It was pup-cup time at Starbucks, on Mark's way back from the barn.
Here was the process ....
And here are the residuals ...
😂😂😂
See, I don't stay down long - I've been through way worse.
Never let anyone steal your joy, too! 😉
May all reading have a happy, healthy - and joyful - New Year!
*Edited - PS and pictures added.
... I was in a family situation where I wasn't allowed a voice - to the degree that I almost lost my voice entirely.
In fact, I nearly stopped talking, became almost a selective mute, because not only was it not allowed, but it did no good to use it anyway - it only made things worse.
In fact, that is why I started blogging in 2005 (though this was not my original blog) - as a sort of flare to the outside world, like a message in a bottle, as a way to preserve my voice until I could use it again someday, if I could ever find a way out of that shithole.
Today, I have a wonderful husband and a selective group of friends and family members that I trust completely. 😊
But I had to claw tooth and nail to get here, too.
So I'll be damned if after essentially chewing my own leg off to get out of THAT toxic trap, I'll now let anyone - especially someone not in the above group - waltz in and try take my voice for free, under false pretenses, and without my permission.
And then when I politely question it, I'm guilt tripped with belittling things that would never be said to a man, after previously showering me with transparent, OTT encouragement?
I don't think so.
You like my voice and want to use it?
Fine - but you gotta pay extra for that voice, that's not what I signed up for- especially since this hasn't been handled honestly.And yet that still would never mean you own my voice or me.
Nobody "owns" me OR my voice - but me.
Now - I don't want to fight anyone over it, I don't want any trouble - I'll just walk away - and Lord knows I can, just like that, without even blinking.
Don't ever imagine you've got me over a barrel.
Because if I was able to chew my own leg off to get out of the aforementioned trap, how much easier is this flimsy Velcro? 😂
Perhaps one could imagine that I lost income and thus had no choice but to put up with it - and perhaps I will lose income - but it's worth it to me.
It won't be comfortable, but I'll survive - this isn't a zombie apocalypse 😂
And even if it were, I do not have to survive alongside anyone I don't know well and already have proven to me that I can't trust them.
As far as that goes, I'd prefer to have to deal just with zombies - at least they're honest about being cannibals 😂
Thus, let this be a new adage - "He who seeks to screw others over to save a few extra bucks/make himself look good, may instead find himself screwed." 😉
All of this reminds me of a conversation recently I had with the above referenced that I'm alluding to, where I rebutted the concept of Social Darwinism, stating that there is no such thing, the same "survival of the fittest" rules do not apply to socioeconomics.
Animals are just trying to survive.
With humans, not only are we not all starting at the same starting place in this race, with the same opportunities, but the worst of our species will surreptitiously sabotage the best representatives of our species unnecessarily - not because survival is at stake, but over a few extra bucks - and because they know they couldn't win against the best of the species otherwise, they're not good enough.
Case in point - Tonya Harding and Nancy Kerrigan.
.jpeg)
Nancy Kerrigan was the best and Tonya knew it - so she hired a couple of guys to knee cap her so that she could win instead.
Did Tonya do it because it was necessary for her survival?
No - Tonya did it over a gold medal and jealousy, she knew she wasn't good enough otherwise.
If her plot hadn't been discovered and Tonya had won because of it, would that make her the fittest of the species?
Certainly not.
This behavior, in turn, does end up affecting survival - not just the livelihood and life of one best representative that could've benefitted the species, but several - even at the expense of our own species and our own resources.
Once again, like Ripley said in Aliens, "I don't know which species is worse. At least you don't see the Aliens screwing each other over for a Goddamn percentage."
But I digress, back to my point ...
I did NOT "volunteer" record my voice as "internal AI test sample," I especially did NOT give my permission to use it on an actual product versus actual voice actors, and I was NOT compensated for doing so.
I am a transcriptionist, not a voice actor.
Thus, this had better be the first and last usage of my voice without proper consent and compensation - are we clear?
I'm like Katie Couric in the 90s, bitches 😂
I'll giggle with you all day long, but don't think that means I'm not paying attention - I'll call you out with a"Wait, hold up ... did you just?" so fast, heads will spin 😂
_____________________
PS - Speaking of the type of worst-representative humans that deplete their own resources and eff over their own teammates for their own glory (resulting in that person ending up alone, doing all the work now themselves) - I took a look around the old blog world tonight, particularly at the blog of former fellow blogger from the UK.
We were never friends, per se, but we had mutual friends. We were on opposite political sides, which at one time, didn't make a difference - there was a time when being a conservative versus a liberal simply meant whether you liked big or small government.
We weren't at each others throats over it, back in the day, but you could definitely see socioeconomic and political changes building with the advent of lawless social media, and in fact, I issued several warnings on my old blog about what was happening to our society with social media and reality TV - and now, we elected a president based on so-called Reality TV, which so isn't reality.
Anyway, I actually forgot all about him, but was reminded of this blogger because he is the poster child of the "worst representative of our species," cheating/sabotaging/falsely accusing others because he wasn't talented enough on his own merit.
You know, the sort of person who not only has an irrational fear of anyone not like himself politically, but worse, would sell his mother for 15 minutes of fame on social media, in the hopes of becoming an influencer or getting a book deal, including throwing even those on his own political side under the bus.
The kind of guy who wants other more famous bloggers to comment, then takes potshots at them in his posts without using their name to provoke them, even falsely accuse them or edits what he said that provoked them as if he didn't say it and they're crazy - even if they're on the same political side - to gain attention for himself and sabotage his competition.
And if they commented in their own defense, he doesn't publish it and lies about what they said to make himself the victim - particularly if the blogger is female.
Worse, he developed a close friendship with a particularly unhinged fellow liberal, who he used like a dog to not just attack others, but stalk and harass and threaten them in their personal lives - then sat back and kept his nose clean, blaming her psychopathic behavior on her being a liberal (until people caught onto this too, after criminal charges were filed on her).
He used to always do this on Thursdays, in particular - we use to call it "Throw-Under-the-Bus Thursday" drama-making for attention for the rest of the weekend.
Why?
Jealousy - because he knows he's not good enough to survive/become famous on his own talent or merit alone and is incapable of true debate, so he cheats/sabotages those that are - AND - because he's trying to prove how all liberals are evil, and justifies his own evil is justified because he imagines he's "at war" with us 😆
Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.
My point being, he's a total Tonya Harding, or to continue with the Aliens analogy, he's a Burke - he's the worst of the worst of our species.
Truth be told, there are unqualified, untalented, and unhinged Tonya Hardings like this all around us, every day (cough, cough, Donald Trump) - and unfortunately, most of the time, in our society, Tonya Hardings will win (especially if they've gained enough wealth and power). 😔
And sometimes, like in this example - they don't.
Because for said blogger, this behavior did NOT result in fame, fortune, or a book deal for him in the long run - because not only was he not talented enough from the get-go, but he cried wolf one too many times, over the years, so everyone finally caught on and left. It took about 10 years, but they did. Every now and then, he'll entertain a new commenter, but they usually end up dropping off too, unless they're just clearly very stupid.
He is now almost completely alone with no commenters other than his other IDs he uses to talk to himself, trying to make it look like he still gets commenters and attention lol.
Some of us never blogged for attention or commenters anyway 😊
Oh, yeah, I forgot - sometimes his little psycho dog comments still, too, but she's changed her moniker and giving herself new identities, because people started to catch onto that, too - but you can still tell who she is by her style of writing, plus she mimics other knows bloggers.
They're still a team - not out of friendship, but because they both know where "all the bodies are buried," so to speak 😆
Now - I know that said blogger still reads my blog, because I can see who visits and who has me in a reader - and I have noted there's always a particularly laughable reaction post to something more personal I've written without using my name - and he did not disappoint after this post, which I began by alluding to an abusive ex 😉
Several years ago, he started going from making one post on a subject, to several numbered items within one post (several times a day) - so if you commented, it showed up in the sidebar for who commented where, and he made it appear as if you were supporting everything he said in the full post, though you weren't, you were only referring to one item.
(This of course was the final straw for many people, completing the mass exodus from his blog).
Anyway, his latest post includes an item supposedly from an article he recently read (that he didn't cite or give a link to), which gave the top reasons people left relationships - indifference, neglect, unfaithfulness and violence.
Though gender was not mentioned - and both genders could give these reasons to why they left relationships - his presumption was that only women must've given these answers.
Worse, , he was upset because there was no mention of what caused the presumed male partners to become indifferent, neglectful, unfaithful, and violent towards women.
I didn't take the bait and comment, I haven't in several years - but being that I'm not in a good place today, I'll react here ....
Oh, OH, I know this one!
Is it "Things Abusive Misogynists Say for 100!"
The only reason that men would ever become selfish, neglectful, unfaithful, and violent in relationships MUST be the fault of the woman, right?
She didn't take care of her man properly, do as she was told, and shut up, right?
So of course he HAD to be selfish, cheat on her, and whack her upside the head several times, it's HER fault, right?
Wrong.
See, this is why you're alone after all these years. asshole - not because the problem is women in general - or even what we, your former fellow female bloggers and friends though (which was that maybe you just chose the wrong type of women).
No, all of use realized over time that the problem is YOU - you're a tremendous gaping, black hole of asshole, sucking everyone into his web of selfish drama - a thoroughly narcissistic douchebag, incapable of empathy, ethics, or taking responsibility for your own actions.
But hey, sorry about the loss of attention and the lack of a book deal, in the end - at least you still have your blog and your several IDs to talk to?
Hope all the drama and hell you put all your fellow bloggers through/sucked them into was worth it!
But I digress - after this post, I promise, back to my usual - not letting any of this nonsense ruin my New Year or steal my joy!.
(Gotta say, though - these last two vent posts felt super good :)
If I don't post for a bit due to otherwise being extremely busy, as of late - Happy New Year to the best representatives of our species! 😀
The worst representatives of our species may lie, cheat, and steal everything else, but never let them steal your joy and make you as bitter as themselves! 😊
And remember, if the worst of our species feels the need to stoop that low to win things that never should've been competitions in the first place, let them - it will be a hollow, lonely victory for them, in the end, not to mention unnecessary and exhausting.
You may not be rich, famous, or powerful, but you'll be marinated by/and will marinate others in love, with only true friends and true loved ones at your side, who you know would have your back even if there were a zombie apocalypse - while they die off alone, like dinosaurs 😊
*edited - important addition added with asterisks below. A PS/update was added today (12/27/2023)
So I had a wonderful Christmas - seriously, the best one I've had in years! 😊
So don't get me wrong when I say what I'm about to say, here, which in fact is just a reaffirmation of what I believe (in the points later on in the post) - reminding myself (or anyone else with overly religious relatives) that it's okay to believe differently than they do.
It does NOT mean something is wrong with YOU because you don't believe that same way.
It does NOT mean that you're not really a Christian, that you're a bad person, that you worship Satan or are under Satan's influence, that you're a witch or demon-possessed, that you're self-deluded or "ill," or any of the other things that insecure Christians like to say about others who don't believe exactly as they do.
So the impetus for this was something my mother told me my little sister requested tonight - and it shocked me.
She told me what she thought was a funny story, about how my little sister supposedly asked her to anoint her car with oil and pray over it before her car trip (particularly when she returned back to Atlanta from Newport, later this week) - but she was out of olive oil, so she had to use cooking spray, which she thought was hilarious.
Erm - I guess?
I didn't laugh as heartily as my mom did, so she asked if I didn't think that was funny, considering she knows I laugh a lot and have a good sense of humor, so I just said "Oh, I'm just tired, I'm sorry" - just to keep the holiday peace.
It was true that I was tired - but the full truth is that kind of shit just freaks me out lol.
That is because I think anointing cars with any kind of oil and praying over them is not only ineffective (my friend Marian being killed by a drunk driver is proof), but is also just completely effing bonkers!!!! 😆
But I didn't say that - I said I was only tired, to keep the peace, and because she has the right to believe that - but the constantly finding a way to work in her beliefs into almost every conversation does eventually grate on my very last nerve - and now she pulled my little sister into it to support herself.
I feel the same way when people - already knowing my politics are opposite theirs - inject their politics into every conversation, trying to "convert" me by persuasion, intimidation, even bullying to their point of view - and in this day and age, it's usually the same people doing this with both religion and politics, considering the Republican Party has stuck their flag in Christianity as if they have exclusive ownership of Christianity.
(I will say except for the fact that my Mom does not support Trump. She did, but now she doesn't, after January 6th and his evasion of prosecution for his obvious crimes. However, she still supports nearly ever platform he pushed.)
What really disturbed me about this story wasn't that she did what she usually does, which is inject her version of Christianity into every conversation - but the fact that my mom said my little sister requested it - when that doesn't sound like my little sister at all?
TBH, I'm not sure what either of my sisters believe now because I don't talk about faith with them, except in a general sense, because it's none of my business. (Well, I don't talk to my older sister at all).
However, I have gotten the sense that neither of them believe like that anymore, at least to that extent anymore - but that definitely didn't sound like something my little sister would request?
Also, she said my little sister was laughing so hard, in a way she'd never heard her laugh before - which made me wonder if it wasn't true, that R asked her to do this, and instead, R actually thought it was just as bonkers as I did, only she just laughs at the situation, rather than gets freaked out like I do!
Who knows, though - maybe she really did ask my mom?
She does fear confrontation/conflict to the point of sometimes saying one thing to one party and another thing entirely to others to keep the peace/avoid conflict, but she's getting better about that.
Plus as I mentioned - and I will talk about further below - our very religious close family friend was killed by a drunk driver last May, despite anointing her car with oil and praying over it every day - and my little sister and I specifically talked about how none of that ritual and those type of prayers every day protected Marian.
But my mom's story was completely inconsistent with that.
But you see, here's what's also true about my mom - less so now that she's on meds - is that in times past, she has sometimes pulled this dirty trick of dishonestly pulling others in to support her perception and beliefs, just to make it seem like she's right and I'm the only one who sees things the way I do, to try to make me feel like something is wrong with ME for NOT seeing things her way - a subtle form of gaslighting (but born out of insecurity).
And I am NOT talking about it said in a way like "I know I'm not completely crazy because so-and-so noticed it too" sort of way - I mean more along the tone of "EVERYONE else thinks so, you're the only one who doesn't" sort of way.
See the difference?
The former is a self-check of your own perception by bringing in third-party perception - the latter is a dirty trick meant to subtly or not so subtly manipulate, peer pressure, bully or gaslight the other person into feeling like the only one who sees things the way you do and that there is something wrong with YOU for NOT seeing things this way.
*I need to clearly state here that I do NOT think my mom was doing that, this time - I think she was just telling a story she thought was funny - but it was just a reminder of that past stuff, anyway, if that makes sense?*
But even if she was again, and even if it were true that everyone else believed that way, I have the right not to - because hell, look at how many Christians follow Trump, which also freaks me out, considering literally almost everything Trump does and says is the polar opposite of everything Christ said and stood for!
Also, mob rule does not make the mob right - particularly if the mob is full of unhealthy, dysfunctional, untreated, and toxic people, wanting to hang somebody, some group, or even the supernatural for all their issues! 😂
Now - we all know that the reason people pull that "everyone thinks so" trick is actually out of their own insecurity/shaky belief system that they refuse to ever question, just to get you to feel outnumbered - to get you to cave to (untruthful) peer pressure, just so that they feel stronger and "right" - but of course I didn't know that, as a child, and my mom had the whole church AND the whole family behind her, at the time.
Because if they really wanted to get you to check yourself before you wreck yourself, they wouldn't pressure you like that - they'd just gently ask you to reconsider your perception of that person (sometimes harsher if that person is falsely accusing you personally), right?
*And again, I do NOT think she was doing that, this time, I think she was just telling a story - but it was a reminder of things past I didn't want to remember. *
And even though I know all of that intellectually now, as an adult - tell that to the gaslighted little girl apparently still deep inside, right?
Because that old fear of something being wrong with me, or the way I believed (or didn't believe), started to creep up again 😕
Thus, I'm writing out what I believe here, to myself or to whomever also has overly religious parents, to remind myself (and whomever) that I/we have the right to believe differently and it doesn't mean there is something wrong with us for believing differently - it doesn't mean we're not really Christians, that we're deluding ourselves, under Satan's influence, or any of that BS.
So for starters on what I believe, obviously, I am not charismatic evangelical anymore.
After being agnostic, even atheist for a while in my early 20s, I am now confirmed Episcopal since 2007 - but I don't even agree with their entire doctrine - and unlike most other Christian denominations, that's okay with Episcopalians.
In fact, that's one of the many reasons I chose the Episcopal church is that they don't demand that you believe anything or do A, B, and C to be Episcopal or even Christian, nor that you adhere to every iota of church doctrine.
Also, anyone can have communion with us, even non-Christians - because we don't believe it's the actual body of Christ after a priest blesses it, like Catholics do, it's merely symbolic - and we also don't want to "shut the door to the kingdom of heaven" in anyone's face for not following overly rigid, merciless law, like Christ said of the Pharisees.
We also allow for the possibility that we are wrong, which is unusual for most churches.
The only suggestion is that we inform the person of the symbolism of communion of ingesting Christ into your soul first so that they know what it means, but even that is common courtesy and not prerequisite.
You can even vary in your interpretation in scripture and that's okay; in fact, the clergy often enjoy discussion of these differences without feeling threatened because it makes them think and vice versa - it's a more rational, thinking person's/intellectual approach to spirituality rather than solely emotionally-based or fear or shame-based.
And if you don't adhere to every single bit of church doctrine or believe everything, nobody says you're not a Christian, that you worship Satan, or whatever else other types of Christians say out of their own spiritual insecurity.
(I'm not saying that there are no Episcopalians like that, particularly in the South, but the church itself makes no demands for church attendance or who to call Christians - that's a personal journey.)
I've also studied comparative religion at a college level and find that wisdom can be gleaned from all faiths, that no modern religion is pure (all having incorporated prior beliefs into their religion, to include Christianity), and that the original Koine Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic words actually used in original scripture do not mean what what most moderns Christians have repeatedly misinterpreted them to mean.
I also learned just exactly how much was removed from the bible at the Councils of Nicene and Trent conventions centuries ago because they didn't fit the church doctrine under the guises of "unable to prove authenticity" and thus were either deemed "apocrypha" and removed from modern bibles or they were completely destroyed and we have no idea what they were.
"Unable to prove authenticity" is of course is an absurd excuse for removing anything from the original scriptural text because you don't like it, considering you actually can't prove any of this stuff actually happened the way the bible says it did or who wrote what, when, anyway! 😂
This is why the bible often appears to contradict itself or appear disjointed - because stuff was removed and misinterpreted in English, often intentionally because it did not fit church doctrine!
In fact, the only "miracle of faith" in the bible that I've personally witnessed with my own eyes is how the message of Christ miraculously survived all of the chopping, slicing, dicing , and unintentional/intentional language misinterpretations from original languages that went on, based on what served the church doctrine and politics!
(This is why Jesus's words of love and mercy and forgiveness appear so different than everyone else's message in the bible - because it somehow miraculously survived the chopping! lol)
But I digress, back to the impetus for this post - and specific to things my mother said yesterday, and specifically tonight - here are my beliefs:
1) I believe that Christianity is mostly about stewardship for others - not to make ourselves feel better and uplift ourselves, using Jesus like a drug.
On a related note, that stewardship for others should NOT be done with the goal of converting others/saving souls, like a return on an investment - Christ did things for non-believers all the time, and sometimes they converted, sometimes they didn't, and sometimes we don't know - proof that conversion to Christianity wasn't the point.
The missed point by most Christian missionaries is, Christ did these things to end their suffering out of nothing more than his own compassion - period..
In fact, Christ never demanded anyone to do anything, and he only had one commandment: "Love your neighbor as yourself" - and that "All law should hang on love," specifically repudiating old-testament merciless law.
What he did NOT say was "Love your neighbor as yourself ... only if they are ____ " ... Christian, white, male, straight, legal immigrant, Republican " or whatever else Christians today fill in that blank with in order to justify your own fear, prejudice, and insecurities.
He healed non-Christians and Christians alike, sometimes making behavior suggestions later to avoid their own suffering/the suffering of others, but never demanding - but mostly, he healed and helped just because someone asked him to, Christian or not, and sometimes even when they didn't ask, just out of his own compassion.
In fact, he directly defied OT/Levitican law at least twice by healing on the Sabbath, as well as touching lepers - which was punishable by death according to Levitican law, because lepers were erroneously believed to have contracted the disease due to sin!
Speaking of Christ's only commandment earlier, note that Christ said "Love your neighbor AS yourself " - NOT more than yourself.
Because there is love and then there's codependency/enabling - letting unrepentant, unremorseful behavior go just because you're married to them, they're your family, or because share your religious or political beliefs is not love, it's enabling and not good for them OR you, and Christ never demanded us to be martyrs on his behalf - he said we would suffer, but HE is the martyr that paid the price, not us.
Christ was well aware of love versus enabling, or he wouldn't have made those behavioral suggestions, now, would he? He would've left it at "love your neighbor" alone - but he didn't. He told us specific ways we could better love our neighbors, didn't he?
And yes - he said to forgive 70x7, sure - but he never said to forget, nor to keep putting ourselves in harm's way repeatedly from harmful behavior, and/or enable unremorseful people we love or whose political/religious opinions we share.
Because in fact, forgiveness is NOT about the other person who wronged you or others at all - forgiveness frees YOUR soul from the the cycle and contagion of emotional pain.
It frees you from bitterness, which can increase the likelihood that you will cause others pain (sin) out of your own pain and perpetuate the cycle and spread the disease.
So sometimes you have to love and forgive people from afar to free your soul from pain and bitterness, and yet at the same time, still keep yourself safe.
Speaking of those suggestions, yes, he suggested repentance in some cases (usually within the church/temple congregation itself, not those on the outside).
And he suggested "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as well as the one commandment already mentioned of "Love your neighbor as yourself."
He did NOT say "because the goal of doing nice things for others in Christ's name will cause them (or force them) to convert/save their soul." - that's not genuine compassion of Christ, that's expectation of return on investment, as well as it negates free-will choice.
Now - if they are drawn to Christ because you did these things, great - but that should not be the goal or the motivation for you doing nice things for others, or else it's not sincere compassion.
The goal should be emulating the compassion of Christ for others and extending the same mercy to others as he extended to you - period.
2) Conversely, I believe that the most effective prayer is about the self, change of the self, not changing our situations or others around us - i.e, "Help me have the patience and the strength to deal with my situation; help me gain insight and find the wisdom to make a good decision" - that sort of thing.
It is NOT "If I just say a certain prayer in this certain way, say or do A, B, and C, it's like a combination lock that is going to get me what I want or think should be done/"
And when praying for others, it's similar prayers - for them to be able to endure their trials and tribulations - for strength, wisdom, patience, etc.
You certainly CAN pray for healing, etc., there's nothing wrong with that - it's just been more effective and realistic for me to pray for better handling of situations than pray for them to go away.
But also, I don't think we should use types of prayers as a measuring stick of someone else's actual Christianity. We're not qualified, only Christ himself gets to determine who's really a Christian and who is not.
Also, you're demanding it of God as if it is your birthright, as if you're entitled to it, instead of asking him for it - and if you expect it to happen because of something YOU said or did, that's not giving the power or glory to God, that's giving yourself power.
And then in that sense of thinking you can control the outcome by "incantation" prayers, could somebody please tell me the difference between that kind of Christian belief and the witchcraft other Christians fear more than anything?
In fact, it gives both religions - Christianity and witchcraft - the illusion of their control over the outcome of situations, when we actually have none.
If God chooses to help you, he might - but then again, he might not - and we cannot presume that it's because of something we said or did that he did so.
So I find that whenever I pray for strength, patience, or wisdom for myself, I am never disappointed - but if I pray for healing, rescue, or salvation from circumstances - which I may or may not have gotten myself into anyway - I am almost certainly disappointed.
3) I do not believe that God, Jesus, nor the Holy Spirit actually "speak" to everyday Christians on a regular basis.
Perhaps with certain special people and/or in certain special situations, maybe, but not everyday people, every day.
Further, I believe that people that believe like this often have undiagnosed mental illness, that if the church/the family continues to enable as "prophecy," it never will be diagnosed.
I've seen that myself in several people, including my own mother, who was enabled for decades as "prophecy" rather than mental illness - mental illness that was NOT the result of the trauma my dad inflicted.
That is NOT to minimize the PTSD she also has, inflicted by my father - but she is also bipolar with an additional disorder (likely schizoaffective disorder, like her genetic brother and father) - because bipolar disorder alone does not typically cause you to hallucinate or have unusual religious-power beliefs or fixations.
In other words, I've seen firsthand mental illness masquerading as "prophet of God" and be enabled by churches like this for far too long, and thus, why this kind of talk terrifies me.
I believe that sometimes, the soul is grieved, perhaps even prompted by the holy spirit to reach out to hurting others or to avoid certain things, etc., but actually speak to you? No, except perhaps in life-threatening situations, but and even then, sometimes it's just our own human instinct or conscience prompting us.
So how did I get here?
Well, this actually began yesterday, though it wasn't TOO bad - though she did spend a good deal of time proselytizing to my Catholic husband (as well as trying to dig around in my husband's psyche, which is another issue I won't get into here, her former career being a psychiatric nurse for 4 years back in the 80s), while my little sister and I were cooking.
Mark tolerated this like a champ - but he told me later it really, really bothered him, and the only reason he didn't tell her to shut up/leave him alone was because she was my mother lol
Now, I need to stress that we both respect her right to believe this way - we just don't like having her personal religious beliefs shoved down our throats every 10 minutes - but and also don't want her to feel like she has to walk on eggshells around us, when in her mind, she's expressing her faith and "testifying" to the glory of God.
So what to do?
It seems efforts to subtly change the subject, even tell her how uncomfortable we are with the detail with which she goes in on this stuff makes us uncomfortable (without saying why) have had no effect.
And it really didn't bother us TOO much, yesterday, it was Christmas and you focus on the best in each other, right?
But then she called me tonight and told me some of that supernatural power stuff, including my little sister in it to support herself, and that was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I didn't say anything at the time, but it really stuck in my craw and I realized I had to get in touch with WHY it bothered me so much before I said anything about it, or if I even should?
In fact, I prayed myself about the best way to do it - how to balance her feelings and right to her beliefs versus my own, no one's feelings being more important than anyone else's.
After spending some time trying to get in touch with what was really at the root of why this bothered me so much, I determined that the reason it bothered me so much was - fear.
Because I have seen my mother hallucinate stuff that wasn't there and claim it was the devil, and tell me that God told her stuff that was not in her/other people's best interest - and it was mental illness, not God - and thus, it bothers me because it reminds me of those times and thus absolutely terrifies me.
It takes me back to the time when I didn't see these things she did, and I was gaslighted into believing I was the mentally ill one for NOT seeing demons in our chimney or something, and worse, finally expressing that to her as a teenager, that that I thought she had greater mental illness going on than the trauma dad inflicted.
Now - don't get me wrong - I appreciate all of her prayers and as I said, she means well - and I don't want to step into trying to control how SHE prays - we just pray differently and expect different results, and her form of prayer literally terrifies me.
Like I said, I believe the God might help you out, if he chooses to - but it's NOT because you said just the right "incantation" or preformed the right ritual lol.
I mean, it's okay if you do these things, in my mind, but to actually expect that God or negative energy or whatever will comply with your prayers or demands is arrogant folly.
Case in point - my "mother" when my mom couldn't be, Marian, prayed over her car trip every day, claimed "the blood of Jesus over it," anointed it with oil - and was hit and killed by a drunk driver this past May.
There was no one more faithful to God and who had the compassion of Christ than Marian - so I know that it had nothing to do with how she prayed or didn't pray, that day or any other time,. Despite her prayer, God didn't protect her, God didn't save her or rescue her, for whatever reason - it was just her time.
In fact, the only place that I could even see God at all in that situation was the fact that the doctor said she was put into a coma immediately, brain dead, until the family made the decision to remove life support- meaning she likely felt no pain whatsoever since the moment it happened, and further, that when they disconnected her, she was held and sung to by her entire family, singing her to sleep.
God neither protected her nor caused this to happen - we credit and blame God for too much - HOWEVER - he DID show up - just not in the way we humans think he should.
Regardless, subtle subject changes, mentioning how uncomfortable we are has had no effect, so it was time to get direct - so I chose to say this, which is verbatim via text - wish me luck/pray for me? 😂
"Mom - I need to say why I didn't laugh about the cooking spray (used as anointing oil for my sister's car before her trip, which my mom said was per my little sister's request?) as much as you perhaps hoped.
I want to allow you to believe whatever way you want to, if it helps you - but please also know that I'm extremely uncomfortable, even fearful, of that kind of belief that our prayers in a certain way can control the outcome of events, or that God speaks directly to us.
I believe in rare or dangerous situations, it's possible, but not on a regular basis. In fact, I don't see much difference between that kind of prayer and witchcraft, and further, mental illness.
In fact, I have seen mental illness masking itself as hearing from God, and thus, it terrifies me.
Thus, just as you ask us all to refrain from ever using the F word out of sensitivity of your history (with my Dad), may I ask that you be sensitive to mine - and not continue to to push that kind of faith?
I appreciate your prayers and your right to believe as you do, but please allow me the right to not believe that we hear from God or the Holy Spirit speaks to you or to anyone else directly on a regular basis, or that anointing this with oil, or anything else we humans think we can do will protect us.
If God chooses to protect us, he will, and not necessarily because we ask or do A, B, and C - that's what I believe.
If you believe that way, and it helps you, I respect that - and from what you're telling me, X (my little sister) does too, because she asked you to do it?
That surprised me. I respect whatever you all believe, but please understand that I do not. I do not believe that Jesus, God, or the Holy Spirit literally speaks to us on a regular basis and I'm never going to believe that way again because I don't think it's healthy, I'm sorry.
Feel free to continue to (believe that way), but pushing it on Mark and myself is actually having the opposite effect than you want, I'm sorry.
I love you and don't want you to talk on eggshells around us, but if you could just look at it like it's MY "F word" - your version of faith 😂
Thank you for understanding. I hope."
She might be upset - but I cannot apologize for this boundary.
I love my Mom, I truly do, but it's finding that balance of her feelings versus mine that I have trouble with, right?
______________________________________
PS - My mother responded that she didn't know we were uncomfortable because we never said so.
Sigh. Of course, that is not true.
I've told her that many times - just not as assertively as that text.
We've just done it more subtly - we've changed the subject, subtly hinted, made jokes and I've even told her straight up that I believed "incantation" styles of prayer not only sets me up for disappointment, but literally scares me, because I know too many mentally ill people that were enabled out of diagnosis and treatment for far too long by their churches and families as being "prophets/prophetesses" who actually weren't - they were mentally ill.
In fact, I wrote a post about how I'd mentioned it during our LGBTQ conversation, which ended me if asking if I even believed Jesus was the son of God anymore (and I said of course I do, and that anti-LGBTQ and anti-abortion should NOT be requirements for being a Christian - that's a modern addition).
Regardless, interestingly, in that text, she changed her story - she said SHE asked Ru if she wanted her to pray and anoint her car with oil and not the other way around - though I'm 100% positive she said Ru asker HER, yesterday.
In fact, this is pretty close to verbatim: "R asked me to anoint her car with oil and pray over it. She likes me to do this, particularly when she goes back to Atlanta."
First of all, that was not the sense of R's religous beliefs that I got, as I stated.
Secondly, why would R believe her car needed more "holy oil" to go back to Atlanta, where she lives, when she loves Atlanta and would never leave it, more than any other city she visits?
That part especially sounded more like my mom's semi-racist beliefs about Atlanta - meaning that because everyone knows Atlanta has a higher-than-the-national-average percentage of people of color, race-biased people assume that Atlanta then must also have one of the highest crime rates in the U.S., when in fact, Atlanta ranks about 17th in the U.S. as far as crime!
I'm not sure why my mom said that - I think it was some mix between wanting to support her own beliefs and wishful thinking, but whatever, I let it go and moved on.
Then I told her for many people, faith is a personal, private issue they don't discuss with everybody, and that many people get very uncomfortable when it's injected into almost every single conversation - especially when that person already knows we believe differently.
Because she DOES know I don't believe like her anymore and she knows my husband is Catholic, and believes completely differently than my mom does.
So I told her that Mark and I both felt uncomfortable for different reasons - but that mine went beyond discomfort to flat-out fear (due to the above) - but he's simply uncomfortable because it's talked about with arrogance and assurance, and it always feels to him like she's trying to convert him to her way of believing or save his soul, because she assume he needs it because he's Catholic! lol
Whatever - as long as she knows that now, very clearly - we're good.
We had a great time otherwise and would visit again, but we decided it was time to place the boundary a little bit more firmly and clearer before we visit again.
There was something else said that really, really disturbed me, and not about faith, which I won't go into here, but I think I just need to take a deep breath and have a bit of a rest for a few days before we engage again - I've been going nonstop since before Thanksgiving and that won't help my diplomacy skills lol.
So yesterday was my birthday, and today is my little sister's birthday - we are exactly10 years and one day apart 😊
My husband surprised me, last week, by telling me he was taking me on a weekend trip to cabin at Lake Cumberland State Park for my birthday 😊
So I have a thing about sunrises and sunsets - and Lake Cumberland has some of the most beautiful of both in Kentucky (see past posts) :)
I tend to get very sentimental and reflective of the past year, on my birthday and Christmas, being so close to the New Year - finding myself filled with both gratitude and nostalgia.
So as I watched the sun rise up from the hills and over the lake, painting the sky as it went, I was reminded of the song "Breath of Heaven (Mary's Song)."
Because you see, in my world, God is quiet and subtle - and if you blink or get distracted with other things, you'll miss him - and nature has always been my church :)
If you haven't heard the song, it's below - and it's about Mary's prayer as she journeyed to Bethlehem - and it's not particularly holy or exalted - it's honest.
Her feelings of unworthiness, anxieties about the future, what people were saying/thought of her ... and yet at same time, she somehow managed to find inspiration and gratitude in effort to lighten the load 😊
IMO, evangelicals don't focus on Mary enough, and Catholics perhaps too much. Also, IMO, my idea of Mary wasn't so much holy as human, and her journey and struggles are particularly inspiring to women - not because she was a "holy" vessel, but because of all the obstacles that came at her during her journey that she would've had to have overcome, when we otherwise don't hear much about the struggles of women, except perhaps with Esther.
So without further ado, I give you "Breath of Heaven" - by Amy Grant 😊
Been busy with new new job, so I just started decorating ... and I have a helper, this year. A little elf named Ziggy. Or at least he thinks he's helping?
This year's big wreathe (making a smaller one for the French door).
Not my best work, but the things I ordered were delayed with the ribbon for the mantel, so I used what I had and had limited time?
Mantel, without the ribbon (which also got delayed in shipping. I'll add a new photo when it arrives).
And, of course, the tree :)
"In other words, in fairness, Truth Social isn’t a colossal failure, it’s only an abysmal failure,”
“I have to say, demanding a retraction for reporting the value of his company incorrectly is pretty darn hilarious considering the fact he is on trial right now for reporting the value of his company incorrectly. Maybe he should sue himself.”
“But in all fairness, TMTG demanded an apology, so from the bottom of my heart I want to say, Donald Trump and everyone at the TMTG, I’m deeply sorry you’re so bad at running companies, I guess.”
(*Having technical difficulty adding pics, at present, so will add later)
Watching one of my favorite news programs this morning, CBS Sunday Morning (mentioned many times before). The first segment, this morning, by Lee Cowan, was about new statistics revealing that more women are enrolled in college programs than men, as well as women are now more likely to complete a Bachelor's degree, using any statistic you like, in America, any way you slice it - and apparently, this is cause for alarm! 😆
So some dude named Richard Reeves from the Brookings Institute thinks this is some sort of crisis and blames it on men not knowing where they fit anymore or what it means to be a man, and says that even raising these questions causes eye rolls.
He further says it's possible to support the struggles of women AND the struggles of men.
Absolutely true, and good point!
HOWEVER - shouldn't we study this statistic more and find out why, first, rather than push a biased, untested hypothesis?
And mind you, Reeves is an economist, not a psychologist or sociologist - might be best to leave human-behavior-in-groups and human-motivation questions to experts in those fields to study? 😉
Because although his suggestion could be the reason, and I really tried to listen to his point, IMO, he didn't convince me - and that is because all he did was pose more questions and speculate without providing any actual evidence - and that is because it hasn't been tested or studied yet.
I mean, essentially, his hypothesis is that there are less men in college because they don't know what it means to be a man anymore, so what is a man?
I might answer: "I don't know, and I'm not sure why we have to define masculinity, but for starters, my definition of masculinity might start with the kind of man who is secure enough in his own definition of masculinity that he isn't automatically threatened by having more women in college than men?"
Now, I'm not saying he's wrong - but he hasn't proven to me he's right, either. He asked some interesting questions and posed a hypothesis, but without answers, he's just speculating.
All we know for a fact is that more women are enrolled in secondary education than men - but we don't know why.
In fact, couldn't the reasons be multifactorial, as with other social sciences?
But we'll get to those other possible factors later.
As for my own bias, I admit, when this story first came on, I kind of rolled my eyes and said "Well, welcome to the chronic identity crisis of women's world. We have had to be mothers AND in the workforce for years, in our economy, and finding a good balance and fit is no easy task."
"And once again, we have older, fragile white male egos, so threatened by women becoming successful that they think this is a "crisis," mostly because right-wing politics says it is."
BUT - I don't want to discount how men are feeling, either, so I listened.
But honestly, he didn't really tell me how men were feeling.
Instead, he told me his opinion of how men are feeling, without providing any evidence whatsoever, and again, feelings are not an economist's territory of study.
So he heads this American Institute for Boys and Men thing and has written a book called "Of Boys and Men" - a cute boy-band sort of name - but at least from what I saw, there is no real evidence to support his hypothesis on why this is occurring, only his presumption?
So let's find out why then - and by that, I mean via objective study rather than biased speculation, shall we?
And again, as we know, or we should know, this is social science - so the answer could be multifactorial.
So who - male or female, not already wealthy - wants to sign up for becoming part of that statistic right after high school?
In fact, I've always thought it might be wise for some teenagers to take a year or two off, work and have to pay bills in the real world and settle down and decide what you want to do first before jumping into college, but it depends on the person, too.
Also, on a related note, what we do know for a fact is that America families are struggling such that that many young men feel they have to contribute immediately to the home, as an adult, and thus don't have time for college, much like in less-developed countries - so how "developed" are we then, really?
Secondly, at least the boys/men interviewed today said they just didn't feel ready for college, they were bouncing off the walls, unfocused, undisciplined.
Okay, so ... does that automatically mean they're lost in their definition of masculinity?
I don't think we have enough information to assume that.
And actually, from another perspective, one could ask "Do boys feel like they can now take their time getting to college versus women? Do they feel comfortable being slackers at mom and dad's house or is it something else-?"
I'm not saying that either, I'm saying I don't know, WE don't know yet - I'm just saying that's an argument one could make which might actually be a good argument against Reeves's hypothesis - which again, is reason for further study.
Lastly, we can't ignore recent politicians making our need to define gender and masculinity and femininity, on both sides.
Well, more accurately, IMO, though both sides have made this an issue, the political left tries to be about acceptance (perhaps with some confusion) of others along the gender spectrum, while the right has pushed fear on the issue, that this is somehow a threat to white men - that accepting and giving rights to people who have less somehow means they are endangered.
As a result, we are more polarized than ever, on these issues, with no end in sight, because we keep pushing for a rigid definition, when in my opinion, I'm not sure we need to, except in certain health or legal circumstances.
I think the problem itself has more to do with ancient, rigid definitions about what it means to be male or female that, although they may have served their culture at the time, were actually already inaccurate, and usually design by a government (or today, a corporation) to suit their own purposes, particularly military service.
For example, I just had this conversation with my husband:
Me: "Okay, so what is your definition of masculinity?"
Mark: "Pushing forward with what you need to do despite adversity."
Me (linking twice in silence a second, giving him a chance to realize what he said):
"Oh. Do women not do that? And if we do, it means we're masculine or-?"
Mark: "Wait, I've seen you do that, actually, but maybe that's just ... you. Wait, what just came out of my mouth? Women in Africa go out and have a baby in a field and then go back and work that same field an hour later, I couldn't do that. What am I even talking about?"
Me (taking it easy on him, after he realized himself his own personal definition did not match his military definition): "I don't know, but I think you realized the difference between the cultural definition, despite evidence to the contrary and your own personal beliefs about women :)"
"And for the record, there's no way I could have had McK in a field and gone back to work in it an hour later either, lol.
"But what women in Africa having babies in fields and working those fields an hour later DOES provide is proof of how our definitions of what's expected of men and women are cultural, not inherent in our gender."
"We've been indoctrinated into these definitions despite much evidence to the contrary, and they're very narrow and rigid - either you're a conquering, emotionless hero or a vegan, yogafied meditator, when it's actually a spectrum, isn't it? Why are there always just two boxes, in either/or?"
"When maybe it depends not just on culture, but also on the situation and the person, having nothing to do with gender, but our our personal experiences, our personality."
"For example, if it's an emergency health issue or something which requires diplomacy, I'm the calm one, UNLESS I'm dealing with a clearly unstable person. If it's weaponry, that's your department. Also if you've determined quicker than I have that all diplomacy efforts are going to fail with this person lol. Not because we're men and women, but because that's us as individuals. "
Also, growing up, my Dad felt that the only men who like cats are effeminate - real men only liked dogs, and they must be BIG dogs - and I knew many men in the South who agreed with him.
???
So what does that mean for women? And can't we like all animals?
That's so stupid. And untrue. Who started that nonsense?
As for those emotions, or the lack thereof, mentioned above, I'm all for people in general getting more in touch/self-aware regarding their emotions and what motivates them to do and say what they do, but I think many have misunderstood that this means - such that they begin to believe their feelings are more important than others and should be acted on right away.
Nope. Sometimes we have to compartmentalize them (different than stuffing them), just to get things done, or based on prioritizing whose needs are more important at that moment, or wait for the right time to discuss them; that is, if anyone wants to hear them anyway 😆
And sometimes, whether they do want to hear them or not, it's important to tell people that their feelings are impinging on yours, too 😉
And as far as gender issues, let's just put it this way - although as mentioned, I support wherever you lie on the masculine-feminine spectrum, or even the gender and sexuality spectrum - I have to also admit, thought a strong lefty, I AM mildly annoyed with my fellow lefties pushing us to define and label things ourselves, like it's a mortal sin if we don't use the right pronoun.
Because this is how the brain works, people - it is human nature for us to categorize things, all of us. So if we get the pronouns wrong, sure, please correct us - but don't expect us to be psychic - be as kind about it as you would like us to be towards you, yes?
On the other side of politics, Trump has been the biggest proponent that white men "should' feel threatened by other groups getting more rights share and defining masculinity - which is ironic, because he is the most emotionally volatile president I've ever seen, acting the most fragile and "girly" and Karen-ish out of any male I think I've ever seen - according to our rigid definitions
(But his supporters like to pretend like he isn't, or at least that his whining, belligerence and anger are justified.)
Meanwhile, we women still aren't allowed to be angry at all because it scares the supposedly most masculine men in our society, which kind of argues against how strong they really are then, right?
I mean, these types of "macho" men believe they can handle incoming missiles at their heads or a hand-to-hand combat with their military enemy, but God forbid their girlfriends or wives are mad at you, oh, no, then it's time to put on the riot gear and call the national guard, that's the scariest thing around? 😆
OR is it simply that men with this mentality simply feel than can forcibly control women easier than they can control versus a military enemy? 😉
(As an aside, though I've mentioned, my husband was in the military and did lots of masculine things, he is is NOT the sort of men that feels threatened by smart or strong women, so it is possible.)
Okay - but do these type of men have to have control over everything, and should they have control everything to their liking?
Because we women have had to sit with little or no control for years, and I promise you, you'd live, if it came to that, it's just unpleasant.
But sometimes there's just gray areas in life, no one has total control or there's a balance - why isn't that okay?
And men stuck in this erroneous definition never seem to understand that the quickest way to get the situation under control with women is to try listening to her perspective to avoid escalation?
Doesn't mean you have to agree, but at least value her perspective enough to listen?
Lastly, Reeves really starts to annoy me when he asks "What does a successful male look like? We don't know anymore."
And again, I would say "What is your definition of success, and do we have to have a standardized definition success?"
Because it might depend on the person.
Now, If you mean a financial success, well, maybe not - and just because they go to college doesn't mean they will be financially successful, anyway - again, having $1.77 trillion of student loan debt in the United States tells us that already.
And let's say either a man or a woman either lost or didn't have a father or a mother, growing up. What if all someone wanted to be was "just a mother" or "just a father" - thus, they sacrificed the 90-hour work week so they could accomplish that goal.
Does that mean they're masculine or feminine? Does that mean they're not strong? Does that mean they're not a success?
Or let's say a particularly intelligent man decided to go into an arts-related field rather than math-related field, though equally good at both, just because he enjoyed it more - does that make him less masculine?
Or a particularly intelligent woman, who is also nurturing, choose a career field that kept her intellect stimulated and busy, but also refused the C-suite 90-hour-work day, so she could also be a mother?
Does that mean she's not successful?
If you ask them versus our standard definition, you might find their answer surprising.
So just like our definitions of masculine and feminine have been overly rigid and culturally pushed from those in power and erroneous from the start, so are our definitions of success, then yes?
So instead of viewing this is some kind of crisis, Mr. Reeves, perhaps we need to just need to start thinking outside the box a bit more - but I understand why this is "scary" to people who can't do that and need things to fit neatly into them (despite most things in life not being that way)..
Regardless, Richard Reeves, might be onto something - but I think he's not just oversimplifying the issue, but jumping to conclusions about these statistics, based on his own bias - and as we know, if we study statistics further based on a biased hypothesis, the results will be skewed and will not stand up to peer review.
Because if I were an academic at X Ivy League School, and you presented these statistics without your biased hypothesis attached to, I'd definitely support a grant for further study - UNLESS - that's your biased hypothesis from the get go, when we now know that most social-science conclusions are often multifactorial.
Took us long enough to figure that out, despite already knowing that humans are very complex psychological creatures 😀
Which is my final thought - Reeves is an economist, not a psychologist or sociologist. Best leave the question of what is motivating/not motivation men to attend college to experts in the fields of psychology and sociology to study, hmm?
