Having an extreme amount of passion for something without giving off vibes of fanaticism is a delicate balance. It's easy to live on top of a soapbox, and yet so hard to actually practice what you know in your heart to be true when the rest of society thinks and behaves otherwise.
I'm content with being an "old-fashioned" thinker not because of the way I was raised, but because of personal experiences that shaped my beliefs. I have a strong disgust for doing things simply because it's what everyone else is doing. Yet in this world, having high standards can mean losing your chance of being accepted by the majority. It can even mean a lifetime of loneliness.
I’ve been called many things since I started writing for the Stater: arrogant, naïve, even a “disgrace to journalism.” There have been times when I’ve been tempted to either quit or stick to writing “safe” pieces that most people can agree with so the comments on KentWired.com won’t be so difficult to read. But after careful consideration, I realized that watering down my passionate beliefs for the sake of appeasing others was giving in to the status quo. If I wanted people to like me, I’d simply keep my mouth shut; however, I have committed myself to living a life of passion and fearlessness when it comes to standing up for what I believe in, so I have accepted that will often come with intense criticism.
We’ve all heard the expression that what’s right is not always popular, and what’s popular is not always right. Everyone has differing views on what is “right” and acceptable. Because of that, many of us have been taught to keep those views to ourselves so we can maintain peace with others. I strongly disagree with keeping personal convictions a secret, even if they might offend other people. I believe that it is downright necessary to face backlash for having a strong stance on something in order to know the strength of your convictions. You will never know how strong you really are until that happens.
In fact, I believe it is completely useless to have a strong belief in anything if you aren’t willing to take some heat for it. Passion should be contagious. If it isn’t, I am inclined to wonder if it even exists.
Yes, standing up in the name of passion can come with a steep price. I’ve found that it’s a great way to find out who my real friends are. It’s been a way for me to figure out who truly cares about me and who never did.
I know now that life is too short to be overly concerned with getting everyone to like you. Whether people adore you or can’t stand the very mention of you, it is better to be either of those things than lukewarm. Otherwise, life can be pretty boring.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said: “A man who hasn’t found a cause worth dying for isn’t fit to live.” I urge you to find yours and live it out without fear, regret or shame.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Grudges are self-defeating, forgiveness prevails
While I was at a hostel in Ireland, I found out about the Arizona shootings from a link someone posted on Facebook. Almost as shocking as the event itself were some of the comments that readers left on the article. “The shooter should rot in hell,” one of them said. Others went on to describe all kinds of heinous tortures that should be inflicted on someone callous enough to shoot a child, let alone a crowd of innocent people. Some comments that suggested forgiving the shooter were met with responses declaring some people too evil to deserve such mercy.
Many people equate forgiveness with excusing poor behavior. The truth is that holding on to anger is emotionally crippling and robs you of the chance to heal from tragedy. That’s not to say that it isn’t natural to grieve. It’s perfectly understandable to have rage. However, holding onto it for a lifetime and still hoping to heal is like gorging on cupcakes daily and still expecting to lose weight. Refusing to forgive someone who has wronged you only gives them permission to dominate your life.
Forgiving isn’t easy; it may be the most difficult and painful thing you ever do. I’ll even go as far as saying that forgiveness is an unnatural act because it contradicts everything we think we know about justice. Because revenge is a knee-jerk reaction to being hurt, many people hold sacred the “eye for an eye” philosophy. It may seem fair that whatever evil a person commits must in turn be done to them, but refusing to forgive also robs the offender of the opportunity for repentance.
When someone learns from a past mistake, they most likely don’t want their indiscretions held against them. As naïve as it may sound, I still believe redemption is possible for even the worst of offenses. If anyone feels shame for the things they have done, withholding forgiveness only perpetuates the cycle of hatred that causes violence in the first place.
If we adamantly refuse to practice forgiveness, we must then question what kind of world we want to live in. We also can’t rely on our feelings to decide when forgiveness is appropriate; if we do, we will remain emotionally stuck. Forgiveness must be a conscious choice, the way loving a difficult relative is a choice. The demonstration of unmerited compassion changes lives, something I have witnessed firsthand.
Holding a grudge against the Arizona shooter won’t bring his victims back. Don’t allow hatred and bitterness to have the upper hand in your life. It’s a waste of valuable energy that only results in more unnecessary destruction.
Many people equate forgiveness with excusing poor behavior. The truth is that holding on to anger is emotionally crippling and robs you of the chance to heal from tragedy. That’s not to say that it isn’t natural to grieve. It’s perfectly understandable to have rage. However, holding onto it for a lifetime and still hoping to heal is like gorging on cupcakes daily and still expecting to lose weight. Refusing to forgive someone who has wronged you only gives them permission to dominate your life.
Forgiving isn’t easy; it may be the most difficult and painful thing you ever do. I’ll even go as far as saying that forgiveness is an unnatural act because it contradicts everything we think we know about justice. Because revenge is a knee-jerk reaction to being hurt, many people hold sacred the “eye for an eye” philosophy. It may seem fair that whatever evil a person commits must in turn be done to them, but refusing to forgive also robs the offender of the opportunity for repentance.
When someone learns from a past mistake, they most likely don’t want their indiscretions held against them. As naïve as it may sound, I still believe redemption is possible for even the worst of offenses. If anyone feels shame for the things they have done, withholding forgiveness only perpetuates the cycle of hatred that causes violence in the first place.
If we adamantly refuse to practice forgiveness, we must then question what kind of world we want to live in. We also can’t rely on our feelings to decide when forgiveness is appropriate; if we do, we will remain emotionally stuck. Forgiveness must be a conscious choice, the way loving a difficult relative is a choice. The demonstration of unmerited compassion changes lives, something I have witnessed firsthand.
Holding a grudge against the Arizona shooter won’t bring his victims back. Don’t allow hatred and bitterness to have the upper hand in your life. It’s a waste of valuable energy that only results in more unnecessary destruction.
On private conversations in public places
You’ve probably been in this scenario before: You’re standing in line at in the Student Center to get food, or you’re at the library or any other spot on campus where space is limited, and there are people nearby having a conversation you find very interesting. Depending on the subject matter, you could be simply intrigued or feel very passionately and therefore desperate to throw in your two cents. However, societal norms say that it is rude to simply interject your own opinion in someone else’s conversation — especially if it’s a conversation among strangers.
I have to confess, I am guilty of doing exactly that. In fact, that’s how I met one of my current friends. I was studying at a table in the Student Center when I overheard her talking with two other people about religious fundamentalism in America (yes, you read that right). Once I overheard what was being said, there was no way I could concentrate on my homework, so I casually made my way over (which was only about three feet from where I was sitting), introduced myself and joined in. Thankfully, my intervening in that particular discussion was welcomed and not scorned; however, it could have gone much worse because I was technically being rude by intruding.
Most people have unique “how we met” stories that involve a variety of social events under many different circumstances. While joining in on discussions you find interesting is one way to meet people, I definitely wouldn’t recommend it on a regular basis for the obvious reason that it’s simply not your place to do so. Then again, there are some topics of conversation that I feel are not recommended for public discussion, and in some cases, you can’t be at all surprised if other people decide to join in. One of those subjects is politics — the best and fastest way to get anybody fired up. Another hot topic, pardon the pun, is sex.
On a separate occasion while waiting in line for food at Eastway Center, I stood in front of a girl who was discussing her latest drunken exploit to a friend on her cell phone. This girl was clearly distraught that the guy she sloppily hooked up with the night before wasn’t as cute as she assumed he was after she sobered up the next morning. Naturally, I turned around with a shocked expression on my face. Come on, wouldn’t you? The girl took my reaction personally and yelled at me for being “so rude” for “judging” her while she was “having a private conversation.”
Clearly, some degree of common sense must be used when deciding what to talk about in public. I’m sorry, but there is no such thing as a private conversation when you’re sandwiched between people in line at any dining hall on the Kent campus. Sometimes it’s appropriate to join in, but use discretion. If your conversation is intended to be completely private, stay at home.
I have to confess, I am guilty of doing exactly that. In fact, that’s how I met one of my current friends. I was studying at a table in the Student Center when I overheard her talking with two other people about religious fundamentalism in America (yes, you read that right). Once I overheard what was being said, there was no way I could concentrate on my homework, so I casually made my way over (which was only about three feet from where I was sitting), introduced myself and joined in. Thankfully, my intervening in that particular discussion was welcomed and not scorned; however, it could have gone much worse because I was technically being rude by intruding.
Most people have unique “how we met” stories that involve a variety of social events under many different circumstances. While joining in on discussions you find interesting is one way to meet people, I definitely wouldn’t recommend it on a regular basis for the obvious reason that it’s simply not your place to do so. Then again, there are some topics of conversation that I feel are not recommended for public discussion, and in some cases, you can’t be at all surprised if other people decide to join in. One of those subjects is politics — the best and fastest way to get anybody fired up. Another hot topic, pardon the pun, is sex.
On a separate occasion while waiting in line for food at Eastway Center, I stood in front of a girl who was discussing her latest drunken exploit to a friend on her cell phone. This girl was clearly distraught that the guy she sloppily hooked up with the night before wasn’t as cute as she assumed he was after she sobered up the next morning. Naturally, I turned around with a shocked expression on my face. Come on, wouldn’t you? The girl took my reaction personally and yelled at me for being “so rude” for “judging” her while she was “having a private conversation.”
Clearly, some degree of common sense must be used when deciding what to talk about in public. I’m sorry, but there is no such thing as a private conversation when you’re sandwiched between people in line at any dining hall on the Kent campus. Sometimes it’s appropriate to join in, but use discretion. If your conversation is intended to be completely private, stay at home.
Abortion rights and the pursuit of happiness
On the 38th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion, President Barack Obama stated, “The government should not intrude on private family matters… On this anniversary, I hope that we will recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights, the same freedoms and the same opportunities as our sons to fulfill their dreams.” What Obama doesn’t seem to understand is that one’s right to the pursuit of happiness must have its limits. Pursuing happiness shouldn’t include the violent removal and disposal of a fetus like trash.
According to Obama, the government has no right to intrude on what he considers to be “private family matters,” yet somehow it’s perfectly fine for the government to take responsibility for educating our children about sex, instead of leaving that task to the parents. Furthermore, his use of the expression “fulfill their dreams” in that context sends chills down my spine. Obama is essentially saying that it’s acceptable to kill innocent children rather than take personal responsibility for the life that one “oops” can create.
For a man who has daughters himself, it’s downright disturbing that he would use the expression “fulfill their dreams” as an inspirational catchphrase in a speech about keeping abortion legal. Babies are not a handicap or a punishment, yet Obama makes them out to be the worst thing that can ever happen to a teenage girl. Why not encourage young girls to “fulfill their dreams” by exposing the lie that saying no to sex will make them prudes? Why not promote “fulfilling their dreams” by teaching them to stand up against peer pressure to have sex? Why must they “fulfill their dreams” by exercising the so-called right to dispose of their children simply because they are inconvenient?
The government needs to make up its mind on what “private matters” actually means. There used to be a time when sex was considered a private, personal matter that was no one’s business except the people who chose to have it. Now it’s simply a given that “everyone is doing it.” It doesn’t make any sense to organize programs that impose societal norms about sex, but then insist that abortion is a “private matter.”
The pursuit of one’s happiness should not be so great that innocent beings must pay with their lives. President Obama’s poorly selected catchphrase should not be used to justify a violent means to an extremely selfish end. Aborting a child for cramping their mother’s dreams is like demanding my innocent neighbor to compensate me if I get robbed so I can reach my dream of becoming a billionaire.
According to Obama, the government has no right to intrude on what he considers to be “private family matters,” yet somehow it’s perfectly fine for the government to take responsibility for educating our children about sex, instead of leaving that task to the parents. Furthermore, his use of the expression “fulfill their dreams” in that context sends chills down my spine. Obama is essentially saying that it’s acceptable to kill innocent children rather than take personal responsibility for the life that one “oops” can create.
For a man who has daughters himself, it’s downright disturbing that he would use the expression “fulfill their dreams” as an inspirational catchphrase in a speech about keeping abortion legal. Babies are not a handicap or a punishment, yet Obama makes them out to be the worst thing that can ever happen to a teenage girl. Why not encourage young girls to “fulfill their dreams” by exposing the lie that saying no to sex will make them prudes? Why not promote “fulfilling their dreams” by teaching them to stand up against peer pressure to have sex? Why must they “fulfill their dreams” by exercising the so-called right to dispose of their children simply because they are inconvenient?
The government needs to make up its mind on what “private matters” actually means. There used to be a time when sex was considered a private, personal matter that was no one’s business except the people who chose to have it. Now it’s simply a given that “everyone is doing it.” It doesn’t make any sense to organize programs that impose societal norms about sex, but then insist that abortion is a “private matter.”
The pursuit of one’s happiness should not be so great that innocent beings must pay with their lives. President Obama’s poorly selected catchphrase should not be used to justify a violent means to an extremely selfish end. Aborting a child for cramping their mother’s dreams is like demanding my innocent neighbor to compensate me if I get robbed so I can reach my dream of becoming a billionaire.
The inconsistency of buffet-style spirituality
Imagine you are baking some cookies. I’m not much of a baker myself, but from what I hear it’s a very precise process. If a recipe calls for sugar, substituting garlic will definitely not produce the intended results. Chances are, the cookies will turn out to be a conglomerated mess.
There's a reason recipes call for certain ingredients. Similarly, there's a reason why all religions have certain tenets. They are all meant to work together, not separately. Sure, all religions basically preach love and kindness to one's neighbor, but to reject the doctrines that back up the Golden Rule is to misunderstand the entire faith.
I learned enough from my Comparative Religious Thought class last semester to understand that there is far more to the world’s leading religions than simply “living a good life.” It’s easy to skim the surface of Christianity and believe Jesus is a cool guy who preached compassion, not knowing what he had to say about the final judgment. It’s easy to skim the surface of Judaism and think the concept of social justice is admirable, but have no clue what a mitzvah is, or how tzedakah differs from charity. There are many aspects of the world’s religions that are interesting and worth studying, but mixing them all together in a self-made religion results in cosmic confusion, not enlightenment.
If people intend to live their lives as they choose, with no desire to be “tied down” by doctrine, then why bother with religion at all?
To pick and choose aspects of some faiths and reject the rest is not only misguided but also offensive. It’s essentially saying, “I think some of your religion is beneficial, but the rest is useless to me.” The buffet-style approach to religion is nothing more than a way to organize one's life and priorities around the god of the self. There is no self-sacrifice, no deep commitment and no knowledge gained if one is simply following their own rules.
I am completely in favor of interfaith dialogues and discussing the similarities of the world’s religions. However, similarities do not mean identical doctrines. Even if all religions desire to make the world a better place and grow closer to their own individual god or gods, they all believe in different ways of doing so.
It is up to each individual to figure out what he or she stands for and what to dedicate his or her life to. There are many religious paths to choose from, but for anyone who has ever read a multitude of holy books, it becomes clear that they do not all lead to the same place. It is not my goal to shamelessly plug my own religious beliefs; my goal is simply to promote consistency.
There's a reason recipes call for certain ingredients. Similarly, there's a reason why all religions have certain tenets. They are all meant to work together, not separately. Sure, all religions basically preach love and kindness to one's neighbor, but to reject the doctrines that back up the Golden Rule is to misunderstand the entire faith.
I learned enough from my Comparative Religious Thought class last semester to understand that there is far more to the world’s leading religions than simply “living a good life.” It’s easy to skim the surface of Christianity and believe Jesus is a cool guy who preached compassion, not knowing what he had to say about the final judgment. It’s easy to skim the surface of Judaism and think the concept of social justice is admirable, but have no clue what a mitzvah is, or how tzedakah differs from charity. There are many aspects of the world’s religions that are interesting and worth studying, but mixing them all together in a self-made religion results in cosmic confusion, not enlightenment.
If people intend to live their lives as they choose, with no desire to be “tied down” by doctrine, then why bother with religion at all?
To pick and choose aspects of some faiths and reject the rest is not only misguided but also offensive. It’s essentially saying, “I think some of your religion is beneficial, but the rest is useless to me.” The buffet-style approach to religion is nothing more than a way to organize one's life and priorities around the god of the self. There is no self-sacrifice, no deep commitment and no knowledge gained if one is simply following their own rules.
I am completely in favor of interfaith dialogues and discussing the similarities of the world’s religions. However, similarities do not mean identical doctrines. Even if all religions desire to make the world a better place and grow closer to their own individual god or gods, they all believe in different ways of doing so.
It is up to each individual to figure out what he or she stands for and what to dedicate his or her life to. There are many religious paths to choose from, but for anyone who has ever read a multitude of holy books, it becomes clear that they do not all lead to the same place. It is not my goal to shamelessly plug my own religious beliefs; my goal is simply to promote consistency.
Judgment Day is every day
I have noticed something when it comes to having discussions on controversial topics: the phrase, “Stop being so judgmental!” comes up quite frequently. People tend to forget that having a different opinion than most doesn’t automatically equate with arrogance or being in a higher moral bracket than everybody else. An accusation of being judgmental is not an adequate defense to use against someone whose opinion comes off as offensive.
Deep down, we all know that we judge people on a regular basis. We judge based on clothing, mannerisms, political and religious views and more. We make assumptions about people that are often faulty based on first impressions alone. Sometimes it’s easier to hold on to those faulty assumptions than admit we are wrong about something. Before we go accusing someone of being judgmental, we need to take a long, good look at our own judgmental hearts first.
Moreover, there is more than one definition of what it means to make a judgment of somebody. Say you’re on a date, for example. You will be making value judgments about the person you’re having dinner with to determine if a new relationship is on the horizon. Those judgments, based on conversation skills and compatibility, are not wrong. If you have a significant other or close friends, you have made a judgment of their character and have deemed them worthy of investing your time with them.
Making instant assumptions about a person is another form of judgment. It’s easy to assume that I, a woman with conservative viewpoints that have origins in religion, was brainwashed by my equally religious and conservative family, am a registered Republican, was home-schooled, am a huge prude – all of which are lies.
The kind of judgment that more people are familiar with is the kind that condemns people, which is wrong in every circumstance. This accusation comes out frequently during heated debates on sensitive topics such as abortion or anything regarding people’s personal lives. However, it is possible to condemn an action without condemning an actual person. It’s one thing to say, “I believe that abortion is an immoral practice.” It’s not the same as saying, “Any woman who has had an abortion is evil.” As the old adage goes, we can hate the sin, but still love the sinner.
For anyone who has children, this concept should be simple to understand. Children get grounded all the time for behaviors that displease their parents, but it doesn’t cause their parents to love them any less. My family disagrees with about 90 percent of what I write in the Stater; and somehow, they love me anyway.
We all know people we love dearly that make choices we don’t always agree with. Respect should not be given based on whether we agree with someone’s beliefs; we must respect people because of the simple fact that they are people. The standards we use to judge others can and will be used by others who judge us in return.
Deep down, we all know that we judge people on a regular basis. We judge based on clothing, mannerisms, political and religious views and more. We make assumptions about people that are often faulty based on first impressions alone. Sometimes it’s easier to hold on to those faulty assumptions than admit we are wrong about something. Before we go accusing someone of being judgmental, we need to take a long, good look at our own judgmental hearts first.
Moreover, there is more than one definition of what it means to make a judgment of somebody. Say you’re on a date, for example. You will be making value judgments about the person you’re having dinner with to determine if a new relationship is on the horizon. Those judgments, based on conversation skills and compatibility, are not wrong. If you have a significant other or close friends, you have made a judgment of their character and have deemed them worthy of investing your time with them.
Making instant assumptions about a person is another form of judgment. It’s easy to assume that I, a woman with conservative viewpoints that have origins in religion, was brainwashed by my equally religious and conservative family, am a registered Republican, was home-schooled, am a huge prude – all of which are lies.
The kind of judgment that more people are familiar with is the kind that condemns people, which is wrong in every circumstance. This accusation comes out frequently during heated debates on sensitive topics such as abortion or anything regarding people’s personal lives. However, it is possible to condemn an action without condemning an actual person. It’s one thing to say, “I believe that abortion is an immoral practice.” It’s not the same as saying, “Any woman who has had an abortion is evil.” As the old adage goes, we can hate the sin, but still love the sinner.
For anyone who has children, this concept should be simple to understand. Children get grounded all the time for behaviors that displease their parents, but it doesn’t cause their parents to love them any less. My family disagrees with about 90 percent of what I write in the Stater; and somehow, they love me anyway.
We all know people we love dearly that make choices we don’t always agree with. Respect should not be given based on whether we agree with someone’s beliefs; we must respect people because of the simple fact that they are people. The standards we use to judge others can and will be used by others who judge us in return.
No trophies given for good sexmanship
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines the word “prude” as, “a person who is excessively concerned about propriety and decorum.” Nowadays, it’s commonly used to insult anyone who doesn’t follow the current sexual norms. Somehow, both men and women have bought into the lie that the amount of sex you’re having – or not having – is a primary measure of validating your worth as a dating partner.
Watch any TV show or listen to any popular song and the message is the same: bragging about your sex life is cool, and the “prude” label is as horrifying as a pregnancy scare.
It’s no secret that sex is amazing. However, calling someone out for choosing to abstain from a physical relationship by saying, "You must be jealous that you don't get laid as often as I do!" proves absolutely nothing. It doesn’t mean that something is wrong with a person, that they aren’t attractive or that they are physically unable to “perform.” Whatever it means to the person who chooses not to engage in sex, it’s no one else’s business to pry or make judgments about it.
Maybe some people can’t imagine their lives without sex, but the truth is that no one ever died from a lack of it. Not every circumstance is right simply because the hormones demand it, and the world is not anywhere near experiencing a low population crisis where procreation is necessary.
Let’s be honest: sex is extremely easy to come by. There are clubs, bars, services and street corners devoted to satisfying that urge, and there are substances to help overcome short-comings that may interfere with one's ability to "get laid." Anyone can look attractive with a good pair of beer goggles; therefore, everyone is able to have sex if they want to. Many just choose not to.
It's easy to have sex, but it's not easy to make love. That is the only kind of sex that is worth bragging about. Why? Because true love is hard to come by in an age when the success rate for marriage is as high as the divorce rate.
If you're going to brag about how often and how great your sex is, I don't see the point in boasting about it unless it's with someone who is fully committed to you. Why should anyone envy a promiscuous person if it’s so easy to be like that at any time? People who do have sex aren’t any better than those who choose not to, nor are those who choose to abstain any better than those who don’t. Therefore, feeling pity for those who aren’t doing it isn’t necessary. Don’t pity someone for their lack of bedroom action; pity someone if they lack the respect and self-esteem to hold out for someone who is looking for more than just a good time.
God forbid if anyone calls you a prude for thinking this way, well, there are a lot worse things to be in life.
Watch any TV show or listen to any popular song and the message is the same: bragging about your sex life is cool, and the “prude” label is as horrifying as a pregnancy scare.
It’s no secret that sex is amazing. However, calling someone out for choosing to abstain from a physical relationship by saying, "You must be jealous that you don't get laid as often as I do!" proves absolutely nothing. It doesn’t mean that something is wrong with a person, that they aren’t attractive or that they are physically unable to “perform.” Whatever it means to the person who chooses not to engage in sex, it’s no one else’s business to pry or make judgments about it.
Maybe some people can’t imagine their lives without sex, but the truth is that no one ever died from a lack of it. Not every circumstance is right simply because the hormones demand it, and the world is not anywhere near experiencing a low population crisis where procreation is necessary.
Let’s be honest: sex is extremely easy to come by. There are clubs, bars, services and street corners devoted to satisfying that urge, and there are substances to help overcome short-comings that may interfere with one's ability to "get laid." Anyone can look attractive with a good pair of beer goggles; therefore, everyone is able to have sex if they want to. Many just choose not to.
It's easy to have sex, but it's not easy to make love. That is the only kind of sex that is worth bragging about. Why? Because true love is hard to come by in an age when the success rate for marriage is as high as the divorce rate.
If you're going to brag about how often and how great your sex is, I don't see the point in boasting about it unless it's with someone who is fully committed to you. Why should anyone envy a promiscuous person if it’s so easy to be like that at any time? People who do have sex aren’t any better than those who choose not to, nor are those who choose to abstain any better than those who don’t. Therefore, feeling pity for those who aren’t doing it isn’t necessary. Don’t pity someone for their lack of bedroom action; pity someone if they lack the respect and self-esteem to hold out for someone who is looking for more than just a good time.
God forbid if anyone calls you a prude for thinking this way, well, there are a lot worse things to be in life.
Beauty and the Identity: A love/hate story
I was shocked when one of my close friends decided to cut off her waist-length hair last week. A few other friends and I even helped her do it. She wanted to donate it, but that wasn’t the main reason for cutting it. Because her hair was one of her most attractive features, she felt it was becoming a source of too much pride in her life. She didn’t want her beauty to be defined by her outside appearance. Instead, she wanted her identity and confidence to come from her relationship with God. Now her hair is about an inch long, and for the first time in years you can tell what color eyes she has.
I felt like the vainest person on the planet when I heard her explanation. My own hair has been a source of both pride and frustration for, well, my entire life.
Being ridiculously thick and naturally curly, I straighten it on a regular basis, taking an hour out of my time to force it to be something that it’s not. While not many of us would say someone is beautiful or ugly based on the quality of hair alone, no one can dispute how much impact it has on one’s outer appearance. I’m sure many women can vouch for feeling insecure on days when they feel they could be a contender for a “World’s Biggest Frizzball” contest. With so much emphasis on “red-carpet” hair in most shampoo commercials and women’s magazines, it’s no wonder how much impact hair can have on self-esteem.
Even though she looks vastly different now, my friend isn’t any less beautiful than she was before. She challenged me to reconsider how I define my own standards of beauty and how much my identity and character can make up for anything I perceive as a flaw. I have known many drop-dead gorgeous women who prove themselves ugly as soon as they open their mouths and start trash-talking people. I’ve also known many women who don’t measure up to the American standard of beauty but are some of the most beautiful people I know because of their compassion for others and strong sense of self.
I know how easy it is to internalize the “beautiful on the inside” mentality and quickly forget it when you wake up convinced that if only you had hair like X, you’d be a lot happier. Placing one’s confidence in tangible things will always result in downfall. It’s easy to think that those we consider to be beautiful probably don’t have insecurities about their appearance. However, I’m pretty sure the average person doesn’t give a crap if you ran out of hair gel but cares more about how you treat them.
I doubt I’ll ever be brave enough to shave my head to really understand this concept, but I’m glad my friend has reminded me that who we are doesn’t change even if our appearances do.
I felt like the vainest person on the planet when I heard her explanation. My own hair has been a source of both pride and frustration for, well, my entire life.
Being ridiculously thick and naturally curly, I straighten it on a regular basis, taking an hour out of my time to force it to be something that it’s not. While not many of us would say someone is beautiful or ugly based on the quality of hair alone, no one can dispute how much impact it has on one’s outer appearance. I’m sure many women can vouch for feeling insecure on days when they feel they could be a contender for a “World’s Biggest Frizzball” contest. With so much emphasis on “red-carpet” hair in most shampoo commercials and women’s magazines, it’s no wonder how much impact hair can have on self-esteem.
Even though she looks vastly different now, my friend isn’t any less beautiful than she was before. She challenged me to reconsider how I define my own standards of beauty and how much my identity and character can make up for anything I perceive as a flaw. I have known many drop-dead gorgeous women who prove themselves ugly as soon as they open their mouths and start trash-talking people. I’ve also known many women who don’t measure up to the American standard of beauty but are some of the most beautiful people I know because of their compassion for others and strong sense of self.
I know how easy it is to internalize the “beautiful on the inside” mentality and quickly forget it when you wake up convinced that if only you had hair like X, you’d be a lot happier. Placing one’s confidence in tangible things will always result in downfall. It’s easy to think that those we consider to be beautiful probably don’t have insecurities about their appearance. However, I’m pretty sure the average person doesn’t give a crap if you ran out of hair gel but cares more about how you treat them.
I doubt I’ll ever be brave enough to shave my head to really understand this concept, but I’m glad my friend has reminded me that who we are doesn’t change even if our appearances do.
Kindles are the death of literature
I’ve been working on a book for the last year or so. It’s up to 120 pages and is still nowhere near finished. With all the blood, sweat and tears I’ve poured into it, I’m proud of how it’s turning out, and I’ve even started daydreaming about what the cover will look like. I long for the day when I can hold it in my hands, smell the pages fresh from the press and maybe sign a copy or two.
I’ll be damned if the majority of the population has given up on the true craftsmanship of bookmaking by then and buys them for only a dollar on their Kindles.
The invention of the Kindle, a handhold device with a library of digital books, is a painful blow to a book-loving English major like myself. I carry a bag that bears a quote from Erasmus that pretty much sums up my life: “When I have a little money, I’ll buy books, and if any is left, then I’ll buy food and clothes.” I started writing “books” out of construction paper once I was old enough to hold a crayon. My mom still has the first one I wrote for her one Mother’s Day, and you can bet that she would prefer the real thing over a downloaded Kindle version.
There was a time when making books was an art form. Given the detail of the covers and the intricate lettering on the pages, it’s no wonder that books from all time periods are a treasure in many museums, and even in people’s homes. The Kindle strips away this rich artistry, which is also stripping away culture. The Kindle might also ruin my favorite fantasy of how I’ll meet my future husband: at Borders, both of us reaching for the last copy of a C.S. Lewis book that neither of us has read. If my future spouse and I both have Kindles, we’d never have the need to leave our homes to get books, and we would never be able to meet. How tragic.
I think part of the appeal of a downloaded book instead of a real one is the increasing laziness that is taking over this generation. With texting and Facebook-messaging being the ultimate forms of communication, it’s no wonder so many of us feel more comfortable reading off a screen than an actual printed book. While I can understand the appeal of using a Kindle to save money on textbooks for classes or taking up less space in a travel bag, I’m still not convinced that those are good enough reasons to possibly nix the necessity of real books in the very near future.
Believe me, as an English major I’ve experienced my share of back and shoulder problems from carrying too many books to class. If I end up needing a back brace, then I’ll consider purchasing a Kindle. Until then, I will continue to build my Beauty-and-the-Beast-inspired library, even if it costs me the necessity of food.
I’ll be damned if the majority of the population has given up on the true craftsmanship of bookmaking by then and buys them for only a dollar on their Kindles.
The invention of the Kindle, a handhold device with a library of digital books, is a painful blow to a book-loving English major like myself. I carry a bag that bears a quote from Erasmus that pretty much sums up my life: “When I have a little money, I’ll buy books, and if any is left, then I’ll buy food and clothes.” I started writing “books” out of construction paper once I was old enough to hold a crayon. My mom still has the first one I wrote for her one Mother’s Day, and you can bet that she would prefer the real thing over a downloaded Kindle version.
There was a time when making books was an art form. Given the detail of the covers and the intricate lettering on the pages, it’s no wonder that books from all time periods are a treasure in many museums, and even in people’s homes. The Kindle strips away this rich artistry, which is also stripping away culture. The Kindle might also ruin my favorite fantasy of how I’ll meet my future husband: at Borders, both of us reaching for the last copy of a C.S. Lewis book that neither of us has read. If my future spouse and I both have Kindles, we’d never have the need to leave our homes to get books, and we would never be able to meet. How tragic.
I think part of the appeal of a downloaded book instead of a real one is the increasing laziness that is taking over this generation. With texting and Facebook-messaging being the ultimate forms of communication, it’s no wonder so many of us feel more comfortable reading off a screen than an actual printed book. While I can understand the appeal of using a Kindle to save money on textbooks for classes or taking up less space in a travel bag, I’m still not convinced that those are good enough reasons to possibly nix the necessity of real books in the very near future.
Believe me, as an English major I’ve experienced my share of back and shoulder problems from carrying too many books to class. If I end up needing a back brace, then I’ll consider purchasing a Kindle. Until then, I will continue to build my Beauty-and-the-Beast-inspired library, even if it costs me the necessity of food.
The Collapse of the American Dream
Few little girls daydream of growing up to become a spoiled rich man’s mistress. I hope that very few little boys dream of becoming the rich, spoiled men who exploit the mistresses in the name of living the “good life.” Sadly, these young lives are being shaped by the poisonous new American dream: a religion of gluttony and idolatry.
The American dream has shaped the lives of untold billions, and it’s nothing new. Perhaps it was once considered a mark of personal accomplishment that an average citizen could defy the odds stacked against him and pave his own way in society by building a career from the ground up. Today, the American dream has taken a new form. Anyone can become a star if they have enough money, not so much talent. Anyone can gain 15 minutes of undeserved fame by making fools of themselves in front of their computers. Why have our expectations for success sunk so low?
It makes me wonder why I’m wasting so much of my time and money on a college degree when so many are cashing in millions based on attention-whoring antics and sex tapes. We hear about people who do these things all the time, and we amuse ourselves by giving them attention, but deep down, do we really respect them? Do we really believe they are doing anything meaningful with their lives?
The so-called “good life” may seem enviable, but in reality, it is a sham. I don’t believe that all the rich men who live in mansions squander their earnings on drugs and hang out with porn stars are truly happy. I certainly don’t believe that the women who allow themselves to be used by them have a healthy sense of self-worth. The simultaneous craving for money and fame has turned the so-called American dream into something selfish and wasteful. The worst part is, the entertainment these “stars” provide has exposed where our priorities truly lie. A few days ago, while watching CNN, the fact that Charlie Sheen got fired was the biggest headline, and the less significant notification that there have been more civilian deaths in Iraq was scrolling underneath it. Priorities for the win!
We cannot wrap our identities in tangible things and expect to find success. Money doesn’t last forever, drugs fry your brain and our bodies won’t always be as fit as they are now. These things are merely smoke screens to mask a bigger problem: the emptiness and depravity that is the natural side effect of living in a fallen world.
The truth is, we all are worth something, and money has nothing to do with that worth. We have the ability to live our lives for a greater good, for more than just ourselves. To quote Russell Crowe in Gladiator, I believe that “what we do in life echoes in eternity.” One day we will have to answer for the all the choices that we made while living on this earth.
The American dream has shaped the lives of untold billions, and it’s nothing new. Perhaps it was once considered a mark of personal accomplishment that an average citizen could defy the odds stacked against him and pave his own way in society by building a career from the ground up. Today, the American dream has taken a new form. Anyone can become a star if they have enough money, not so much talent. Anyone can gain 15 minutes of undeserved fame by making fools of themselves in front of their computers. Why have our expectations for success sunk so low?
It makes me wonder why I’m wasting so much of my time and money on a college degree when so many are cashing in millions based on attention-whoring antics and sex tapes. We hear about people who do these things all the time, and we amuse ourselves by giving them attention, but deep down, do we really respect them? Do we really believe they are doing anything meaningful with their lives?
The so-called “good life” may seem enviable, but in reality, it is a sham. I don’t believe that all the rich men who live in mansions squander their earnings on drugs and hang out with porn stars are truly happy. I certainly don’t believe that the women who allow themselves to be used by them have a healthy sense of self-worth. The simultaneous craving for money and fame has turned the so-called American dream into something selfish and wasteful. The worst part is, the entertainment these “stars” provide has exposed where our priorities truly lie. A few days ago, while watching CNN, the fact that Charlie Sheen got fired was the biggest headline, and the less significant notification that there have been more civilian deaths in Iraq was scrolling underneath it. Priorities for the win!
We cannot wrap our identities in tangible things and expect to find success. Money doesn’t last forever, drugs fry your brain and our bodies won’t always be as fit as they are now. These things are merely smoke screens to mask a bigger problem: the emptiness and depravity that is the natural side effect of living in a fallen world.
The truth is, we all are worth something, and money has nothing to do with that worth. We have the ability to live our lives for a greater good, for more than just ourselves. To quote Russell Crowe in Gladiator, I believe that “what we do in life echoes in eternity.” One day we will have to answer for the all the choices that we made while living on this earth.
To Mirror Our Beloved
Gandhi had it right when he instructed mankind to “be the change you wish to see in the world.” That philosophy can also be used to help women who are having trouble finding the right man to marry. Too often, we compromise our values for the sake of finding love. We act like the exact opposite of the kind of man we wish to attract because we are willing to settle for less than what we deserve.
I recently had to say goodbye to a person I loved in order to fully understand the damage of compromising who you are for the gratification of someone else. The underlying cause for this can be loneliness or falsely believing that having a boyfriend is what produces confidence. Many women have been guilty of settling for “Mr. Right Now” in hopes that eventually the right one will come along. Unfortunately, the destructive habits we engage in now won’t immediately disappear the moment we meet someone new.
The unpopular truth is that relationship habits can evolve into life habits. If we are willing to compromise ourselves for love, we will inevitably compromise ourselves in all aspects of our lives. This is not a quality that will attract a man of true moral integrity.
I am making a commitment to myself to become the kind of woman who is worthy of the kind of man I’d like to marry someday. That kind of man will possess compassion, strong commitment to God and respect for physical boundaries. Ultimately, he will desire what is best for me, even if it means sacrificing his own opportunities for pleasure. I hope to be able to do the same for him. The mistakes we might have made in previous relationships don’t have to define the future, but repeating them won’t bring about the kind of changes we are looking for.
A genuine relationship that eventually leads to marriage doesn’t begin with a seductive stare in a crowded bar. It doesn’t begin with a one-night stand. It doesn’t begin engaging in a “friends with benefits” situation where that “friend” is dropped the moment someone with more potential comes along. I don’t doubt that some genuine relationships might begin this way, but I would consider those to be the exception, not the rule. If we desire successful relationships, we must first conduct ourselves in ways that are loving. Real love is not self-seeking.
By developing the kind of character I desire in my future husband, I hope that any man who gets to know me won’t consider my behavior to be indicative of someone who would make a good casual hook up. I hope that my character will cause a man to think, “What a great potential wife.”
Ladies, I encourage you to become the kind of person you deserve to end up with. Never settle for someone who values your body over your heart. A real man – and they are out there – will never demand such a sacrifice.
I recently had to say goodbye to a person I loved in order to fully understand the damage of compromising who you are for the gratification of someone else. The underlying cause for this can be loneliness or falsely believing that having a boyfriend is what produces confidence. Many women have been guilty of settling for “Mr. Right Now” in hopes that eventually the right one will come along. Unfortunately, the destructive habits we engage in now won’t immediately disappear the moment we meet someone new.
The unpopular truth is that relationship habits can evolve into life habits. If we are willing to compromise ourselves for love, we will inevitably compromise ourselves in all aspects of our lives. This is not a quality that will attract a man of true moral integrity.
I am making a commitment to myself to become the kind of woman who is worthy of the kind of man I’d like to marry someday. That kind of man will possess compassion, strong commitment to God and respect for physical boundaries. Ultimately, he will desire what is best for me, even if it means sacrificing his own opportunities for pleasure. I hope to be able to do the same for him. The mistakes we might have made in previous relationships don’t have to define the future, but repeating them won’t bring about the kind of changes we are looking for.
A genuine relationship that eventually leads to marriage doesn’t begin with a seductive stare in a crowded bar. It doesn’t begin with a one-night stand. It doesn’t begin engaging in a “friends with benefits” situation where that “friend” is dropped the moment someone with more potential comes along. I don’t doubt that some genuine relationships might begin this way, but I would consider those to be the exception, not the rule. If we desire successful relationships, we must first conduct ourselves in ways that are loving. Real love is not self-seeking.
By developing the kind of character I desire in my future husband, I hope that any man who gets to know me won’t consider my behavior to be indicative of someone who would make a good casual hook up. I hope that my character will cause a man to think, “What a great potential wife.”
Ladies, I encourage you to become the kind of person you deserve to end up with. Never settle for someone who values your body over your heart. A real man – and they are out there – will never demand such a sacrifice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)