin raise his hand to contribute answers. That's not something that I would have done as a first-timer.
With about 15 minutes left before heading over to "big church," the leader probably said something about how we should turn to the Bible for answers. I think. My cousin raised his hand, and said, "The Bible isn't real stuff; it's just made-up stories."
A lot happened in that moment. I realized where my cousin stood with respect to religion, when previously I was deluded that he and his family went to church at least somewhat regularly. I then realized that bringing him here may not have been such a good idea. I also became uncomfortable, because I knew that the leader would not respond to that well.
Here is how he responded:
Addressing the entire youth group, he said, "That is exactly the type of answer you will get from a non-believer." He then started making references to Thomas, the "doubting" disciple of Jesus.
My stomach turned. I was ashamed of the youth leader for publicly humiliating my cousin. Even though the young me was quite conservative, I even knew then that that was not the way one should handle that situation. As the youth leader was responding to my cousin, I kept thinking to myself, "No, no, no, please don't go there..."
I could tell that my cousin had been traumatized. In the main service, he was talking to my mom about it. He looked like he was about to cry. I don't know what all they talked about, but I do recall overhearing him ask her, "Who was Thomas?"
Did the youth leader somehow think that saying those things would win my cousin over? If that had happened to me, there is absolutely no way I would have ever returned to a church.
One of the cousins was about my age, so he and I went to the Junior High youth group. The meeting probably started off with some stupid game, and then we moved into the lesson. The discussion leader posed some questions throughout, and I was surprised to see my cousin raise his hand to contribute answers. That's not something that I would have done as a first-timer.
With about 15 minutes left before heading over to "big church," the leader probably said something about how we should turn to the Bible for answers. I think. My cousin raised his hand, and said, "The Bible isn't real stuff; it's just made-up stories."
A lot happened in that moment. I realized where my cousin stood with respect to religion, when previously I was deluded that he and his family went to church at least somewhat regularly. I then realized that bringing him here may not have been such a good idea. I also became uncomfortable, because I knew that the leader would not respond to that well.
Here is how he responded:
Addressing the entire youth group, he said, "That is exactly the type of answer you will get from a non-believer." He then started making references to Thomas, the "doubting" disciple of Jesus.
My stomach turned. I was ashamed of the youth leader for publicly humiliating my cousin. Even though the young me was quite conservative, I even knew then that that was not the way one should handle that situation. As the youth leader was responding to my cousin, I kept thinking to myself, "No, no, no, please don't go there..."
I could tell that my cousin had been traumatized. In the main service, he was talking to my mom about it. He looked like he was about to cry. I don't know what all they talked about, but I do recall overhearing him ask her, "Who was Thomas?"
Did the youth leader somehow think that saying those things would win my cousin over? If that had happened to me, there is absolutely no way I would have ever returned to a church.
Failures of my Youth Group--Part 1
We did at least one pretty horrendous things in my youth group growing up. Whenever there was a newcomer on a Sunday morning, we would force them to go to the front of the room, sit in an uncomfortable chair, and one of the leaders would ask them some questions (name, school, grade, color of your toothbrush).
Can you imagine being forced to sit in front of a group of peers you didn't know and get grilled like that? How humiliating! What if a student just wandered in and wanted to remain under the radar? Maybe they were just checking it out. And then you shove them into an uncomfortable position. How unwelcoming. How un-Christlike. Do you think doing something like that would ever make a student want to return? Highly doubtful. I would not have returned if that had happened to me.
And this practice was not limited to my youth group. I visited another youth group one time, and they did nearly the exact same thing to me. Except instead of being forced to go up front, I just stood up where I was sitting. It wasn't a problem for me because I was familiar with youth group culture, and I expected it to happen. But imagine if this was a student's first time at a church event. How humiliating.
Can you imagine being forced to sit in front of a group of peers you didn't know and get grilled like that? How humiliating! What if a student just wandered in and wanted to remain under the radar? Maybe they were just checking it out. And then you shove them into an uncomfortable position. How unwelcoming. How un-Christlike. Do you think doing something like that would ever make a student want to return? Highly doubtful. I would not have returned if that had happened to me.
And this practice was not limited to my youth group. I visited another youth group one time, and they did nearly the exact same thing to me. Except instead of being forced to go up front, I just stood up where I was sitting. It wasn't a problem for me because I was familiar with youth group culture, and I expected it to happen. But imagine if this was a student's first time at a church event. How humiliating.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
Gentrification
Finding affordable housing this past summer was insane. I was looking for a two-bedroom apartment for under $2000/month. There were very few available units that fit this classification; and anything that did was snatched up very quickly. I went to several apartment viewings, and I was one of at least twenty people there. At that point, how do you even decide who would be the "best" tenant?
Of course, there were several two-bedrooms going for $2400 or more per month. But even those had a ridiculously high demand.
According to Business Insider, Berkeley is the most expensive college town in the U.S. I suppose that makes sense because of the growth of the tech sector in Silicon Valley and San Francisco has caused a huge housing shortage in San Francisco, and rents are skyrocketing so much that it is now more expensive to rent in San Francisco than in New York. So people are moving to nearby places with cheaper rent such as Oakland and Berkeley. The demand is so high in these cities that rent rates are driven up--it's the basic supply-demand graph from Econ 1.
What does this mean for students? This means that if things continue in the way they are going, UC Berkeley will become an unaffordable school for many students. Not because of the tuition prices; but because living close enough to the school costs too much--perhaps up to twice the cost of in-state tuition (it's about halfway there right now). This is even seen now; more and more people that I know are choosing to live in El Cerrito, San Pablo, or Walnut Creek and commuting to campus every day. Or, students are resorting to desperate measures to stay in the city. Oh yeah, and the UC has no plans to build more university housing.
What are the possible effects of this? Here are two:
1) Any sense of UC Berkeley community will be destroyed because it will become a commuter school.
2) Only the super-rich will be able to afford to attend Berkeley. No wait, only the super-rich will be able to afford to attend and live in Berkeley. An important distinction.
UC Berkeley is a public university. It is supposed to be accessible to all eligible California residents, because their taxes go toward supporting the school. But the school will become inaccessible when the cost of living is more than students can afford. Only students who have access to large sums of money will be able to cough up the finances necessary for insane monthly rents plus a 2x rent security deposit.
So what happens next? The already socioeconomically privileged will gain more privilege because they have access to a world-class education. Those who are not so well-off will be unable to access the privilege that UC Berkeley gives, and they will not advance as far. So indirectly, a public institution will have contributed to increasing gentrification.
The ridiculous housing market in the Bay Area needs to be fixed. I don't know how, but rents cannot keep climbing higher.
Of course, there were several two-bedrooms going for $2400 or more per month. But even those had a ridiculously high demand.
According to Business Insider, Berkeley is the most expensive college town in the U.S. I suppose that makes sense because of the growth of the tech sector in Silicon Valley and San Francisco has caused a huge housing shortage in San Francisco, and rents are skyrocketing so much that it is now more expensive to rent in San Francisco than in New York. So people are moving to nearby places with cheaper rent such as Oakland and Berkeley. The demand is so high in these cities that rent rates are driven up--it's the basic supply-demand graph from Econ 1.
What does this mean for students? This means that if things continue in the way they are going, UC Berkeley will become an unaffordable school for many students. Not because of the tuition prices; but because living close enough to the school costs too much--perhaps up to twice the cost of in-state tuition (it's about halfway there right now). This is even seen now; more and more people that I know are choosing to live in El Cerrito, San Pablo, or Walnut Creek and commuting to campus every day. Or, students are resorting to desperate measures to stay in the city. Oh yeah, and the UC has no plans to build more university housing.
What are the possible effects of this? Here are two:
1) Any sense of UC Berkeley community will be destroyed because it will become a commuter school.
2) Only the super-rich will be able to afford to attend Berkeley. No wait, only the super-rich will be able to afford to attend and live in Berkeley. An important distinction.
UC Berkeley is a public university. It is supposed to be accessible to all eligible California residents, because their taxes go toward supporting the school. But the school will become inaccessible when the cost of living is more than students can afford. Only students who have access to large sums of money will be able to cough up the finances necessary for insane monthly rents plus a 2x rent security deposit.
So what happens next? The already socioeconomically privileged will gain more privilege because they have access to a world-class education. Those who are not so well-off will be unable to access the privilege that UC Berkeley gives, and they will not advance as far. So indirectly, a public institution will have contributed to increasing gentrification.
The ridiculous housing market in the Bay Area needs to be fixed. I don't know how, but rents cannot keep climbing higher.
Tuesday, October 6, 2015
Please use "OCD" in its proper context
"I'm really OCD about that."
No, you're not.
"I think everyone has a little OCD in them."
No, they don't.
"OCD" is not an adjective. Nor is it a trait. It is a disease. A disease which people actually suffer from. Equating your pet peeves to a disease is extremely pejorative to those of us who actually have the illness. Making that comparison trivializes the real thing and puts it on the same order as personality quirks.
This perception of what OCD is comes from what OCD produces: incessant hand-washing, incessant cleaning, repetitive checking, meticulous ordering, etc. But these are just from the compulsive side of OCD.
OCD stands for "obsessive compulsive disorder." What happens is the person regularly encounters unwanted anxious thoughts (obsessions) which cannot be suppressed. The compulsions follow as a coping mechanism to fight these crippling obsessions. For example, someone might have the anxiety that if the house is a mess, then someone will trip over an item and hurt themselves; to cope with this anxiety, they keep the house spotless. Someone might have the anxiety that if they leave the door unlocked, then someone will break in and their possessions will be stolen; to cope with this anxiety, they go back and repeatedly check that the doors are locked. There are several other examples of obsessive thoughts and their resulting compulsions, and they are always unique to the individual.
Equating "OCD" with a weird habit completely ignores the actual war that people with OCD face against their mind. There are cases of OCD where people do not have any compulsions; instead, they just suffer through the anxious obsessions. I am one of those people. We face the battle of people not believing us when we claim that we have OCD. I sometimes even find myself distrusting Dr. Ono's diagnosis of me. We don't have compulsions, so what people associate with "OCD" does not match up with us. This again completely ignores the years and years of negative thoughts that our brains have told us.
So the next time you are telling someone about a weird habit of yours, think at least twice before you say, "I'm really OCD about that." Because actually, you're not.
No, you're not.
"I think everyone has a little OCD in them."
No, they don't.
"OCD" is not an adjective. Nor is it a trait. It is a disease. A disease which people actually suffer from. Equating your pet peeves to a disease is extremely pejorative to those of us who actually have the illness. Making that comparison trivializes the real thing and puts it on the same order as personality quirks.
This perception of what OCD is comes from what OCD produces: incessant hand-washing, incessant cleaning, repetitive checking, meticulous ordering, etc. But these are just from the compulsive side of OCD.
OCD stands for "obsessive compulsive disorder." What happens is the person regularly encounters unwanted anxious thoughts (obsessions) which cannot be suppressed. The compulsions follow as a coping mechanism to fight these crippling obsessions. For example, someone might have the anxiety that if the house is a mess, then someone will trip over an item and hurt themselves; to cope with this anxiety, they keep the house spotless. Someone might have the anxiety that if they leave the door unlocked, then someone will break in and their possessions will be stolen; to cope with this anxiety, they go back and repeatedly check that the doors are locked. There are several other examples of obsessive thoughts and their resulting compulsions, and they are always unique to the individual.
Equating "OCD" with a weird habit completely ignores the actual war that people with OCD face against their mind. There are cases of OCD where people do not have any compulsions; instead, they just suffer through the anxious obsessions. I am one of those people. We face the battle of people not believing us when we claim that we have OCD. I sometimes even find myself distrusting Dr. Ono's diagnosis of me. We don't have compulsions, so what people associate with "OCD" does not match up with us. This again completely ignores the years and years of negative thoughts that our brains have told us.
So the next time you are telling someone about a weird habit of yours, think at least twice before you say, "I'm really OCD about that." Because actually, you're not.
Sunday, August 23, 2015
Do's and Do-Not's for helping a suicidal person
Here is a list of do's and do-not's if you are interacting with a person who is having a suicidal moment. Most of this is based off of my experiences when I was suicidal--either what someone did that worked for me, or what I would have liked someone to do. This list is by no means comprehensive, nor is it 100% relevant to every case. Each case must be handled with the utmost tact, and careful discernment must be used to decide whether these points apply to the situation or not.
DO's
1. Shut up and listen.
This person has come to you because they trust you, and/or because they are looking for a way out. Give them a safe space to tell you what is going on, uninhibited. Let them say all the curse words they need to; do not interrupt. Give them your full, undivided attention; their life may depend on it. There are a few times in life when it is totally acceptable for a person to be 100% selfish--this is one of them.
2. Ask how they want you to help.
The person might want you to verbally respond to what they're saying; the person might want you to not say anything. You will never know why the person came to you unless you ask what they are looking for from you. Ask specifically what they want and do everything you can to meet them there (unless they ask for you to give them a knife, or to leave them alone).
3. Ask questions.
Get inside their head. Try to obtain their perspective and to understand why they are feeling this way. Asking questions shows that you care about the person. Getting the person to talk also allows them to verbally express their thoughts, which as I have found, sometimes gives them a more objective perspective hearing their thoughts out loud. If at any point, the person says they do not want to answer any more questions, or if they clearly become agitated, stop.
4. Remind them that they are loved.
Ask the person to list names of people who would miss them if they were gone. If they sincerely feel that everyone else would be better off if they were dead, tell them how much you would miss them if they ended their life. If you are physically with the person (i.e. not chatting over the internet), provide physical affection (a hug, a back scratch, sitting next to them, etc.). One time my roommate let me sleep in his bed with him when I was in a crisis, which helped immensely.
5. Hide all instruments that a person could use.
I was planning to OD on my anxiety medication one time; my roommate took it away from me and put it in the care of another person. I once asked my friend to hide the set of knives in the kitchen. Find out if the person has a specific plan to end their life, and take the tools away. Hide the (potential) weapons, take away the pills, close the window, take the car keys.
6. Get help.
Perhaps you need to get in touch with someone who is closer with this person. If the situation warrants it, drive this person to a hospital. Or, in extreme cases, dial 911.
7. Follow up.
Once the peak crisis has passed, follow up with the person. See how they are doing. If they are not already doing so, work with them to find a therapist--do not let the incident just slide.
DO NOT's
1. Offer unwarranted advice, experiences, or rationalizations.
The person has probably come to you because they want to be heard, not to be counseled. More often than not, the person knows deep down that their thinking is flawed, so advice is unnecessary. While your own experiences with crisis moments like this may seem relevant, the person has too much going on with their own crisis to have the emotional energy to care about your situations--and it's nothing against you. Rationalizations are the least helpful of these three; rationalizing the events that contributed to the person's crisis has the effect of saying, "You are wrong for feeling this way," and drives their self-esteem lower. As mentioned earlier, the suicidal person often knows their irrationality deep down; they don't need to be reminded of that.
Of course, you can offer these things if the person consents to it. But you must ask first (and respect them if they say "No"), or they must ask for it. Do not offer it unwarranted.
2. Change the subject.
Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Yes, it is uncomfortable, but changing the subject communicates that the person's issue is not important.
3. Leave the person alone.
This is a matter of life and death for the person. If they have led you into this place where they are vulnerable, you have an obligation to care for this person and see them through until the crisis has passed. Handing the person off to someone else better suited to the situation (i.e. someone that they are closer with) is acceptable. If the crisis is happening late at night, stay up with the person until they go to sleep. Leaving the person hanging communicates that you do not care enough for them, which gives them more reason to go through with suicide.
4. Belittle, minimize, or shame.
All of these communicate that the person is wrong for feeling this way, which is victim blaming, which worsens the emotional state of the person. Acknowledge what the person is feeling and how they are hurting, even if you think they are wrong. Yes, they may not have the complete story or the "right" perspective, but completing the story or offering the "right" perspective will not make their current thoughts and feelings suddenly disappear. Besides, there is more going on with the person than you can fully know.
5. Try to solve the problem.
Unless you are a clinical psychologist, there is not much that you can do to fix what is going on. You are not qualified to do so, and often, the situations causing the crisis are outside of both of your controls. All you can do is meet the person where they are and support them there.
6. Quote Scripture.
This applies to Christians. Many Christians try to help other Christians by quoting a "relevant" verse and then leaving it at that. Quoting a verse at a suicidal person is effectively the same as offering unwarranted advice. Often, if the person is a Christian, they probably are already familiar with the verse that you've told them. If they could have solved the problem with Scripture, they would have already. They are coming to you because you are a person who will directly respond to them; they can look up Scripture on their own.
7. Tell them to "suck it up".
This is effectively the same as telling a person with a cold, "Stop having a sore throat." It's not that simple. This crisis is happening because they cannot handle the situation, and they cannot just "suck it up." They've already tried to do that, guaranteed. Saying this or something similar tells the person that it is not okay to feel this way and they need to stop; it also tells them that you don't care enough to take the time to meet them where they are. In suicidal moments, the last thing a person needs is for someone to communicate to them that they don't care.
DO's
1. Shut up and listen.
This person has come to you because they trust you, and/or because they are looking for a way out. Give them a safe space to tell you what is going on, uninhibited. Let them say all the curse words they need to; do not interrupt. Give them your full, undivided attention; their life may depend on it. There are a few times in life when it is totally acceptable for a person to be 100% selfish--this is one of them.
2. Ask how they want you to help.
The person might want you to verbally respond to what they're saying; the person might want you to not say anything. You will never know why the person came to you unless you ask what they are looking for from you. Ask specifically what they want and do everything you can to meet them there (unless they ask for you to give them a knife, or to leave them alone).
3. Ask questions.
Get inside their head. Try to obtain their perspective and to understand why they are feeling this way. Asking questions shows that you care about the person. Getting the person to talk also allows them to verbally express their thoughts, which as I have found, sometimes gives them a more objective perspective hearing their thoughts out loud. If at any point, the person says they do not want to answer any more questions, or if they clearly become agitated, stop.
4. Remind them that they are loved.
Ask the person to list names of people who would miss them if they were gone. If they sincerely feel that everyone else would be better off if they were dead, tell them how much you would miss them if they ended their life. If you are physically with the person (i.e. not chatting over the internet), provide physical affection (a hug, a back scratch, sitting next to them, etc.). One time my roommate let me sleep in his bed with him when I was in a crisis, which helped immensely.
5. Hide all instruments that a person could use.
I was planning to OD on my anxiety medication one time; my roommate took it away from me and put it in the care of another person. I once asked my friend to hide the set of knives in the kitchen. Find out if the person has a specific plan to end their life, and take the tools away. Hide the (potential) weapons, take away the pills, close the window, take the car keys.
6. Get help.
Perhaps you need to get in touch with someone who is closer with this person. If the situation warrants it, drive this person to a hospital. Or, in extreme cases, dial 911.
7. Follow up.
Once the peak crisis has passed, follow up with the person. See how they are doing. If they are not already doing so, work with them to find a therapist--do not let the incident just slide.
DO NOT's
1. Offer unwarranted advice, experiences, or rationalizations.
The person has probably come to you because they want to be heard, not to be counseled. More often than not, the person knows deep down that their thinking is flawed, so advice is unnecessary. While your own experiences with crisis moments like this may seem relevant, the person has too much going on with their own crisis to have the emotional energy to care about your situations--and it's nothing against you. Rationalizations are the least helpful of these three; rationalizing the events that contributed to the person's crisis has the effect of saying, "You are wrong for feeling this way," and drives their self-esteem lower. As mentioned earlier, the suicidal person often knows their irrationality deep down; they don't need to be reminded of that.
Of course, you can offer these things if the person consents to it. But you must ask first (and respect them if they say "No"), or they must ask for it. Do not offer it unwarranted.
2. Change the subject.
Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Yes, it is uncomfortable, but changing the subject communicates that the person's issue is not important.
3. Leave the person alone.
This is a matter of life and death for the person. If they have led you into this place where they are vulnerable, you have an obligation to care for this person and see them through until the crisis has passed. Handing the person off to someone else better suited to the situation (i.e. someone that they are closer with) is acceptable. If the crisis is happening late at night, stay up with the person until they go to sleep. Leaving the person hanging communicates that you do not care enough for them, which gives them more reason to go through with suicide.
4. Belittle, minimize, or shame.
All of these communicate that the person is wrong for feeling this way, which is victim blaming, which worsens the emotional state of the person. Acknowledge what the person is feeling and how they are hurting, even if you think they are wrong. Yes, they may not have the complete story or the "right" perspective, but completing the story or offering the "right" perspective will not make their current thoughts and feelings suddenly disappear. Besides, there is more going on with the person than you can fully know.
5. Try to solve the problem.
Unless you are a clinical psychologist, there is not much that you can do to fix what is going on. You are not qualified to do so, and often, the situations causing the crisis are outside of both of your controls. All you can do is meet the person where they are and support them there.
6. Quote Scripture.
This applies to Christians. Many Christians try to help other Christians by quoting a "relevant" verse and then leaving it at that. Quoting a verse at a suicidal person is effectively the same as offering unwarranted advice. Often, if the person is a Christian, they probably are already familiar with the verse that you've told them. If they could have solved the problem with Scripture, they would have already. They are coming to you because you are a person who will directly respond to them; they can look up Scripture on their own.
7. Tell them to "suck it up".
This is effectively the same as telling a person with a cold, "Stop having a sore throat." It's not that simple. This crisis is happening because they cannot handle the situation, and they cannot just "suck it up." They've already tried to do that, guaranteed. Saying this or something similar tells the person that it is not okay to feel this way and they need to stop; it also tells them that you don't care enough to take the time to meet them where they are. In suicidal moments, the last thing a person needs is for someone to communicate to them that they don't care.
Sunday, August 16, 2015
Looking back
I’ve spent a significant amount of time over the past two
weeks moving. I’ve been transitioning out of a pretty cush living situation in
the fraternity house into a two-bedroom apartment with no living room far from
campus where I have to pay my own utilities and internet for the first time.
Inevitably, this has involved packing up and unpacking everything that I
consider worthwhile keeping.
During this packing and unpacking process, I’ve come across
many small sheets of paper that contain my thoughts about faith at that moment.
Usually I wrote them during church services, fellowship meetings, or Christian
events when I felt that processing my thoughts would be more constructive to my
relationship with God than listening to a speaker. (As I progressed through
college, that became a higher percentage of events that I attended.) Because I’ve
kept these papers, I can review what I was thinking about one, two, three years
ago concerning faith.
What this has shown me is that during my college faith, I
was usually thinking about love. When I say love, I specifically mean love for
myself and whom God loves. A huge lesson I learned in college was that it is ok
to take care of yourself before others. I heard a different interpretation of
the command “Love your neighbor as yourself.” I had previously taken it to mean:
give priority to other people’s needs, and reduce your view of yourself to worthlessness
so that you will view them as more important. I heard for the first time that
this command implies that you need to love yourself in order to love others
more effectively, and that that is ok. Through counseling, I also learned to give
legitimacy to my thoughts and feelings, and about the power that I have over destructive,
untrue thoughts.
I also frequently wrestled with whom God loves. Yes, of
course, God loves everyone, but this gets more at to whom he shows grace. What
I’ve written often deals with same-sex relationships, those who are “unsaved”
but good people, and people with different beliefs. I can see in my writing a
broadening of my understanding of how far God’s love extends, which has also
coincided with my uncertainty about the existence of hell. I think my writing
also points to the fact that I have become less and less certain about who is "saved". I don’t and can’t
know whom God has and has not given grace to, so I would not be at all
justified in treating some people as less important. This in particular came up
regarding different denominations. At my conservative Christian high school, I
was taught that Catholics are going to hell and needed to “truly meet Jesus”
and “be saved”. In college, I was in a Christian fraternity with a couple
Catholics. I also attended a Catholic mass once. How on earth could I dare to
say that these people weren’t “saved”?
It has been encouraging for me to see the person I have
evolved into through these writings. And as I begin a new chapter of my life moving
into this new place, I wonder where I will be in one, two, three years, and
what writings I will have to remind me of the journey along the way.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Notes on my phone that I wrote in emotional moments
May 12, 2014: Hungover at church
You are only feeling attached to [NAME 1] because you are in a vulnerable place right now. You realize that your self-esteem and worth have been compromised, and you have become dependent on others' approval for satisfaction with yourself. Because you are feeling insecure, you want someone who will be an anchor. Someone who will give you that approval. And because you are in this vulnerable place, your desire to date [NAME 1] has returned with more powerful force. You want to be known and loved, which are good things. But a relationship can be an easy and dangerous out when you aren't comfortable by yourself. It can only be a quick fix. It is so important to still be yourself in a relationship and not to conform to who the other person is. And if i were to get with [NAME 1], I fear that would happen. You haven't even talked to him about faith and whatnot. I bet there would be a discrepancy there.
People want what they can't have. And I want [NAME 1], but I can't have him.
Even if I could have him, I don't think I should go for it. He hasn't shown himself to be interested enough. I need a partner who will make time for me. Where I won't be the only one who calls him up. I don't deserve to be in a relationship where I'm the only one putting in effort. I'm worth a lot more than that. I'm worth someone's effort and time. Anything less would be me settling. I need to shoot high and hope that someone else can keep up with me. Someone who is sweet, caring compassionate, sympathetic, patient, cuddly, strong, intelligent, secure, and adorable.
July 18, 2014: At a club in New York
I can't do this. I didn't plan for clubbing. I'm not nearly dressed appropriately, I'm feeling insecure about my body, and I'm in a place I don't know. And I'm tired. And everyone here is so much more attractive than I am--and then there's me.
[FRIEND 1] is attractive and dressed fine. [FRIEND 2] got someone to say he was cute. And me? I'm just there. Being awkward.
November 14, 2014: Thoughts on the events of the last two days
[NAME 2] checked in on Facebook that he was at a dermatology place, and he provided the caption, "Time to play 'How many stabs in the chest does it take to make [NAME 2] cry.'" And my emotional reaction to that post took me quite by surprise. I had a vision of me sitting right by him in the dermatologist's office. I wanted to be the one to hold his hand and tell him it would all be over soon. I wanted to be the one who was embracing him as he felt the pain from the shots. I wanted to be the one to wipe away his tears as they slowly rolled down his cheeks. More generally, I wanted to be the one that gives him comfort and security. I wanted to protect him from getting hurt.
I had a similar reaction with [NAME 3] last night. I took him to the hospital for strep throat. And I wanted more than anything else to be confused for his partner. As we sat in the waiting room for his name to be called, I wanted to hold his hand. When he was called, he actually invited me to go back with him, but I decline, even though I wanted to be the one whom he trusts so much that I can hear his medical information.
But these desires will not be met. [NAME 3] has friend-zoned me, and [NAME 2] has told me that there is another guy that he is about to become exclusive with. These images that I have will never be realities.
But I cannot wait for the day when that person comes into my life.
November 14, 2014: Waiting for the BART train after a phone call
I mean, I can't say I'm surprised that [NAME 1] has a boyfriend. But it still makes me feel weird. Like, I don't really hurt that much, but I sort of do. I can't figure out what I'm feeling. I'm trying to describe what is going through my head, but I don't know. There's nothing. Like, I don't know if I'm jealous, hurt, sad, happy for him, or if I legitimately don't care and am over him. I can't determine it.
Also, [NAME 1] said he wants to hang out. Only if he makes the effort. I now have no reason to even try. And it's funny that hanging out with him doesn't even come across his mind until I called him up.
July 10, 2015: Sitting in my car
We are learning life lessons: never go to a social gathering if the host is the only person you know.
Consider that one time you went to Town with [FRIEND 3] and a bunch of his friends. Or that time you went to [FRIEND 4]'s wedding. Or tonight at [NAME 2]'s party. I'm glad I left before I had an anxiety attack, but I can't help but feel that I should have known better. Of course that was going to happen.
You are only feeling attached to [NAME 1] because you are in a vulnerable place right now. You realize that your self-esteem and worth have been compromised, and you have become dependent on others' approval for satisfaction with yourself. Because you are feeling insecure, you want someone who will be an anchor. Someone who will give you that approval. And because you are in this vulnerable place, your desire to date [NAME 1] has returned with more powerful force. You want to be known and loved, which are good things. But a relationship can be an easy and dangerous out when you aren't comfortable by yourself. It can only be a quick fix. It is so important to still be yourself in a relationship and not to conform to who the other person is. And if i were to get with [NAME 1], I fear that would happen. You haven't even talked to him about faith and whatnot. I bet there would be a discrepancy there.
People want what they can't have. And I want [NAME 1], but I can't have him.
Even if I could have him, I don't think I should go for it. He hasn't shown himself to be interested enough. I need a partner who will make time for me. Where I won't be the only one who calls him up. I don't deserve to be in a relationship where I'm the only one putting in effort. I'm worth a lot more than that. I'm worth someone's effort and time. Anything less would be me settling. I need to shoot high and hope that someone else can keep up with me. Someone who is sweet, caring compassionate, sympathetic, patient, cuddly, strong, intelligent, secure, and adorable.
July 18, 2014: At a club in New York
I can't do this. I didn't plan for clubbing. I'm not nearly dressed appropriately, I'm feeling insecure about my body, and I'm in a place I don't know. And I'm tired. And everyone here is so much more attractive than I am--and then there's me.
[FRIEND 1] is attractive and dressed fine. [FRIEND 2] got someone to say he was cute. And me? I'm just there. Being awkward.
November 14, 2014: Thoughts on the events of the last two days
[NAME 2] checked in on Facebook that he was at a dermatology place, and he provided the caption, "Time to play 'How many stabs in the chest does it take to make [NAME 2] cry.'" And my emotional reaction to that post took me quite by surprise. I had a vision of me sitting right by him in the dermatologist's office. I wanted to be the one to hold his hand and tell him it would all be over soon. I wanted to be the one who was embracing him as he felt the pain from the shots. I wanted to be the one to wipe away his tears as they slowly rolled down his cheeks. More generally, I wanted to be the one that gives him comfort and security. I wanted to protect him from getting hurt.
I had a similar reaction with [NAME 3] last night. I took him to the hospital for strep throat. And I wanted more than anything else to be confused for his partner. As we sat in the waiting room for his name to be called, I wanted to hold his hand. When he was called, he actually invited me to go back with him, but I decline, even though I wanted to be the one whom he trusts so much that I can hear his medical information.
But these desires will not be met. [NAME 3] has friend-zoned me, and [NAME 2] has told me that there is another guy that he is about to become exclusive with. These images that I have will never be realities.
But I cannot wait for the day when that person comes into my life.
November 14, 2014: Waiting for the BART train after a phone call
I mean, I can't say I'm surprised that [NAME 1] has a boyfriend. But it still makes me feel weird. Like, I don't really hurt that much, but I sort of do. I can't figure out what I'm feeling. I'm trying to describe what is going through my head, but I don't know. There's nothing. Like, I don't know if I'm jealous, hurt, sad, happy for him, or if I legitimately don't care and am over him. I can't determine it.
Also, [NAME 1] said he wants to hang out. Only if he makes the effort. I now have no reason to even try. And it's funny that hanging out with him doesn't even come across his mind until I called him up.
July 10, 2015: Sitting in my car
We are learning life lessons: never go to a social gathering if the host is the only person you know.
Consider that one time you went to Town with [FRIEND 3] and a bunch of his friends. Or that time you went to [FRIEND 4]'s wedding. Or tonight at [NAME 2]'s party. I'm glad I left before I had an anxiety attack, but I can't help but feel that I should have known better. Of course that was going to happen.
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Summer Vacation should be abolished
Summer vacation is a product of the early days of the American education system. During this period, many students lived on farms and were required to help at home with the annual harvest. Summer vacation was created to allow ample time for students to help on the farms without missing out on instruction. The vacation thus became cemented into the American education system, and it is a legacy which we have to this day. It is one of the most prized aspects of education, and it provides a tangible goal for students ("I just have to make it through three more weeks of school, and then summer!"). However, since we no longer live in an agricultural society, the annual practice of giving a vacation only continues because of tradition.
Tradition is not a good enough reason to keep doing something, especially when the harmful effects of summer vacation have been shown.
The negative effects of summer vacation's learning loss can be abated by parents placing children in various enrichment programs such as academic camps or private lessons, but studies show that lower-class families are less likely to take these steps, usually for financial reasons. Thus, while summer vacation hurts all students, it in particular hurts lower-class students more and students who are English language learners.
Aside from the scholarly arguments, I have some cases of my own for why summer vacation should be abolished.
First of all, having a summer vacation through college creates unrealistic expectations for adulthood. There is no such thing as "summer vacation" in the adult world, and it is ridiculous for us to raise children to practice having an extended break. Besides, when you are a student, that is your job--to study. It should be treated as such, without 3-month breaks. Instead, we could create "vacation days" for students just as there are vacation days for working adults. I will touch on this more near the end.
Second, abolishing summer could speed the educational process along. In elementary school in particular, there is a ton of overlap between different grade levels of math. Also, a lot of time is spent at the beginning of each school year reviewing the content from the previous year. If summer vacation were eliminated, a lot of instruction time could be saved. This could either allow students to learn more material in 13 years of school (perhaps it could become standard to introduce Calculus in the K-12 system), or it could reduce the 13-year process to maybe 8 or 9 years. Students could then spend some time deciding on a field of interest before deciding what to study in college.
Third, eliminating summer would eliminate the pressure that many students feel to find a summer job. The whole concept of a "summer job" is becoming increasingly rare, particularly since the Great Recession (I have had personal experience with that). My inability to find a summer job after I graduated high school was a leading cause in my depression spells that summer--I felt useless, worthless, and guilted by my parents.
On a similar note (this is maybe point 3.5), teaching could become a more financially intelligent career option. Even though teachers are currently woefully underpaid given the critical social work that they do, an argument goes that they are paid so little because they only work 9 months out of the year. True, but do you really think they are going to be able to find another source of income in the other 3 months? Teachers do a lot of preparatory work in the off-months anyway. Abolishing summer vacation would justify paying teachers a year-round salary. But won't increased public costs in wages be an issue? one might argue. I suspect that costs would probably stay about the same, if students finished the 13-year track in 8 or 9 years.
In my ideal world, what would a school year look like? The year should be divided into four quarters (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December), with one school year extending from January to December. (This way, we could say "the 2014 school year" rather than "the 2013-2014 school year.") There would be a week-long break after quarters 1 and 3, and there would be a 3-week long break after quarters 2 and 4. Three weeks is long enough for families to take vacations. As mentioned above, students could also have maybe 15-20 "vacation days" per year that they could use throughout the school year, in the same manner as for full-time adult employees. That could help offset the congested airports and roadways that would surely result from the 3-week semester breaks. Students would then finish the K-12 education in 8 or 9 years, and then spend a couple years working or figuring out what interests them so that they can be better prepared to select a college major.
Of course, this will never happen. Summer vacation is too treasured of a thing for the system to change, as evidenced by the movie Recess: School's Out!. It is nice to dream of a more sensible, equitable, and efficient education system, though.
Tradition is not a good enough reason to keep doing something, especially when the harmful effects of summer vacation have been shown.
The negative effects of summer vacation's learning loss can be abated by parents placing children in various enrichment programs such as academic camps or private lessons, but studies show that lower-class families are less likely to take these steps, usually for financial reasons. Thus, while summer vacation hurts all students, it in particular hurts lower-class students more and students who are English language learners.
Aside from the scholarly arguments, I have some cases of my own for why summer vacation should be abolished.
First of all, having a summer vacation through college creates unrealistic expectations for adulthood. There is no such thing as "summer vacation" in the adult world, and it is ridiculous for us to raise children to practice having an extended break. Besides, when you are a student, that is your job--to study. It should be treated as such, without 3-month breaks. Instead, we could create "vacation days" for students just as there are vacation days for working adults. I will touch on this more near the end.
Second, abolishing summer could speed the educational process along. In elementary school in particular, there is a ton of overlap between different grade levels of math. Also, a lot of time is spent at the beginning of each school year reviewing the content from the previous year. If summer vacation were eliminated, a lot of instruction time could be saved. This could either allow students to learn more material in 13 years of school (perhaps it could become standard to introduce Calculus in the K-12 system), or it could reduce the 13-year process to maybe 8 or 9 years. Students could then spend some time deciding on a field of interest before deciding what to study in college.
Third, eliminating summer would eliminate the pressure that many students feel to find a summer job. The whole concept of a "summer job" is becoming increasingly rare, particularly since the Great Recession (I have had personal experience with that). My inability to find a summer job after I graduated high school was a leading cause in my depression spells that summer--I felt useless, worthless, and guilted by my parents.
On a similar note (this is maybe point 3.5), teaching could become a more financially intelligent career option. Even though teachers are currently woefully underpaid given the critical social work that they do, an argument goes that they are paid so little because they only work 9 months out of the year. True, but do you really think they are going to be able to find another source of income in the other 3 months? Teachers do a lot of preparatory work in the off-months anyway. Abolishing summer vacation would justify paying teachers a year-round salary. But won't increased public costs in wages be an issue? one might argue. I suspect that costs would probably stay about the same, if students finished the 13-year track in 8 or 9 years.
In my ideal world, what would a school year look like? The year should be divided into four quarters (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December), with one school year extending from January to December. (This way, we could say "the 2014 school year" rather than "the 2013-2014 school year.") There would be a week-long break after quarters 1 and 3, and there would be a 3-week long break after quarters 2 and 4. Three weeks is long enough for families to take vacations. As mentioned above, students could also have maybe 15-20 "vacation days" per year that they could use throughout the school year, in the same manner as for full-time adult employees. That could help offset the congested airports and roadways that would surely result from the 3-week semester breaks. Students would then finish the K-12 education in 8 or 9 years, and then spend a couple years working or figuring out what interests them so that they can be better prepared to select a college major.
Of course, this will never happen. Summer vacation is too treasured of a thing for the system to change, as evidenced by the movie Recess: School's Out!. It is nice to dream of a more sensible, equitable, and efficient education system, though.
Sunday, July 5, 2015
A reminder to myself about this blog
I frequently read articles and blog posts on the internet, and I often find myself intimidated. I am floored by the writing quality and poignant insights, and I compare them to what I write here. It makes me want to labor intensively over every single post so that I can capture my exact thoughts and make every sentence flow together seamlessly; or it makes me want to just quit because I know I can never compete with the other writers.
But then I remember that I am not writing these posts for other people. I am writing for myself. My blog is an exercise for me to find ways to express my thoughts, and to give myself validity to my insights.
I also think that my stream-of-consciousness, imperfectly-organized, shaky-logic posts would lose some of their authenticity and organicity (probably not a real word, but there is no noun form of "organic") if I were to spend hours over each post. Ain't nobody got time for that!
Besides, I'm not a writer. I'm an engineer. I simply don't have the gift for writing that others do. And that's okay.
So, what does it matter how my posts turn out? My thoughts on an issue are not less valid because they are less eloquent than someone else's thoughts on the issue.
But then I remember that I am not writing these posts for other people. I am writing for myself. My blog is an exercise for me to find ways to express my thoughts, and to give myself validity to my insights.
I also think that my stream-of-consciousness, imperfectly-organized, shaky-logic posts would lose some of their authenticity and organicity (probably not a real word, but there is no noun form of "organic") if I were to spend hours over each post. Ain't nobody got time for that!
Besides, I'm not a writer. I'm an engineer. I simply don't have the gift for writing that others do. And that's okay.
So, what does it matter how my posts turn out? My thoughts on an issue are not less valid because they are less eloquent than someone else's thoughts on the issue.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Three posts on LGBT stuff: "The personal story" (3)
This one is different from the previous two because it is not about practices that I have a problem with; it is a personal experience, and I am writing to process what I am feeling. I just included it in this bundle because it is related to LGBT stuff.
I had a friend and roommate in college who was super-Christian, but he also had a history with gay sex. He did not hide what he did his past, but he strove to suppress who he was in the past. This took the form of him searching hard for emotional intimacy in a girlfriend, while subtly disapproving of and condemning those of us who had made peace with our sexual identities. When I first met the guy, I respected him so much; when I heard of his past with gay sex, I respected him even more because I thought I had found common ground in him. But as I found out, he was unwilling to revisit his past experiences as a possible indication of his identity. He tried so hard to ensure his experiences were just a mistake, and were not part of who he was.
Because of his stance on gay sex/relationships and his past experiences, he was in the perfect position to be revered in the Christian circles we both found ourselves in. He was idolized as "the gay guy who had made it." "Look at him; he is proof that it is possible to overcome this struggle you are facing." That drove me nuts. His situation discredited all the experiences I had had and all the thinking that I had done to arrive at my beliefs on the issue.
I feared for his first girlfriend. I was never convinced that he was "over" his past, so I feared that she would fall for him, and he might fall for her; but the truth would eventually manifest itself and her heart would be broken. That is why when he finally met someone, I didn't want it to happen. Every time he described her as "so beautiful" and "so attractive," I was not convinced. It seemed to me as if he was trying so hard to force himself to feel this way about her because of his beliefs on gay sex and relationships. He did finally admit to me that he was probably bi.
Fast-forward two years. I get a text from him one night informing me that he and his girlfriend broke up because he realized that he is "just gay." He also included a brief apology because he said that he "was stupid and wrong . . . and it's good for people to have people."
I was shocked. I did not see that coming. I'm all for it, but I didn't expect him to change his mind on the issue. I thought he was going to get married to his girlfriend; they had started doing pre-engagement counseling. An evil part of me wanted to say, "I told you so!" or "I knew it!" but of course, that wouldn't be very tactful considering his situation. He still seeks intimacy and commitment, so he says he will see other people when he's ready. Now I'm having to forgive the person that he used to be. He could almost be called a hypocrite for disapproving of those of us who had stuff about ourselves figured out a few years ago. He had hurt me quite a bit in the past, but now it's ok for him to allow himself to feel the way that I have for years? I'm finding that that is hard for me to let go of, at least right now. I'm sure this is just reactionary, and it will disappear with time.
Because, ultimately, I am happy for him. I am happy that he is finally being honest with himself. I am happy that he got out of the relationship he was in before there was a marriage license attached to it. And I am happy that he now accepts a word to describe his identity--I remember how liberating that was for me, because it placed me into a community and let me know that I was not alone. Insert abrupt ending here.
I had a friend and roommate in college who was super-Christian, but he also had a history with gay sex. He did not hide what he did his past, but he strove to suppress who he was in the past. This took the form of him searching hard for emotional intimacy in a girlfriend, while subtly disapproving of and condemning those of us who had made peace with our sexual identities. When I first met the guy, I respected him so much; when I heard of his past with gay sex, I respected him even more because I thought I had found common ground in him. But as I found out, he was unwilling to revisit his past experiences as a possible indication of his identity. He tried so hard to ensure his experiences were just a mistake, and were not part of who he was.
Because of his stance on gay sex/relationships and his past experiences, he was in the perfect position to be revered in the Christian circles we both found ourselves in. He was idolized as "the gay guy who had made it." "Look at him; he is proof that it is possible to overcome this struggle you are facing." That drove me nuts. His situation discredited all the experiences I had had and all the thinking that I had done to arrive at my beliefs on the issue.
I feared for his first girlfriend. I was never convinced that he was "over" his past, so I feared that she would fall for him, and he might fall for her; but the truth would eventually manifest itself and her heart would be broken. That is why when he finally met someone, I didn't want it to happen. Every time he described her as "so beautiful" and "so attractive," I was not convinced. It seemed to me as if he was trying so hard to force himself to feel this way about her because of his beliefs on gay sex and relationships. He did finally admit to me that he was probably bi.
Fast-forward two years. I get a text from him one night informing me that he and his girlfriend broke up because he realized that he is "just gay." He also included a brief apology because he said that he "was stupid and wrong . . . and it's good for people to have people."
I was shocked. I did not see that coming. I'm all for it, but I didn't expect him to change his mind on the issue. I thought he was going to get married to his girlfriend; they had started doing pre-engagement counseling. An evil part of me wanted to say, "I told you so!" or "I knew it!" but of course, that wouldn't be very tactful considering his situation. He still seeks intimacy and commitment, so he says he will see other people when he's ready. Now I'm having to forgive the person that he used to be. He could almost be called a hypocrite for disapproving of those of us who had stuff about ourselves figured out a few years ago. He had hurt me quite a bit in the past, but now it's ok for him to allow himself to feel the way that I have for years? I'm finding that that is hard for me to let go of, at least right now. I'm sure this is just reactionary, and it will disappear with time.
Because, ultimately, I am happy for him. I am happy that he is finally being honest with himself. I am happy that he got out of the relationship he was in before there was a marriage license attached to it. And I am happy that he now accepts a word to describe his identity--I remember how liberating that was for me, because it placed me into a community and let me know that I was not alone. Insert abrupt ending here.
Three posts on LGBT stuff: "Pride Festivals" (2)
SF Pride is never that exciting for me.
Pride has lost its authenticity, in my view. It is always swarming with non-LGBT people who attend "just for the experience" and as an excuse to wear silly rainbow costumes and to get drunk. Additionally, the parade is pretty much a processional of corporate sponsorship for LGBT rights. It can be a huge positive marketing ploy if your company brands itself as an ally and marches in the parade. The freebies that many companies hand out while processing is also an easy way to advertise. And, groups that hand freebies out detract from other groups that perhaps are more legitimate for the LGBT cause but are not handing freebies out. The parade gives the impression that corporate allies are the face of LGBT rights.
All this wouldn't be that much of a problem for me if Pride would just be honest about what it is. But the fact that it keeps trying to brand itself as a community solidarity and bonding event is just plain misleading.
A friend of mine posted an on-point status:
"Dear non-queer people in SF today:
Today is not for you. Pride is not a rite of passage for you to get "cool points," nor does it exist so you can finally get turned up in your rainbow tutu.
In light of the recent SCOTUS decision, this day is even more for those who lived through the HIV/AIDS crisis without being able to visit their partners, and for gay and lesbian couples to finally know that should they choose to, their love is now protected legally in about 1,300 new ways.
Pride has lost its authenticity, in my view. It is always swarming with non-LGBT people who attend "just for the experience" and as an excuse to wear silly rainbow costumes and to get drunk. Additionally, the parade is pretty much a processional of corporate sponsorship for LGBT rights. It can be a huge positive marketing ploy if your company brands itself as an ally and marches in the parade. The freebies that many companies hand out while processing is also an easy way to advertise. And, groups that hand freebies out detract from other groups that perhaps are more legitimate for the LGBT cause but are not handing freebies out. The parade gives the impression that corporate allies are the face of LGBT rights.
All this wouldn't be that much of a problem for me if Pride would just be honest about what it is. But the fact that it keeps trying to brand itself as a community solidarity and bonding event is just plain misleading.
A friend of mine posted an on-point status:
"Dear non-queer people in SF today:
Today is not for you. Pride is not a rite of passage for you to get "cool points," nor does it exist so you can finally get turned up in your rainbow tutu.
In light of the recent SCOTUS decision, this day is even more for those who lived through the HIV/AIDS crisis without being able to visit their partners, and for gay and lesbian couples to finally know that should they choose to, their love is now protected legally in about 1,300 new ways.
Pride is for my community to be visible, to be celebrated, to reflect
and to re-commit to lifting up all in our community. We are grateful for
our allies and happy to have you at our party.
But this is still not your party."
And this article sums my issues up pretty well too:
When, Exactly, Did Pride Become A Party For Straight Teens?
But this is still not your party."
And this article sums my issues up pretty well too:
When, Exactly, Did Pride Become A Party For Straight Teens?
Three posts on LGBT stuff: "Gay Best Friend" (1)
I have issues with the whole "gay best friend" thing.
First of all, having a "gay best friend" is objectifying. Younger women are often super proud that they have someone that they can call a "gay best friend," and he is often used to increase the woman's social status. After all, every woman wants to have a "gay best friend"--a man that they can talk to about girl stuff without fear of any romantic attraction developing. In short, the gay best friend is a multi-use tool for the woman: useful for making other women jealous, useful for increasing her social status, and useful as a sounding board.
Second, "gay best friend" is a phrase that reinforces the differentiation from normal society that gay guys face all the time. The "gay best friend" has to constantly be clarified that he is the GAY best friend. Rather than holding the position of "best friend," the man is placed into a separate category that he can neatly slide into. His gayness is always emphasized, which effectively serves to continue differentiating him from the normal population.
Third, "gay best friend" reinforces stereotypes. Best friends are often best friends because they have a lot in common; a gay man often achieves the status of being "gay best friend" because he is a more effeminate man ("OMG that outfit is so cute on you!") and the woman feels that he is a safe person to discuss her thoughts and feelings with. Suppose a woman has an effeminate "gay best friend." Now suppose he was not as effeminate. In that case, he might never achieve the same emotional intimacy with her, and he might never have achieved the title "gay best friend." This implies that femininity of gay men is valued among women seeking a "gay best friend," which serves to reinforce stereotypes of gay men as effeminate.
Logic may have been a little shaky in the above points, but I hope the general concepts make sense. I had to pump this one out so I can get to writing the other two posts.
First of all, having a "gay best friend" is objectifying. Younger women are often super proud that they have someone that they can call a "gay best friend," and he is often used to increase the woman's social status. After all, every woman wants to have a "gay best friend"--a man that they can talk to about girl stuff without fear of any romantic attraction developing. In short, the gay best friend is a multi-use tool for the woman: useful for making other women jealous, useful for increasing her social status, and useful as a sounding board.
Second, "gay best friend" is a phrase that reinforces the differentiation from normal society that gay guys face all the time. The "gay best friend" has to constantly be clarified that he is the GAY best friend. Rather than holding the position of "best friend," the man is placed into a separate category that he can neatly slide into. His gayness is always emphasized, which effectively serves to continue differentiating him from the normal population.
Third, "gay best friend" reinforces stereotypes. Best friends are often best friends because they have a lot in common; a gay man often achieves the status of being "gay best friend" because he is a more effeminate man ("OMG that outfit is so cute on you!") and the woman feels that he is a safe person to discuss her thoughts and feelings with. Suppose a woman has an effeminate "gay best friend." Now suppose he was not as effeminate. In that case, he might never achieve the same emotional intimacy with her, and he might never have achieved the title "gay best friend." This implies that femininity of gay men is valued among women seeking a "gay best friend," which serves to reinforce stereotypes of gay men as effeminate.
Logic may have been a little shaky in the above points, but I hope the general concepts make sense. I had to pump this one out so I can get to writing the other two posts.
Wednesday, June 3, 2015
Bryan Fischer on Caitlyn Jenner
Patheos published an article entitled, "Here are a Bunch of Christians Telling Caitlyn Jenner She Needs Jesus in her Life." I just wanted to talk about an excerpt from the last one, from Bryan Fischer. I didn't watch the YouTube clip; I just read the excerpt included below the video:
"Those of us that are saying this is not a good thing, those of us that are saying this is bad for Bruce Jenner, bad for his future, we are showing far more compassion to him than the editors of Vanity Fair… They are showing no compassion for him, no genuine care for him because they are celebrating his progress down a pathway that could lead him to kill himself. I would suggest to you that there is absolutely zero compassion, zero love in aiding and abetting someone’s mental illness, a mental illness that could drive them to self-destruction."
I'm commenting on this because I don't think Mr. Fischer realizes why transgendered people kill themselves. It's not because there is something inherently suicide-inducing about transgenderism; it is because of the oppression that they face that makes their lives so unbearable. And Mr. Fischer fails to recognize his own hand in creating oppression toward Caitlyn. He instead thinks that he is being compassionate and loving. And as a result of Christian compassion and love, transgendered people are driven to suicide.
The editors of Vanity Fair are celebrating Caitlyn's progress down a pathway toward light. A path where she is free from confusion and is able to be herself without judgment. This pathway becomes a path toward self-destruction only when people like Mr. Fischer open their mouths and refuse to let transgendered people be who they really are. As if they haven't already suffered enough, thinking that they had been born into the wrong body.
"Those of us that are saying this is not a good thing, those of us that are saying this is bad for Bruce Jenner, bad for his future, we are showing far more compassion to him than the editors of Vanity Fair… They are showing no compassion for him, no genuine care for him because they are celebrating his progress down a pathway that could lead him to kill himself. I would suggest to you that there is absolutely zero compassion, zero love in aiding and abetting someone’s mental illness, a mental illness that could drive them to self-destruction."
I'm commenting on this because I don't think Mr. Fischer realizes why transgendered people kill themselves. It's not because there is something inherently suicide-inducing about transgenderism; it is because of the oppression that they face that makes their lives so unbearable. And Mr. Fischer fails to recognize his own hand in creating oppression toward Caitlyn. He instead thinks that he is being compassionate and loving. And as a result of Christian compassion and love, transgendered people are driven to suicide.
The editors of Vanity Fair are celebrating Caitlyn's progress down a pathway toward light. A path where she is free from confusion and is able to be herself without judgment. This pathway becomes a path toward self-destruction only when people like Mr. Fischer open their mouths and refuse to let transgendered people be who they really are. As if they haven't already suffered enough, thinking that they had been born into the wrong body.
Paul
You know the apostle Paul? The guy who wrote basically half of the New Testament? He's like on par with Jesus in Christian circles. Whatever you may say about the Bible, you do not mess with Paul. Why? Because what he said is Scripture. And all Scripture is God-breathed. So basically, Paul was transcribing what God was telling him.
That's what they say.
Keep in mind, though, that when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16, the "Scripture" in question was the Torah. The canonized Bible that we have today was not a thing. I find it doubtful that Paul thought of his own personal letters to churches as Scriptures, to be held in the same esteem as the Torah.
I came across this article. It's basically imagined "letters to the editor" if Paul's book of Galatians had been published today on Christianity Today. Here's the thing--the hypothetical letters to the editor are actually spot-on. Their critiques of Paul are absolutely correct. Paul was kind of a dick, and he split hairs on all kinds of secondary issues. He was extremely judgmental toward people in the churches. And his legalistic views on women and what they should wear...
But then I saw that the writers of these letters to the editor satirically ended the article with, "Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth." Meaning that they think Paul is great and unquestionably right. Sigh.
I really don't like Paul.
That's what they say.
Keep in mind, though, that when Paul wrote 2 Timothy 3:16, the "Scripture" in question was the Torah. The canonized Bible that we have today was not a thing. I find it doubtful that Paul thought of his own personal letters to churches as Scriptures, to be held in the same esteem as the Torah.
I came across this article. It's basically imagined "letters to the editor" if Paul's book of Galatians had been published today on Christianity Today. Here's the thing--the hypothetical letters to the editor are actually spot-on. Their critiques of Paul are absolutely correct. Paul was kind of a dick, and he split hairs on all kinds of secondary issues. He was extremely judgmental toward people in the churches. And his legalistic views on women and what they should wear...
But then I saw that the writers of these letters to the editor satirically ended the article with, "Had we known the extent in which our readership and advertisers would withdraw their financial support, we never would have printed such unpopular biblical truth." Meaning that they think Paul is great and unquestionably right. Sigh.
I really don't like Paul.
Tuesday, June 2, 2015
Some family, some politics, and some welfare.
Some of my extended family is intensely conservative, both politically and spiritually. Every time I have an encounter with them, I tread cautiously in the conversation, because it feels as though I am entering a land mine field. A topic comes up wherein I express a belief that they disagree with, all hell breaks loose, and then they tell me that my head is full of mush. (That exactly happened to my older brother once when he told them he was considering voting for Obama in 2008.)
Naturally, like-minded people attract each other. So it was no surprise to me when my cousin's husband posted a link to an article on Facebook entitled, "Maine Just Put Welfare Leeches in Their Place." And it was no surprise that Facebook told me that she liked her husband's post (because Facebook is creepy and it tells me these things.)
So I read the article. It was worse than I expected. It was unbelievably pejorative toward welfare recipients. The state of Maine introduced another requirement for citizens to receive various forms of welfare; citizens must volunteer at least 24 hours a month, complete 20 hours of part-time work per week, or enroll in a vocational training program. Not surprisingly, the number of welfare recipients fell from 12,000 to 2,500.
Of course the number fell. People who had depended on welfare for survival because they cannot find a job or are denied access to jobs are now no longer eligible to receive it. The decrease in the number of those receiving benefits is not, in fact, reflective of people getting jobs and no longer needing welfare, as conservatives would like to believe; the decrease in the number is because it has become harder to receive welfare. Those who were on welfare before are not made better off by this new law; they are made worse off. And who benefits from the law? Those who are not on welfare, because they now have to pay less in taxes. Who passed the law? Those who are not on welfare.
But, oh, the language used in this article. Welfare recipients are described as "capable adults," as if there is no excuse; they are described as "lazy parasites to society who suck the vitality out of American taxes"; they are the "leeches of society" who can be "utilize[d]" to benefit the community. And of course, Democrats are painted as "sore losers."
I'm sorry, writer(s), but not everyone has the privilege of having your skin color, which endows you with all kinds of societal privilege. I'm sorry, writer(s), but not every family has generations of accumulated wealth backing their family up and enabling them to have savings. I'm sorry, writer(s), but working one, even two, full-time minimum wage jobs does not generate enough money to support a family, much less to accumulate savings. I'm sorry, writer(s), but not everyone was able to go to college, which makes them inherently underqualified for many decent-paying jobs.
I think this is why you almost never see those in poverty vote Republican.
Back to my family. So these are the views that members of my extended family hold. That the most vulnerable in society are leeches whose life source must be cut off. It is very hard for me to consider my relatives "family" when they view and ideologically treat others as absolute shit. In fact, it is embarrassing for me to consider these people "family" when they act this way.
Naturally, like-minded people attract each other. So it was no surprise to me when my cousin's husband posted a link to an article on Facebook entitled, "Maine Just Put Welfare Leeches in Their Place." And it was no surprise that Facebook told me that she liked her husband's post (because Facebook is creepy and it tells me these things.)
So I read the article. It was worse than I expected. It was unbelievably pejorative toward welfare recipients. The state of Maine introduced another requirement for citizens to receive various forms of welfare; citizens must volunteer at least 24 hours a month, complete 20 hours of part-time work per week, or enroll in a vocational training program. Not surprisingly, the number of welfare recipients fell from 12,000 to 2,500.
Of course the number fell. People who had depended on welfare for survival because they cannot find a job or are denied access to jobs are now no longer eligible to receive it. The decrease in the number of those receiving benefits is not, in fact, reflective of people getting jobs and no longer needing welfare, as conservatives would like to believe; the decrease in the number is because it has become harder to receive welfare. Those who were on welfare before are not made better off by this new law; they are made worse off. And who benefits from the law? Those who are not on welfare, because they now have to pay less in taxes. Who passed the law? Those who are not on welfare.
But, oh, the language used in this article. Welfare recipients are described as "capable adults," as if there is no excuse; they are described as "lazy parasites to society who suck the vitality out of American taxes"; they are the "leeches of society" who can be "utilize[d]" to benefit the community. And of course, Democrats are painted as "sore losers."
I'm sorry, writer(s), but not everyone has the privilege of having your skin color, which endows you with all kinds of societal privilege. I'm sorry, writer(s), but not every family has generations of accumulated wealth backing their family up and enabling them to have savings. I'm sorry, writer(s), but working one, even two, full-time minimum wage jobs does not generate enough money to support a family, much less to accumulate savings. I'm sorry, writer(s), but not everyone was able to go to college, which makes them inherently underqualified for many decent-paying jobs.
I think this is why you almost never see those in poverty vote Republican.
Back to my family. So these are the views that members of my extended family hold. That the most vulnerable in society are leeches whose life source must be cut off. It is very hard for me to consider my relatives "family" when they view and ideologically treat others as absolute shit. In fact, it is embarrassing for me to consider these people "family" when they act this way.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Sexism is for real
If anyone tries to tell me that sexism is not a thing in our society anymore, then I will probably call them an idiot.
Sexism is when the mostly male security staff ignores or disregards everything that the female House Manager says, and they instead ask the male Assistant House Manager, who repeats exactly what she said, and they listen to him. The content is identical, but it gains more legitimacy simply because it came from a man's mouth.
Sexism is when an assertive female usher is doing her job by asking faculty and graduates (mostly male) to stand elsewhere so that they do not block a pathway, and they ignore her; then as soon as I ask them to stand elsewhere, they listen to me and clear a path. Even though she spoke much more forcefully than I did, and we said the exact same thing, my words gained more legitimacy simply because they came from a man's mouth.
Sexism doesn't exist in our society? Please.
Sexism is when the mostly male security staff ignores or disregards everything that the female House Manager says, and they instead ask the male Assistant House Manager, who repeats exactly what she said, and they listen to him. The content is identical, but it gains more legitimacy simply because it came from a man's mouth.
Sexism is when an assertive female usher is doing her job by asking faculty and graduates (mostly male) to stand elsewhere so that they do not block a pathway, and they ignore her; then as soon as I ask them to stand elsewhere, they listen to me and clear a path. Even though she spoke much more forcefully than I did, and we said the exact same thing, my words gained more legitimacy simply because they came from a man's mouth.
Sexism doesn't exist in our society? Please.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Expertise
I think a sign of expertise in a field or job is when you reach the point where you are no longer concerned with the "what if" situations. You trust your own abilities in the position to the point where you know that you know how to approach any problem presented, even if it is a new problem.
I think of my job as a House Manager at Cal Performances. There are hundreds of things that could go wrong during a show. However, I don't spend my off-time thinking about how to respond to all the hypotheticals. Rather, I know that I am skilled at my job, and I will be able to think on my feet to solve any problem.
Conversely, consider my position as a student. I am far from an expert in my field. And I also find myself constantly considering the "what if"s of problems that could be asked of me in classes (I discussed this a bit in a previous post). I think that these phenomena are highly correlated. I am not confident enough in my academic field to adequately approach any problem handed to me; as a result, I worry about the "what if"s. I worry about a problem that I don't think I will be able to solve; whereas in my Cal Performances job, I don't worry, because I know I will be able to confront any problem I am presented.
I think of my job as a House Manager at Cal Performances. There are hundreds of things that could go wrong during a show. However, I don't spend my off-time thinking about how to respond to all the hypotheticals. Rather, I know that I am skilled at my job, and I will be able to think on my feet to solve any problem.
Conversely, consider my position as a student. I am far from an expert in my field. And I also find myself constantly considering the "what if"s of problems that could be asked of me in classes (I discussed this a bit in a previous post). I think that these phenomena are highly correlated. I am not confident enough in my academic field to adequately approach any problem handed to me; as a result, I worry about the "what if"s. I worry about a problem that I don't think I will be able to solve; whereas in my Cal Performances job, I don't worry, because I know I will be able to confront any problem I am presented.
Monday, April 20, 2015
Christians are so funny: The Series; Part VI - Jesus Says...
I came across an article on Facebook entitled, "5 Things Jesus Says to the Gay Community." Here are the 5 points listed, without all the fluff after each point:
1. I love you.
2. I understand rejection.
3. I also was tempted.
4. I want more for you.
5. I will be here for you.
Apparently this is what Jesus says to the gay community. The first problem with this article is that the author claims to know what Jesus is saying. How dare you claim that you know the mind of Jesus. Or did he tell you this himself? Which Jesus did you talk to? Was it pro-America, Republican, pro-gun-rights, white Jesus (which happens to be exactly what you are)?
Now let's talk about each of the points.
"I love you." Of course that is the first one. But we all know that this love is not unconditional. There is always a "but" afterward. "I love you, but..." When conservatives discuss homosexuality, "I love you" is always first because it is intended to soften the blow of what they are about to say next.
"I understand rejection." Absolutely. Yet what this author fails to realize is that a whole lot of rejection that the gay community has faced has come from the church itself, in the name of Jesus. The church is supposed to be the representative of Jesus on earth; yet this point is giving mixed messages to the gay community. Jesus understands rejection and how much it sucks; so he wouldn't perpetuate rejection of the already marginalized (consider the types of people that he spent time with). But the current representing agent of Jesus does perpetuate rejection of the marginalized. There is a disconnection. So which version of Jesus does the church follow? Well, all I'll say is that actions speak louder than words.
"I also was tempted." Sure. The article highlights under this point that Jesus never married, so he certainly faced a great deal of temptation around sexuality. Solid. However, what if "Jesus" had 5 things to say to single people? Would this be one of the points? Or is this point only included because the author's view is such that homosexuality is a sin (and being single isn't)? The church forces people born gay to fight the impossible battle of never giving into their sexual desires but also never marrying.
"I want more for you." "The reason He clearly [*cough cough*] defined marriage and sex in the Bible is because He wants what is best for you." So let me get this straight (ha)--it is a good thing for a gay person to deny their sexual desires and to get married to someone of the opposite sex that they feel no desire for? It is a good idea for them to completely repress who they truly are in their marriage? Also, let's talk for a moment about what Jesus actually said about homosexuality while he was here on earth. This website contains every passage in the Bible in which Jesus talks about homosexuality: http://whatjesussaidaboutgays.com/
"I will be here for you." The gist of this point is, "no matter how long you flounder around in your wicked lifestyle, Jesus will still wait for you to come to him." Honestly, there's not much new to say on this point without opening the debate of "is homosexuality really a sin?"
This article does not have a specific author; it cites a church as the author. Guess where this church is based? South Carolina.
Also, I bet the person who actually wrote this article has never met a gay person in their life. Or if they have, they didn't listen to the person's story for long enough before they started telling the gay person to repent and seek Jesus. And they very clearly haven't met a gay Christian before.
The Jesus that I know probably would not say these five things. My guess would be that Jesus wouldn't even comment on a gay person's sexual orientation. He'd probably spend time with them and get to know them because, you know, they're people. And he wants to show--not just say--that he loves them.
But I'm not going to be so arrogant as to assume I know what Jesus would and would not do. Chances are, he'd probably do something that I wouldn't expect.
1. I love you.
2. I understand rejection.
3. I also was tempted.
4. I want more for you.
5. I will be here for you.
Apparently this is what Jesus says to the gay community. The first problem with this article is that the author claims to know what Jesus is saying. How dare you claim that you know the mind of Jesus. Or did he tell you this himself? Which Jesus did you talk to? Was it pro-America, Republican, pro-gun-rights, white Jesus (which happens to be exactly what you are)?
Now let's talk about each of the points.
"I love you." Of course that is the first one. But we all know that this love is not unconditional. There is always a "but" afterward. "I love you, but..." When conservatives discuss homosexuality, "I love you" is always first because it is intended to soften the blow of what they are about to say next.
"I understand rejection." Absolutely. Yet what this author fails to realize is that a whole lot of rejection that the gay community has faced has come from the church itself, in the name of Jesus. The church is supposed to be the representative of Jesus on earth; yet this point is giving mixed messages to the gay community. Jesus understands rejection and how much it sucks; so he wouldn't perpetuate rejection of the already marginalized (consider the types of people that he spent time with). But the current representing agent of Jesus does perpetuate rejection of the marginalized. There is a disconnection. So which version of Jesus does the church follow? Well, all I'll say is that actions speak louder than words.
"I also was tempted." Sure. The article highlights under this point that Jesus never married, so he certainly faced a great deal of temptation around sexuality. Solid. However, what if "Jesus" had 5 things to say to single people? Would this be one of the points? Or is this point only included because the author's view is such that homosexuality is a sin (and being single isn't)? The church forces people born gay to fight the impossible battle of never giving into their sexual desires but also never marrying.
"I want more for you." "The reason He clearly [*cough cough*] defined marriage and sex in the Bible is because He wants what is best for you." So let me get this straight (ha)--it is a good thing for a gay person to deny their sexual desires and to get married to someone of the opposite sex that they feel no desire for? It is a good idea for them to completely repress who they truly are in their marriage? Also, let's talk for a moment about what Jesus actually said about homosexuality while he was here on earth. This website contains every passage in the Bible in which Jesus talks about homosexuality: http://whatjesussaidaboutgays.com/
"I will be here for you." The gist of this point is, "no matter how long you flounder around in your wicked lifestyle, Jesus will still wait for you to come to him." Honestly, there's not much new to say on this point without opening the debate of "is homosexuality really a sin?"
This article does not have a specific author; it cites a church as the author. Guess where this church is based? South Carolina.
Also, I bet the person who actually wrote this article has never met a gay person in their life. Or if they have, they didn't listen to the person's story for long enough before they started telling the gay person to repent and seek Jesus. And they very clearly haven't met a gay Christian before.
The Jesus that I know probably would not say these five things. My guess would be that Jesus wouldn't even comment on a gay person's sexual orientation. He'd probably spend time with them and get to know them because, you know, they're people. And he wants to show--not just say--that he loves them.
But I'm not going to be so arrogant as to assume I know what Jesus would and would not do. Chances are, he'd probably do something that I wouldn't expect.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Here's a personal story about anxiety.
Last fall, I took IEOR 151, Service Operations Design and Analysis. The class had one midterm, smack in the middle of the semester. About a week or two before the exam, the professor posted the previous year's midterm to help us study. The previous midterm was very straightforward and very similar to the homework for the class. I was put at ease about the exam. As long as I wrote the appropriate notes on my cheat sheet, I would be good to go.
That's what I thought.
I walked into class on the day of the midterm. The professor passed out the exams. 4 questions, one hour--shouldn't be too bad. But one hour is not a lot of time. I started to feel the pressure--a relatively light amount, but it was there. I flipped through the exam.
Question 1 was on the composite Gaussian process and the minimax hypothesis test. Ok, so I just plug these values into the formula and find an optimal gamma, and then answer some follow up questions. I got started working on it. Then part of the way through...
Hmmm...this is a bit harder than I thought it would be. I'll skip it and come back to it.
Question 2 was on the newsvendor model. Part a was simple; just solving the optimal order quantity for a given demand distribution function. Part b...oh shit. The non-parametric newsvendor model. The one thing that I didn't write on my cheat sheet. Let's skip that and come back to it.
Question 3 was on the optimal kidney exchange matching market problem. Ok, simple, I can do this. Done.
Question 4 was on the principal-agent model. That's fine, I can do that too. After a little bit of work, done. Now back to Questions 1 and 2.
I look up. We have 25 minutes left. Shit, I'd better get moving. I feel my body get a little bit more tense. I sit there and stare at question 1 some more. I still have not found an optimal gamma. The computations of the Normal distribution's CDF are really throwing me off, and I start doubting what I have written already. I stare some more. I read the other two parts to the question. I flip to question 2 to see if it suddenly makes sense to me. My anxiety is climbing.
"20 minutes left," the professor announces.
Suddenly I cannot focus. I am seeing words on the paper in front of me, but I am not comprehending. My heart is pounding. My leg twitches fast. The only thought cycling through my brain is, "Oh shit. Oh shit. Oh shit. Oh shit." I feel the anxiety starting to take over me, and I am shutting down. I sit paralyzed for at least 15 seconds, and then I stare some more.
We now have 15 minutes left. I have not written anything new down in the last 5 minutes; I have had no new thoughts. The "oh shit oh shit oh shit" gets even faster in my mind, disabling me from coming up with solutions.
When I can, I frantically try some solution methods for the unsolved portions. I doubt every single stroke of my own pen. The cyclic "oh shit" really slows down my thought process.
10 minutes left. I am without hope now. I am now trying to accept the fact that I will not finish this exam, and that everyone else is probably doing fine. They probably all wrote the non-parametric newsvendor method down on their paper.
The final 10 minutes pass, and I have scribbled out and written down a few more things. My exam is not finished. I get up, dizzy and light-headed, hand in my exam, and walk out. No one is talking about the exam. In my experience, that usually means that people found it to be straightforward and there is nothing to discuss.
Yes, I survived an anxiety attack. But I don't see myself as a survivor. I see myself as weak for being overtaken by my anxiety. I see myself as stupid for not knowing how to solve a really hard exam, and for not writing something down on my cheat sheet. I am supposed to meet my friend at the gym, but all I want to do is lay down. I am exhausted beyond belief.
We cancel the gym. I go home and sleep for an hour.
My brother's wedding is that weekend. The midterm has put me in such a low state that my family notices that I am not myself.
It turns out that other students also thought the exam was a shit show. I learned that 5 days too late.
Only at Berkeley can you score 27/48 and still have it be a B+. Yes, I earned a B+. But at what cost to my mental health?
That's what I thought.
I walked into class on the day of the midterm. The professor passed out the exams. 4 questions, one hour--shouldn't be too bad. But one hour is not a lot of time. I started to feel the pressure--a relatively light amount, but it was there. I flipped through the exam.
Question 1 was on the composite Gaussian process and the minimax hypothesis test. Ok, so I just plug these values into the formula and find an optimal gamma, and then answer some follow up questions. I got started working on it. Then part of the way through...
Hmmm...this is a bit harder than I thought it would be. I'll skip it and come back to it.
Question 2 was on the newsvendor model. Part a was simple; just solving the optimal order quantity for a given demand distribution function. Part b...oh shit. The non-parametric newsvendor model. The one thing that I didn't write on my cheat sheet. Let's skip that and come back to it.
Question 3 was on the optimal kidney exchange matching market problem. Ok, simple, I can do this. Done.
Question 4 was on the principal-agent model. That's fine, I can do that too. After a little bit of work, done. Now back to Questions 1 and 2.
I look up. We have 25 minutes left. Shit, I'd better get moving. I feel my body get a little bit more tense. I sit there and stare at question 1 some more. I still have not found an optimal gamma. The computations of the Normal distribution's CDF are really throwing me off, and I start doubting what I have written already. I stare some more. I read the other two parts to the question. I flip to question 2 to see if it suddenly makes sense to me. My anxiety is climbing.
"20 minutes left," the professor announces.
Suddenly I cannot focus. I am seeing words on the paper in front of me, but I am not comprehending. My heart is pounding. My leg twitches fast. The only thought cycling through my brain is, "Oh shit. Oh shit. Oh shit. Oh shit." I feel the anxiety starting to take over me, and I am shutting down. I sit paralyzed for at least 15 seconds, and then I stare some more.
We now have 15 minutes left. I have not written anything new down in the last 5 minutes; I have had no new thoughts. The "oh shit oh shit oh shit" gets even faster in my mind, disabling me from coming up with solutions.
When I can, I frantically try some solution methods for the unsolved portions. I doubt every single stroke of my own pen. The cyclic "oh shit" really slows down my thought process.
10 minutes left. I am without hope now. I am now trying to accept the fact that I will not finish this exam, and that everyone else is probably doing fine. They probably all wrote the non-parametric newsvendor method down on their paper.
The final 10 minutes pass, and I have scribbled out and written down a few more things. My exam is not finished. I get up, dizzy and light-headed, hand in my exam, and walk out. No one is talking about the exam. In my experience, that usually means that people found it to be straightforward and there is nothing to discuss.
Yes, I survived an anxiety attack. But I don't see myself as a survivor. I see myself as weak for being overtaken by my anxiety. I see myself as stupid for not knowing how to solve a really hard exam, and for not writing something down on my cheat sheet. I am supposed to meet my friend at the gym, but all I want to do is lay down. I am exhausted beyond belief.
We cancel the gym. I go home and sleep for an hour.
My brother's wedding is that weekend. The midterm has put me in such a low state that my family notices that I am not myself.
It turns out that other students also thought the exam was a shit show. I learned that 5 days too late.
Only at Berkeley can you score 27/48 and still have it be a B+. Yes, I earned a B+. But at what cost to my mental health?
Walking on Eggshells
The world needs progressive people. But often, progressive people get offended far too easily.
Consider an interaction with a feminist. Or consider an interaction with someone who is homosexual. Or consider an interaction with a transgender person. I have witnessed that if you wish to engage in conversation with these people, you need to choose your words carefully. You might write "woman" in an online post, and someone will find that offensive because they identify as a "womxn." You might call someone "gay," and they get offended because they identify as "queer," or "same-gender loving." You might mistakenly use "he" instead of "she," "it," "they," or "zhe." (And of course, it is impossible to know beforehand that "woman," "gay," or "he" would be incorrect.)
Much of the subsequent conversation is diverted from the topic in question, whatever it may be, and instead becomes an angry lecture about how a word is offensive, and how the other person needs to "check their privilege." There is zero tolerance for using a word by mistake or out of ignorance. Essentially, progressives make anyone who talks to them walk on eggshells.
One of my coworkers has a disability where she was born without a left hand. Despite this, she powerlifts competitively, and she in fact recently broke the state record in female squats for her age group and weight class. She frequently posts about her experiences on this road to success, including all the discrimination and prejudices that she has faced at the gym because of her visible disability. While these posts are eye-opening, I never know how to appropriately follow up with her if I have questions. I want to know more about her and her experiences with her disability; however, I am discouraged from even starting that conversation because of posts such as this:
"I do one-handed deadlifts and I plan to compete with one-handed deadlifts and I am among many others who are non-conforming in this able-bodied patriarchal society, so I hate that I have to explain my technique and approach to folks who are innocently curious but it gets tiring ya'll. And I'm patient. But please educate yourselves so I don't have to."
Messages such as this discourage me from asking her anything personal related to her powerlifting or to her disability.
Important conversations get lost in the constant policing of language. Important conversations do not happen out of fear of language policing. And as a result, nobody learns anything. Nobody learns how to properly use the vocabulary or how to listen to one another.
Yes, it is important to inform others on the appropriate, respectful vocabulary. But this education needs to be done with patience and grace. It is not fair to hold others to expectations that they didn't know were in place.
So let people say the wrong words. Let them break those eggshells. Then afterward, if absolutely necessary, graciously explain to them why one finds a particular word offensive, and what better words should be used instead in the future.
Consider an interaction with a feminist. Or consider an interaction with someone who is homosexual. Or consider an interaction with a transgender person. I have witnessed that if you wish to engage in conversation with these people, you need to choose your words carefully. You might write "woman" in an online post, and someone will find that offensive because they identify as a "womxn." You might call someone "gay," and they get offended because they identify as "queer," or "same-gender loving." You might mistakenly use "he" instead of "she," "it," "they," or "zhe." (And of course, it is impossible to know beforehand that "woman," "gay," or "he" would be incorrect.)
Much of the subsequent conversation is diverted from the topic in question, whatever it may be, and instead becomes an angry lecture about how a word is offensive, and how the other person needs to "check their privilege." There is zero tolerance for using a word by mistake or out of ignorance. Essentially, progressives make anyone who talks to them walk on eggshells.
One of my coworkers has a disability where she was born without a left hand. Despite this, she powerlifts competitively, and she in fact recently broke the state record in female squats for her age group and weight class. She frequently posts about her experiences on this road to success, including all the discrimination and prejudices that she has faced at the gym because of her visible disability. While these posts are eye-opening, I never know how to appropriately follow up with her if I have questions. I want to know more about her and her experiences with her disability; however, I am discouraged from even starting that conversation because of posts such as this:
"I do one-handed deadlifts and I plan to compete with one-handed deadlifts and I am among many others who are non-conforming in this able-bodied patriarchal society, so I hate that I have to explain my technique and approach to folks who are innocently curious but it gets tiring ya'll. And I'm patient. But please educate yourselves so I don't have to."
Messages such as this discourage me from asking her anything personal related to her powerlifting or to her disability.
Important conversations get lost in the constant policing of language. Important conversations do not happen out of fear of language policing. And as a result, nobody learns anything. Nobody learns how to properly use the vocabulary or how to listen to one another.
Yes, it is important to inform others on the appropriate, respectful vocabulary. But this education needs to be done with patience and grace. It is not fair to hold others to expectations that they didn't know were in place.
So let people say the wrong words. Let them break those eggshells. Then afterward, if absolutely necessary, graciously explain to them why one finds a particular word offensive, and what better words should be used instead in the future.
Sunday, April 5, 2015
Grad School Anxiety
Grad school will open up many more opportunities for you, they say. Grad school will allow you an opportunity to go much deeper into what you learned in undergrad, they say. Grad classes will be easier than undergrad classes, they say. But what they don't tell you about is the anxiety that comes with grad school.
Now, before I get on my soap box, let me first qualify this by saying that I am only speaking about the experience of a Master's program. Fortunately, I do not have to worry about the beast that is prelims/quals--I don't think I would make it through a PhD program. But a Master's degree generally involves the same core coursework as for a PhD, so my thoughts and experiences on this issue are not totally invalid.
I have never before in my life felt such long-term anxiety about school. Sure, in undergrad, I had short, periodic bursts of anxiety surrounding midterms, projects, finals, or really hard problem sets. But never before have I experienced just a constant anxiety around school that does not let up when you leave the lecture hall, or when you finish the problem set, or when you are trying to enjoy your weekend. At all hours of the day (and I seriously mean all), I find myself worrying about "oh shit, what if professor asks about this on the midterm?" "what is the next problem set going to look like?" "what the hell am I going to write about for my Master's thesis?" I have been counting down the weeks until the period of instruction ends. No, I don't mean until finals are over--I mean the weeks remaining until no new material will be introduced. Finals happen afterward. That is the point where I will stop being bombarded will material that I am supposed to be able to reproduce in a problem set or on an exam. It is sad that I do that, because I love learning--and yet I anticipate the day that I will not have to learn more.
The reason for this is that I am living in a box of fear and anxiety. I am not afraid for the future of my life, or for my future career; I am afraid for just the next lecture. And I want to escape this box, but I can't.
This constant anxiety drains the life out of me. I have not felt fully alive in months; I feel subdued.
Through some of my undergrad classes, I had to learn the lesson that a good grade does not necessarily correspond to learning. Similarly, a sub-par grade does not necessarily correspond to not learning; and truly learning is what is more important. But for some reason, I can no longer make that distinction. When I spend 8 hours on a problem set that I can't make any sense of, and then I receive a score of 3/10, I doubt my self-worth and think that I am too dumb to be in grad school. Conversely, when I score 40/40 on a problem set, I think that I am a genius. I vacillate often between these two opinions of myself because I have re-tied my self-worth to grades.
I sometimes think that I have gotten into my program by mistake. That my application was not enough of an indicator for how I will be able to perform in grad school. I doubt the validity of my good grades in undergraduate classes.
I compare myself to my peers. Many of my classmates are taking the department's prelim exams in about a month. Just thinking about the idea of them overwhelms me, even though I don't have to take them. Perhaps I get overwhelmed because prelims are a reminder of how fucking hard academia is, and the power that it can exert over your life.
I don't think it's normal to walk out of every lecture for every class feeling dizzy and light-headed.
This is EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. DAY. for me.
I don't want to feel like this. It is eroding away at my life. It is killing me.
Now, before I get on my soap box, let me first qualify this by saying that I am only speaking about the experience of a Master's program. Fortunately, I do not have to worry about the beast that is prelims/quals--I don't think I would make it through a PhD program. But a Master's degree generally involves the same core coursework as for a PhD, so my thoughts and experiences on this issue are not totally invalid.
I have never before in my life felt such long-term anxiety about school. Sure, in undergrad, I had short, periodic bursts of anxiety surrounding midterms, projects, finals, or really hard problem sets. But never before have I experienced just a constant anxiety around school that does not let up when you leave the lecture hall, or when you finish the problem set, or when you are trying to enjoy your weekend. At all hours of the day (and I seriously mean all), I find myself worrying about "oh shit, what if professor asks about this on the midterm?" "what is the next problem set going to look like?" "what the hell am I going to write about for my Master's thesis?" I have been counting down the weeks until the period of instruction ends. No, I don't mean until finals are over--I mean the weeks remaining until no new material will be introduced. Finals happen afterward. That is the point where I will stop being bombarded will material that I am supposed to be able to reproduce in a problem set or on an exam. It is sad that I do that, because I love learning--and yet I anticipate the day that I will not have to learn more.
The reason for this is that I am living in a box of fear and anxiety. I am not afraid for the future of my life, or for my future career; I am afraid for just the next lecture. And I want to escape this box, but I can't.
This constant anxiety drains the life out of me. I have not felt fully alive in months; I feel subdued.
Through some of my undergrad classes, I had to learn the lesson that a good grade does not necessarily correspond to learning. Similarly, a sub-par grade does not necessarily correspond to not learning; and truly learning is what is more important. But for some reason, I can no longer make that distinction. When I spend 8 hours on a problem set that I can't make any sense of, and then I receive a score of 3/10, I doubt my self-worth and think that I am too dumb to be in grad school. Conversely, when I score 40/40 on a problem set, I think that I am a genius. I vacillate often between these two opinions of myself because I have re-tied my self-worth to grades.
I sometimes think that I have gotten into my program by mistake. That my application was not enough of an indicator for how I will be able to perform in grad school. I doubt the validity of my good grades in undergraduate classes.
I compare myself to my peers. Many of my classmates are taking the department's prelim exams in about a month. Just thinking about the idea of them overwhelms me, even though I don't have to take them. Perhaps I get overwhelmed because prelims are a reminder of how fucking hard academia is, and the power that it can exert over your life.
I don't think it's normal to walk out of every lecture for every class feeling dizzy and light-headed.
This is EVERY. SINGLE. FUCKING. DAY. for me.
I don't want to feel like this. It is eroding away at my life. It is killing me.
Monday, February 16, 2015
To the First Pres leadership
To
whom it may concern,
My
name is Max Vale. I am a senior at UC Berkeley, and I attended FoCUS for the
first three years of my time at Cal. I was quite involved during my time
there—I attended weekly, I went to most of the non-Wednesday night events, and
I served in leadership positions. I am writing this because I received an
invitation to a Facebook event entitled “Major Changes to FoCUS,” and current
and past FoCUS students were encouraged to write a letter discussing our FoCUS
experiences. I cannot tell if the creator of the Facebook event is encouraging
us to write letters to persuade the First Pres leadership to keep FoCUS the
same way it has been, but my purpose in writing this letter is a bit different.
My purpose in writing this letter is twofold: so that someone in First Pres leadership
can hear my story, and so that the leadership can hear my suggestions for what
should be done with FoCUS.
I
was encouraged to check out FoCUS based on the recommendation of Andrew Engle,
who had attended the same high school as me. I showed up to the Welcome
Barbecue my freshman year, and I liked what I found—a community. I had grown up
in the church and had attended a Christian high school, so moving into the Cal
dorms was a totally new experience for me which rocked my world. I no longer had
any idea if anyone around me shared my beliefs. However, I found that common
ground among students in FoCUS. To me, it didn’t matter what the other students
believed; all that mattered was that we had a common faith in the huge UC
Berkeley community.
FoCUS
was what kept me going my first semester. To be completely honest, I used to
count down the days each week until FoCUS happened again because I was so happy
to be there. FoCUS was also a steady mainstay during the emotional transitions
I experienced while adjusting to life in Berkeley. This continued into my
second semester as well. I pledged a fraternity, and when things got so
stressful for me, it was FoCUS that gave me constant support, sometimes in the
form of another FoCUS student holding me while I cried during the 505 service.
FoCUS
also subtly affected my faith. When I look back on the faith I was taught
growing up in a Baptist community, I realize that I was taught a lot of
condemnation and self-loathing. Nick Van Santen’s weekly closing remark of, “I
love you, we as a community love you, but most importantly, God loves you,”
slowly began to change the perspective I had on who God was, and the value that
I had. FoCUS also taught me the importance of community—something which had
never been talked about in my upbringing.
At
the beginning of my sophomore year, Nick Van Santen asked me to be a triplet
leader. I was honored that Nick thought I was capable of taking on this role,
and I rose to the challenge. My triplet met pretty much weekly for my entire
sophomore year. My triplet, as well as Nick himself, were steady sources of
support during my experiences that year with depression, anxiety, suicide,
changing beliefs, and sexual identity.
FoCUS
then began to change my junior year following a large graduating class. We
began to meet in the College Lounge rather than the sanctuary. We changed our
starting time. Those of us on leadership no longer had distinctive roles
(Hospitality Team, Triplet Leaders, and Worship Team distinctions were
dissolved). I was excited to see where FoCUS would go following these changes;
however, early in the year, seeds of disconnection from FoCUS were sown within
me. I was not placed into a triplet for whatever reason, so I had one less
opportunity to connect with my peers. Additionally, the “leadership team
meetings” became a book discussion. Frankly, I was not interested in reading a
book for FoCUS on top of my school work, so I always came to the discussions
empty-handed. Because of my disinterest in the discussion, I stopped attending
the weekly leadership meetings. I still attended regular FoCUS every week, but
it slowly became more of a chore to attend rather than something I wanted to
do. That was because I did not really have a community there. For whatever
reason, I didn’t know many people there outside of those who were already in my
fraternity.
Near
the end of my junior year, Nick pitched the idea of having FoCUS students
living in the church’s intern house and forming a FoCUS leadership community. I
declined the offer to live at the house, because I feared that it would become
an exclusive, elitist group of FoCUS students.
By
the end of my junior year, I was very unmotivated to continue attending FoCUS.
I felt very disconnected from the community and very disinterested in the
leadership changes that were happening. However, I loved Nick as the director
of FoCUS. Nick was basically the motivating factor for me to continue
attending. Therefore, as soon as I heard that he was leaving, my motivation to
attend FoCUS dropped significantly.
I
decided to attend the FoCUS Welcome Barbecue the first week of this year. I wanted
to give FoCUS a chance—perhaps it was thriving without Nick. I hoped that maybe
I would be able to meet some new students and thus feel connected to the
community once again. However, when I showed up to the barbecue, I could not
tell who was a new student and who was a returning student. So I sat with and
talked to another senior in FoCUS who had been my closest friend for my first
two years of college. When the actual FoCUS meeting began, I noticed that it
was sophomores and juniors who were running the show. And these students were
the ones who lived in the house. I felt that my fears were being realized—that
the members of the house had become an elitist group. I felt forgotten by
FoCUS. Even though I had attended every single week for three straight years, I
was not involved in any of the logistical, administrative, or leadership
decisions. And that hurt. It hurt that the community I had been so eager about
my first two years had seemingly forgotten about me. In addition, the room just
felt dead during the worship songs. It was nothing at all like the vibrant
community I had felt in the room my freshman and sophomore years. My other
senior friend whispered to me during the worship songs, “Do you want to go to
my place and have a beer?” So we left and had a beer at his place and talked
about how far downhill FoCUS had gone. We both felt forgotten by the community
that we had been so dedicated to. Honestly, I had more community drinking a
beer with my friend than I did at FoCUS.
I
have not been back to FoCUS since then. I have not been to any of the
non-Wednesday night events this year.
So
now that I have self-indulgently told my entire story with FoCUS, what do I
think is best for the future of FoCUS? Frankly, I think it is dead. I think it
is time for it to end, unless it has dramatically revitalized since I was last
there. Groups and communities come and go, and that is normal and part of life.
I know a lot of people who would be very sad to see it go, and would probably
fight to keep it, but I see no point in driving down a road which I believe to
be a dead end. Perhaps give it a couple years to rest, continue the search for
a new college pastor, and then revitalize the group under a new leader.
The
Facebook event says that one current proposition the future of FoCUS is for it
to become a “learning institute” model that provides theological education
resources to existing campus groups. I don’t know what that means, but it
sounds like something that students would not be involved in. I am skeptical of
the benefit that that would provide to the campus community.
I
am not sure that this letter will even make it past the FoCUS partners, because
the Facebook event seems to indicate that they are looking for letters that
praise FoCUS and communicate the importance of keeping it alive as it is. My
letter does not serve that purpose. But my conscience will be at peace now that
I have written this all out and sent it, as that is all that I can do. And I do
feel some catharsis knowing that at least one other person now knows my story.
Sincerely,
Max
Vale
Friday, January 16, 2015
A thought excursion mostly about abortion
This is somewhat of a low blow for evangelical Christians, but I just thought of it while in the shower. I haven't thought it through very far--let's see where this post takes me.
Let us assume the beliefs and perspectives of your typical evangelical Christian.
If:
- People are sinful and wicked from birth, and
- Babies that die before they can comprehend the gospel go to heaven (i.e. stillborn, miscarried, aborted, died in infancy, etc.)
Then:
Why is abortion bad?
If we assume the above two premises to be true, then if a baby is aborted before birth, then it automatically goes to heaven. If a child enters the world and is allowed to live its life, then it runs the risk of not finding Jesus and becoming saved. Isn't it better to ensure the baby's fate, and to allow abortions to happen?
Now let us leave the worldview of the typical evangelical Christian.
I do not have the authority to take a moral stance on abortion since I am a man who has never been pregnant and faced the question of whether or not to abort my child. However, I know there is something inherently valuable about life, and it is sad to deprive another person of the potential to experience life. I believe that abortion is a horrible, horrible thing, but this is not a moral position--the procedure of abortion and what it deprives a fetus of are horrible. I do recognize, however, that there are situations in which women find an abortion as a better alternative, and so in that sense I cannot make a moral judgment on abortion. It is naive to think that a woman who had an abortion did it thoughtlessly and carelessly. I cannot imagine the emotional pain that a woman must go through leading up to having an abortion. This is why protests outside abortion clinics are extremely insensitive (and humiliating for the patients).
That last half paragraph was a bit of an aside. In any case, I think that abortion is a tragic thing. Therefore, one of the two premises listed above must be false. And because I believe that God has enough grace to allow young children or terminated pregnancies to enter heaven, it must be the case that the premise "people are wicked and sinful from birth" is false.
Or there is no hell.
Or both of those conclusions are true.
Let us assume the beliefs and perspectives of your typical evangelical Christian.
If:
- People are sinful and wicked from birth, and
- Babies that die before they can comprehend the gospel go to heaven (i.e. stillborn, miscarried, aborted, died in infancy, etc.)
Then:
Why is abortion bad?
If we assume the above two premises to be true, then if a baby is aborted before birth, then it automatically goes to heaven. If a child enters the world and is allowed to live its life, then it runs the risk of not finding Jesus and becoming saved. Isn't it better to ensure the baby's fate, and to allow abortions to happen?
Now let us leave the worldview of the typical evangelical Christian.
I do not have the authority to take a moral stance on abortion since I am a man who has never been pregnant and faced the question of whether or not to abort my child. However, I know there is something inherently valuable about life, and it is sad to deprive another person of the potential to experience life. I believe that abortion is a horrible, horrible thing, but this is not a moral position--the procedure of abortion and what it deprives a fetus of are horrible. I do recognize, however, that there are situations in which women find an abortion as a better alternative, and so in that sense I cannot make a moral judgment on abortion. It is naive to think that a woman who had an abortion did it thoughtlessly and carelessly. I cannot imagine the emotional pain that a woman must go through leading up to having an abortion. This is why protests outside abortion clinics are extremely insensitive (and humiliating for the patients).
That last half paragraph was a bit of an aside. In any case, I think that abortion is a tragic thing. Therefore, one of the two premises listed above must be false. And because I believe that God has enough grace to allow young children or terminated pregnancies to enter heaven, it must be the case that the premise "people are wicked and sinful from birth" is false.
Or there is no hell.
Or both of those conclusions are true.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)