Ok- so here's the deal. In general I make an effort to reign myself in when it comes to making generalized comments on men and/or my relationships with them. Nothing is more irritating to me than an overly emotional post by some bleeding heart about how much love and the opposite sex suck. Love is hard, and both men and women use eachother in horrible ways. Whether you are single, or in a relationship, there is always something to gripe about...but I can't sit idley by one more day and not comment on something that I've been hearing a HELL of a lot lately.
"Nice guys always finish last."
Really? Because I don't think so. My friend has a saying that dove tails this one in my mind. On the subject of racism he says, "Why hate someone because of the color of their skin? That's ridiculous. If you got to know them I'm sure you'd find there's a lot more ligitimate reasons to dislike them."
Why would a woman choose to not be with a guy
because he's nice? Once she gets to know him she'll realize there's a lot more legitimate reasons to not be with him than the facts he's "too nice." This phrase is simply a crutch that men and women have come to rely on heavily because they are afraid of being honest about why they are either not in a relationship, or why they don't want to be with someone.
In my opinion, guys like to buy into this phrase for one main reason. Guys that are stereotypical "nice guys" (i.e. respectful, good listeners, sweet, remember birthdays/anniveraries, believe in "love" and committed relationships) like to pride themselves on being "nice guys" and so when a woman turns them down or breaks up with them, they are flabbergasted/ at a loss for why ANY woman would turn down the ultimate catch that is himself. While in this state of butthurt confusion, they always fall back on the conclusion that women only want to be with assholes, and that is why they are not in a relationship. They are simply too good for one.
Call me crazy, but I have never in my life met a single woman who dumped a guy because he treated her "too well." However I've known many women, myself included, who decided they didn't want to be with a nice guy for very legitimate reasons i.e. What the guy thinks is nice is actually lack of a backbone/opinions or straight up the guy doesn't realize his niceness stems from the fact that except for the physical characteristics, he's straight up acting like a girl. (Or the obvious, the guy is actually not a 'nice guy' at all, but is too stuck on his own charm to realize it.)
The point of this rant is this - to all the "nice guys" out there - If a woman doesn't want to date you, GUARANTEED its for some other reason than you're TOO nice, and you should do her the courtesy of taking a moment of self reflection on what your problem is that she is too nice to vocalize, before you accuse her of being an asshole chasing idiot.
Alright. I'm done.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Nanny Diaries
Ok, for those of you who don't know, when I moved to Portland I was lucky enough to have a full time nanny job lined up and waiting for me upon my arrival. As much as I adored the life of an underpaid, overworked, outwardly nice-but inwardly seething, compulsory servant who brought you your cheese enchiladas or nine thousandth refill of strawberry lemonade - I decided to look for work in something other than the restaurant business when I got to Portland, and seeing as I was a part time nanny in Moscow and loved it, I decided to pursue it full time here.
In the two months that I've watched Mason (23 months) and Hannah (13 months) I've fallen victim to more than my fair share of cliche nanny moments - good and bad. Three weeks ago I had a stretch of days so horrific, Kim's cousins who had recently met me handed over the book "The Nanny Diaries" for me to read and commiserate with. I'm sure there will be plenty posts of mine to follow about the horrors and joys of being a nanny, but I thought I'd include one of my favorite parts of the book that completely pegs what it's like to become a new nanny, and some of the absolutely ridiculous baggage that comes with the job.
Now we begin the actual Interview. I awkwardly place my sweating glass of water carefully on a coaster that looks as if it could use a coaster. She [the mother] is clearly reeling with pleasure at my sheer Caucasianness.
"So," she begins brightly," how did you come to the Parent's League?"
This is the only part of the Interview that resembles a professional exchange. We will dance around certain words, such as "nanny" and "child care," because they would be distasteful and we will never, ever, actually acknowledge that we are talking aboy my working for her. This is the Holy Covenant of the Mother/Nanny relationship: this is a pleasure -not a job. We are merely "getting to know each other," much as how I imagine a John and a call girl must make the deal, while trying not to kill the mood.
The closest we get to the possibility that I might actually be doing this for money is the topic of my babysitting experience, which I describe as a passionate hobby, much like raising Seeing Eye dogs for the blind. As the conversation progresses I become a child-development expert - convincing both of us of my desire to fulfill my very soul by raising a child and taking part in all stages of his/her development; a simple trip to the park or museum becoming a precious journey to the hear. I cite amusing anecdotes from past gigs, referring to the children by name- "I still marvel at the cognitive growth of Constance with each hour we spent together in the sandbox." I feel my eyes twinkle and imagine twirling my umbrella a la Mary Poppins....
It is at this point that she begins the Rules. This is a very pleasing portion of the event for any mother because it is a chance to demonstrate how much thought and effort has gone into bringing the child this far. She speaks with a rare mixture of animation, confidence, and awesome conviction - she knows this much is true. I, in turn, adopt my most eager, yet compassionate expression as if to say, "Yes, please tell me more - I'm fascinated" and "How awful it must be for you to have a child allergic to air." So begins the List:
Allergic to dairy.
Allergic to peanuts.
Allergic to strawberries.
Allergic to propane-based shellac.
Some kind of grain.
Won't eat blueberries.
Will only eat blueberries- sliced.
Sandwiches must be cut horizontally and have crusts.
Sandwiches much be cut in quarters and have NO crusts.
Sandwiches must be facing east.
She loves rice milk!
Anyways...the prolouge to this book is hilarious and so dead on that it was obviously written by a nanny. If you ever have any inclination of 1) becoming a nanny 2)dating someone who IS a nanny or 3) being a friend of a nanny --do them the favor of reading the rest of the first chapter so you can begin to understand our daily struggle...
In the two months that I've watched Mason (23 months) and Hannah (13 months) I've fallen victim to more than my fair share of cliche nanny moments - good and bad. Three weeks ago I had a stretch of days so horrific, Kim's cousins who had recently met me handed over the book "The Nanny Diaries" for me to read and commiserate with. I'm sure there will be plenty posts of mine to follow about the horrors and joys of being a nanny, but I thought I'd include one of my favorite parts of the book that completely pegs what it's like to become a new nanny, and some of the absolutely ridiculous baggage that comes with the job.
Now we begin the actual Interview. I awkwardly place my sweating glass of water carefully on a coaster that looks as if it could use a coaster. She [the mother] is clearly reeling with pleasure at my sheer Caucasianness.
"So," she begins brightly," how did you come to the Parent's League?"
This is the only part of the Interview that resembles a professional exchange. We will dance around certain words, such as "nanny" and "child care," because they would be distasteful and we will never, ever, actually acknowledge that we are talking aboy my working for her. This is the Holy Covenant of the Mother/Nanny relationship: this is a pleasure -not a job. We are merely "getting to know each other," much as how I imagine a John and a call girl must make the deal, while trying not to kill the mood.
The closest we get to the possibility that I might actually be doing this for money is the topic of my babysitting experience, which I describe as a passionate hobby, much like raising Seeing Eye dogs for the blind. As the conversation progresses I become a child-development expert - convincing both of us of my desire to fulfill my very soul by raising a child and taking part in all stages of his/her development; a simple trip to the park or museum becoming a precious journey to the hear. I cite amusing anecdotes from past gigs, referring to the children by name- "I still marvel at the cognitive growth of Constance with each hour we spent together in the sandbox." I feel my eyes twinkle and imagine twirling my umbrella a la Mary Poppins....
It is at this point that she begins the Rules. This is a very pleasing portion of the event for any mother because it is a chance to demonstrate how much thought and effort has gone into bringing the child this far. She speaks with a rare mixture of animation, confidence, and awesome conviction - she knows this much is true. I, in turn, adopt my most eager, yet compassionate expression as if to say, "Yes, please tell me more - I'm fascinated" and "How awful it must be for you to have a child allergic to air." So begins the List:
Allergic to dairy.
Allergic to peanuts.
Allergic to strawberries.
Allergic to propane-based shellac.
Some kind of grain.
Won't eat blueberries.
Will only eat blueberries- sliced.
Sandwiches must be cut horizontally and have crusts.
Sandwiches much be cut in quarters and have NO crusts.
Sandwiches must be facing east.
She loves rice milk!
Anyways...the prolouge to this book is hilarious and so dead on that it was obviously written by a nanny. If you ever have any inclination of 1) becoming a nanny 2)dating someone who IS a nanny or 3) being a friend of a nanny --do them the favor of reading the rest of the first chapter so you can begin to understand our daily struggle...
Finally returning...
Thanks for the comments you've posted since I've been in Portland. This week is the first time I've been back to Limited White Space since before my move. Now that I'm finally settling into life here, I'm going to make a concerted effort to write more.
Portland has been both everything I needed it to be - and nothing like I expected it would be. Moving here took a huge leap of faith in myself, and my resolve to start a new life away from the comfort and familiarity of Moscow has been put to the test to an extreme degree.
Life here is profoundly different than life in Moscow. Not just my life - all life. I never dreamed there was a city that was as environmentally friendly/demanding as Portland is. I moved from a place where recycling was an afterthought that very few of my friends even considered. Here, if you do not recycle every possible recyclable commodity, you are single handedly making a declaration of war against the ozone layer and our natural resources. Winco is not the shopping destination of the common man here. Oh no. Trader Joe's, New Seasons, and Natural Foods are where any self/earth/animal/farmer/citizen respecting person goes. Don't get me wrong, I've come to love those three stores - but only because I feel the societal pressure to save our environment one can of soup at a time.
The Portland obsession with organics is only the smallest example of the differences between my two hometowns (old and new) and while it might be irritating at times, I appreciate where my fellow Oregonians are coming from. If more cities across America had the attitude of Portlanders, there might be vague hope of crushing corporate stores like Wal-Mart and saving our ever decreasing natural resources. The most obvious difference between the two towns that I've noticed however, is the vastly differing policies on what is socially acceptable. And this difference - I wholeheartedly accept, love, and support.
The third day I was in Portland I set out from my friend's place with no known destination, no map, armed with very little cash and a desire to meet my new home city. I learned several things that day: 1. Avoid eye contact with the crazies. 2. Maps are very important. 3. I couldn't have made a more perfect choice of a place to live. I got lost for almost 3 hours my first day alone in the city, but as cliche as it sounds, I found what I'd been looking for for the last eight years. As I traced and retraced the steps of million of lost people before me, I could breathe in and feel the tangible differences of Moscow and Portland. I'd found a place to start my life as a clean slate - in a city where literally anything and everyone is accepted. Coming from Moscow where if you don't fit into a certain category you might as well leave - this was a feeling that can only be described as novel and irresistibly welcome.
The demands of my job have kept me from exploring the city as much as I would like, but I'm settling into life here more everyday. No amount of new experiences and friends can take away how much I miss all my friends from Moscow and Boise though - so be sure to give me a call if you're coming through my neck of the woods anytime soon! Write more soon...
Portland has been both everything I needed it to be - and nothing like I expected it would be. Moving here took a huge leap of faith in myself, and my resolve to start a new life away from the comfort and familiarity of Moscow has been put to the test to an extreme degree.
Life here is profoundly different than life in Moscow. Not just my life - all life. I never dreamed there was a city that was as environmentally friendly/demanding as Portland is. I moved from a place where recycling was an afterthought that very few of my friends even considered. Here, if you do not recycle every possible recyclable commodity, you are single handedly making a declaration of war against the ozone layer and our natural resources. Winco is not the shopping destination of the common man here. Oh no. Trader Joe's, New Seasons, and Natural Foods are where any self/earth/animal/farmer/citizen respecting person goes. Don't get me wrong, I've come to love those three stores - but only because I feel the societal pressure to save our environment one can of soup at a time.
The Portland obsession with organics is only the smallest example of the differences between my two hometowns (old and new) and while it might be irritating at times, I appreciate where my fellow Oregonians are coming from. If more cities across America had the attitude of Portlanders, there might be vague hope of crushing corporate stores like Wal-Mart and saving our ever decreasing natural resources. The most obvious difference between the two towns that I've noticed however, is the vastly differing policies on what is socially acceptable. And this difference - I wholeheartedly accept, love, and support.
The third day I was in Portland I set out from my friend's place with no known destination, no map, armed with very little cash and a desire to meet my new home city. I learned several things that day: 1. Avoid eye contact with the crazies. 2. Maps are very important. 3. I couldn't have made a more perfect choice of a place to live. I got lost for almost 3 hours my first day alone in the city, but as cliche as it sounds, I found what I'd been looking for for the last eight years. As I traced and retraced the steps of million of lost people before me, I could breathe in and feel the tangible differences of Moscow and Portland. I'd found a place to start my life as a clean slate - in a city where literally anything and everyone is accepted. Coming from Moscow where if you don't fit into a certain category you might as well leave - this was a feeling that can only be described as novel and irresistibly welcome.
The demands of my job have kept me from exploring the city as much as I would like, but I'm settling into life here more everyday. No amount of new experiences and friends can take away how much I miss all my friends from Moscow and Boise though - so be sure to give me a call if you're coming through my neck of the woods anytime soon! Write more soon...
Monday, June 11, 2007
Rantings on "Knocked Up"
As much as I hate to admit it, one of my biggest guilty pleasures is crass, low brow comedies a la American Pie, 40 Year Old Virgin etc. I'd love to say my sense of humor was above finding them funny, but I can't, so I was really excited to see "Knocked Up" which was advertising itself as the next classic in this genre.
I was sorely dissapointed and left the movie the most pissed off I've been since seeing Lord of War. (For those of you who've I've discussed that movie with - you understand what a big deal that is!) But unlike some viewers who were dissapointed/upset just because the movie was in fact, not that funny, I'm going to wax philosophical and give the reasons I think it was actually a "BAD" movie.
First of all, lets get this out of the way - this movie was explicitely targeted at men - which in itself, doesn't make it a bad movie, but it needs to be pointed out for future reference. Movie makers would never have dreamed of producing a story about a successful, intelligent, good looking guy knocking up a ugly, fat, stupid, substance abusing, out of work woman and try to write their blossoming relationship off as a comedy. Why? Because there's nothing funny about two people, so revoltingly uncompatible, bringing a child into this world and trying to make a doomed relationship work "for the kid."
Besides the above mentioned reason, there is the fact that mainstream American movie goers (many of them college or high school age for these kind of movies) are conditioned by TV etc. to not see humor or logic in attractive, intelligent men being with fat, stupid women. How many shows are out there right now where most of the punchlines come from the fact that the beautiful, intelligent wife has to forbear the retarded antics of her stupid, lazy, unattractive husband? (King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, Still Standing, Yes,Dear...the list goes on) On the other hand, can you think of one sitcom that has a viewership because of a reverse situation?
However - like I said, this movie was targeted for men. And if a thinking viewer doesn't think for one second that there wasn't thousands of 20 something, pot smoking, condom scoffing, unintelligent loser guys out there watching this movie and raising their Keystone Light in honor of Ben somehow landing Allison, (even if it might mean a kid) you'd be sorely mistaken. And that idea makes me sick.
The main problem I have with this movie is that even if it shows the problems the couple has, it implies that what they're trying to accomplish together is a good thing - and its not. The last thing women need is to be told that they should pursue a relationship with a wholly incompatible partner simply because a night of drunken sex produces a child. I'm all for women and men owning up to the responsibility of a pregnancy and not getting an abortion, but the social stipulation that tells men and women they should be together simply because they have a child together is horribly false - and movies like this try to say the opposite. Good for Allison for making Ben aware that he was going to be a father...but when she took it a step farther and actually tried to force herself to have feelings for someone like him just because she wanted to follow the status quo of every kid having a mommy and a daddy - come on. Some parents just shouldn't be together - and I think if this movie was actually a real life story, that would definitely be the case.
Some people might argue that, "But Ben becomes such a good guy in the end - see! A kid made him better." Well lets hope to God young guys and girls out there don't count on kids being a ticket to maturity because that whole notion is retarded. Good for Ben that he stopped doing drugs (at least temporarily and not in front of his daughter) but what would really be a sad story is taking Knocked Up ten years down the road and seeing how f-ed up Ben, Allison, and their daughter's relationship is.
Anyways. I've gone on long enough. Long story short - not every couple should be or stay together simply for the child's sake, and this movie paints a happy ending for what in real life would spell disaster. Bringing a child into this world doesn't equal or produce maturity (in most cases) - even kids in jr. high can have a kid together. Intelligent, successful women should not lower their standards simply because of the social dogma that preaches mommies need to be with daddies, and instead of proving that point, I fear that most young viewers will walk away from this movie with the opposite nothion.
I was sorely dissapointed and left the movie the most pissed off I've been since seeing Lord of War. (For those of you who've I've discussed that movie with - you understand what a big deal that is!) But unlike some viewers who were dissapointed/upset just because the movie was in fact, not that funny, I'm going to wax philosophical and give the reasons I think it was actually a "BAD" movie.
First of all, lets get this out of the way - this movie was explicitely targeted at men - which in itself, doesn't make it a bad movie, but it needs to be pointed out for future reference. Movie makers would never have dreamed of producing a story about a successful, intelligent, good looking guy knocking up a ugly, fat, stupid, substance abusing, out of work woman and try to write their blossoming relationship off as a comedy. Why? Because there's nothing funny about two people, so revoltingly uncompatible, bringing a child into this world and trying to make a doomed relationship work "for the kid."
Besides the above mentioned reason, there is the fact that mainstream American movie goers (many of them college or high school age for these kind of movies) are conditioned by TV etc. to not see humor or logic in attractive, intelligent men being with fat, stupid women. How many shows are out there right now where most of the punchlines come from the fact that the beautiful, intelligent wife has to forbear the retarded antics of her stupid, lazy, unattractive husband? (King of Queens, Everybody Loves Raymond, Still Standing, Yes,Dear...the list goes on) On the other hand, can you think of one sitcom that has a viewership because of a reverse situation?
However - like I said, this movie was targeted for men. And if a thinking viewer doesn't think for one second that there wasn't thousands of 20 something, pot smoking, condom scoffing, unintelligent loser guys out there watching this movie and raising their Keystone Light in honor of Ben somehow landing Allison, (even if it might mean a kid) you'd be sorely mistaken. And that idea makes me sick.
The main problem I have with this movie is that even if it shows the problems the couple has, it implies that what they're trying to accomplish together is a good thing - and its not. The last thing women need is to be told that they should pursue a relationship with a wholly incompatible partner simply because a night of drunken sex produces a child. I'm all for women and men owning up to the responsibility of a pregnancy and not getting an abortion, but the social stipulation that tells men and women they should be together simply because they have a child together is horribly false - and movies like this try to say the opposite. Good for Allison for making Ben aware that he was going to be a father...but when she took it a step farther and actually tried to force herself to have feelings for someone like him just because she wanted to follow the status quo of every kid having a mommy and a daddy - come on. Some parents just shouldn't be together - and I think if this movie was actually a real life story, that would definitely be the case.
Some people might argue that, "But Ben becomes such a good guy in the end - see! A kid made him better." Well lets hope to God young guys and girls out there don't count on kids being a ticket to maturity because that whole notion is retarded. Good for Ben that he stopped doing drugs (at least temporarily and not in front of his daughter) but what would really be a sad story is taking Knocked Up ten years down the road and seeing how f-ed up Ben, Allison, and their daughter's relationship is.
Anyways. I've gone on long enough. Long story short - not every couple should be or stay together simply for the child's sake, and this movie paints a happy ending for what in real life would spell disaster. Bringing a child into this world doesn't equal or produce maturity (in most cases) - even kids in jr. high can have a kid together. Intelligent, successful women should not lower their standards simply because of the social dogma that preaches mommies need to be with daddies, and instead of proving that point, I fear that most young viewers will walk away from this movie with the opposite nothion.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
On Moscow.
In nine short days I am packing my car as full as it will go and driving five and a half hours to Vancouver, WA where I will begin the next chapter of my life. I made the decision in March, and until about three hours ago was able to let the thoughts of a new and exciting place keep the sadness of leaving my home of the past 12 years at bay.
Moscow and I never learned to love each other, though in the past 2 years we've come to play nicely. I moved here with my family when I was 10, and within two days had decided I was going to get the hell out of here the day I turned 18. Well here I am, 22, and just now getting around to leaving.
I tell people that I tried to leave Moscow several times before now - and technically its true. The restrictions that the communities of Logos and Christ Church put on me were an unbelievably tough yoke for me to bear. I was never cut out for them - or more accurately, they were never able to wear me down, or mute my opinions, to their rigid standard of what is acceptable. But I've come to realize something in the last couple weeks. As much as I ranted and raved about the evils of Moscow - at least they were evils I knew - and my attempts to leave were always rooted in desperation, not in the confidence it takes to leave your home, miserable as it may be.
During the past two years, I've mercifully been able to slip through the cracks enough to avoid the constant, uncomfortable, "good intentioned," prying questions of members of the aforementioned communities. This break from the constant judgements, raised eyebrows, and vicious gossip gave me a chance to begin to live as I'd wanted to for years. My life, my voice, and my opinions are finally coming into their own, and through trial and error, I've arrived in a place where leaving Moscow is the next rational step in the maturing process - not the flailing vain attempt to run from my problems or the guilt of who I was "supposed" to be.
I'm leaving Moscow a damaged, but recovering person. Although the sexism, close mindedness, hypocrisy, and unjust accusations of various members of the community left their mark, they've made me the person I am today, and have armed me with strength and patience to deal with more bullshit than I ever thought possible :)
To my mom and all my friends that have seen me through the hard times, put up with my tears, rants, and soap box lectures, and given me the courage to think on my own and grow too big for this pond, thank you. I love and will miss you all.
~Esther
Moscow and I never learned to love each other, though in the past 2 years we've come to play nicely. I moved here with my family when I was 10, and within two days had decided I was going to get the hell out of here the day I turned 18. Well here I am, 22, and just now getting around to leaving.
I tell people that I tried to leave Moscow several times before now - and technically its true. The restrictions that the communities of Logos and Christ Church put on me were an unbelievably tough yoke for me to bear. I was never cut out for them - or more accurately, they were never able to wear me down, or mute my opinions, to their rigid standard of what is acceptable. But I've come to realize something in the last couple weeks. As much as I ranted and raved about the evils of Moscow - at least they were evils I knew - and my attempts to leave were always rooted in desperation, not in the confidence it takes to leave your home, miserable as it may be.
During the past two years, I've mercifully been able to slip through the cracks enough to avoid the constant, uncomfortable, "good intentioned," prying questions of members of the aforementioned communities. This break from the constant judgements, raised eyebrows, and vicious gossip gave me a chance to begin to live as I'd wanted to for years. My life, my voice, and my opinions are finally coming into their own, and through trial and error, I've arrived in a place where leaving Moscow is the next rational step in the maturing process - not the flailing vain attempt to run from my problems or the guilt of who I was "supposed" to be.
I'm leaving Moscow a damaged, but recovering person. Although the sexism, close mindedness, hypocrisy, and unjust accusations of various members of the community left their mark, they've made me the person I am today, and have armed me with strength and patience to deal with more bullshit than I ever thought possible :)
To my mom and all my friends that have seen me through the hard times, put up with my tears, rants, and soap box lectures, and given me the courage to think on my own and grow too big for this pond, thank you. I love and will miss you all.
~Esther
Monday, April 30, 2007
Moving from Myspace
I'm finally taking my blogging one step further and moving all my old posts from Myspace to this blog site...so look here in the future for new posts :)
Logos: brief timeline of sexism in the 21st century
For those of you who don't know, I graduated in 2003 from Logos Christian School in Moscow. I entered the school in 5th grade, and very shortly after began to have problems with it, even at such a young age.
Logos, while not explicitly funded/run by Christ Church in Moscow, is heavily influenced by their archaic and close minded view of society, due to the fact a large percentage of the faculty, and the Superintendent himself, are members of the church. The school's main founder is none other than the pastor/pope of Christ Church, Douglas Wilson.
It is easy to argue that Christianity in itself, is a patriarchial, sexist religion. However, Christ Church's "brand" of Christianity takes sexism a step farther, and their heinous and ancient view of women (i.e. women's place is in the home (unless they're nurses or teachers), women are not allowed to speak in church. ever. a woman's main objective in her marriage is to "serve her husband" and be "at all times submissive to his will." the list could go on much longer) has infiltrated Logos School to an alarming degree.
Even when I began school there, Logos was becoming more and more conservative and preaching fundamental Christianity as the only way of life. Things have only gotten worse through the years, and the girls at the school are the ones to suffer for it.
2000: Mr. Harken, my history teacher, during a tangent on elections and voting, informed the class that it would have been better if women had never gotten the right to vote. In his opinion the "head of the household" (meaning, the husband) should be the only one to vote and his vote should count for as many people as lived in his house.
2002: At a student council meeting, one of the sons of a school board member put forth the idea that in future years only males should be able to run for ASB President and Vice President since men have the duty to lead women.
2002: The school board/principal does away with our traditional "Spirit Week" and impliments "Knights Festival." The boys and girls are given separate contests to enter. The boys get to fashion fake swords and shields and duel in front of the school in hopes of winning an old fashioned replica sword. The girls get to compete in a "pie baking contest" and the winner wins a gift certificate to Williams/Sonoma.
* And although I don't have a set year that it was put into practice, Logos now functions in such a way, that beginning in kindergarten boys must at all times show preferance to the girls i.e. opening, closing doors, pulling out chairs, letting them go first etc. In itself, I don't have a problem with the idea of teaching boys to be gentlemen. However, when boys are taught to do things for girls because girls are too weak to do them for themselves, I have a problem. Logos/Christ Church seems to have a preoccupation with producing weak men who want even weaker women.
And finally. 2007. The reason I started this rant in the first place.
Today I got home to find the latest copy of The Knight's Page (quarterly student newspaper) in my mailbox. I can never read through it without being appalled at some new social limitation they are placing on their students in the name of "serving our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Today was no exception.
Logos High School will no longer have a girl's basketball team. Its not that there's not enough players, coaches, support. Oh no. Nothing that mundane and reasonable.
" There were two broad reasons for the decision, the first being philosophical which Mr. Garfield [Superintendent] deemed as the more important. He said that he and others have had growing concerns for the nature of girl's basketball. It has undergone a radical shift towards a very masculine approach. However, God made it very clear in His Word that He created man and woman distinct from one another. "The girls on many teams are coached like guys, and our girls are in danger because of how the other girls are coached," Mr. Garfield said."
It never ceases to amaze me how weak the school board thinks women are; (did I mention, btw, there are no women on the school board??) how completely incapable of handling adversity and pressure we can be.
But then it occured to me, horrible thought, that perhaps Mr. Garfield was right on a certain level I couldn't understand. Could it be that Logos had so adequately produced weak minded and over emotional girls that they honestly couldn't handle basketball? Did my fear of what would become of the future classes of Logos girls come true? That after being told daily, for years, they were weaker and inferior, they had come to believe it?
Either way, I'm even more disapointed and disgusted in the place I graduated from. It pains me to know that Logos has been able to scrape by for 30 years, paying their teachers SO little to mis-shape the minds of so many. If they only knew how many Logos graduates were out there, continuing "the Lord's work" and using their "Classical and Christ-centered Education" to binge drink, load a bong, and pop birth control before rampant pre-marital sex, they'd be amazed, and possibly reconsider sharing more of the real world with their students before they were thrust out into it, wide eyed and unprepared.
Logos, while not explicitly funded/run by Christ Church in Moscow, is heavily influenced by their archaic and close minded view of society, due to the fact a large percentage of the faculty, and the Superintendent himself, are members of the church. The school's main founder is none other than the pastor/pope of Christ Church, Douglas Wilson.
It is easy to argue that Christianity in itself, is a patriarchial, sexist religion. However, Christ Church's "brand" of Christianity takes sexism a step farther, and their heinous and ancient view of women (i.e. women's place is in the home (unless they're nurses or teachers), women are not allowed to speak in church. ever. a woman's main objective in her marriage is to "serve her husband" and be "at all times submissive to his will." the list could go on much longer) has infiltrated Logos School to an alarming degree.
Even when I began school there, Logos was becoming more and more conservative and preaching fundamental Christianity as the only way of life. Things have only gotten worse through the years, and the girls at the school are the ones to suffer for it.
2000: Mr. Harken, my history teacher, during a tangent on elections and voting, informed the class that it would have been better if women had never gotten the right to vote. In his opinion the "head of the household" (meaning, the husband) should be the only one to vote and his vote should count for as many people as lived in his house.
2002: At a student council meeting, one of the sons of a school board member put forth the idea that in future years only males should be able to run for ASB President and Vice President since men have the duty to lead women.
2002: The school board/principal does away with our traditional "Spirit Week" and impliments "Knights Festival." The boys and girls are given separate contests to enter. The boys get to fashion fake swords and shields and duel in front of the school in hopes of winning an old fashioned replica sword. The girls get to compete in a "pie baking contest" and the winner wins a gift certificate to Williams/Sonoma.
* And although I don't have a set year that it was put into practice, Logos now functions in such a way, that beginning in kindergarten boys must at all times show preferance to the girls i.e. opening, closing doors, pulling out chairs, letting them go first etc. In itself, I don't have a problem with the idea of teaching boys to be gentlemen. However, when boys are taught to do things for girls because girls are too weak to do them for themselves, I have a problem. Logos/Christ Church seems to have a preoccupation with producing weak men who want even weaker women.
And finally. 2007. The reason I started this rant in the first place.
Today I got home to find the latest copy of The Knight's Page (quarterly student newspaper) in my mailbox. I can never read through it without being appalled at some new social limitation they are placing on their students in the name of "serving our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ." Today was no exception.
Logos High School will no longer have a girl's basketball team. Its not that there's not enough players, coaches, support. Oh no. Nothing that mundane and reasonable.
" There were two broad reasons for the decision, the first being philosophical which Mr. Garfield [Superintendent] deemed as the more important. He said that he and others have had growing concerns for the nature of girl's basketball. It has undergone a radical shift towards a very masculine approach. However, God made it very clear in His Word that He created man and woman distinct from one another. "The girls on many teams are coached like guys, and our girls are in danger because of how the other girls are coached," Mr. Garfield said."
It never ceases to amaze me how weak the school board thinks women are; (did I mention, btw, there are no women on the school board??) how completely incapable of handling adversity and pressure we can be.
But then it occured to me, horrible thought, that perhaps Mr. Garfield was right on a certain level I couldn't understand. Could it be that Logos had so adequately produced weak minded and over emotional girls that they honestly couldn't handle basketball? Did my fear of what would become of the future classes of Logos girls come true? That after being told daily, for years, they were weaker and inferior, they had come to believe it?
Either way, I'm even more disapointed and disgusted in the place I graduated from. It pains me to know that Logos has been able to scrape by for 30 years, paying their teachers SO little to mis-shape the minds of so many. If they only knew how many Logos graduates were out there, continuing "the Lord's work" and using their "Classical and Christ-centered Education" to binge drink, load a bong, and pop birth control before rampant pre-marital sex, they'd be amazed, and possibly reconsider sharing more of the real world with their students before they were thrust out into it, wide eyed and unprepared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
