Hello Party People!
Just announced this morning, there is going to be a woman on the $10 bill! Oh my gosh, this is totally awesome! Finally we will be able to honor and recognize nationally one of the many women who have seriously helped to make this country a better place. There are so many to choose from I don't know how the director of the Treasury is going to choose.
I just have one negative comment about the entire thing. Maybe two.
First, The original petition was supposed to be for $20 bill, because honestly Jackson is a big black mark on our history page and what better way to clean it up then with ELEANOR ROOSEVELT or one of the other wonderful women? But the $10 bill is the next bill up for re-modeling and change. So I guess it's okay. At least there will be a woman on one of the bills! I can't wait to get one. When I do, I'm definitely scrap booking that bill forever. History is being made here people, and it's awesome!
Second, the only other negative thing I have seen is some of the comments people have been leaving on these announcement articles. Some of the news articles are asking for feedback from Facebook people and asking them who they think should be on the $10 bill. A lot of people (both men and women) are replying with people like Aunt Jemimma, Betty Crocker, Little Debbie. Or I have seen people say women are just causing problems and they shouldn't be above men. Okay WTF? No. Is that all women are. Little smiling girls on $1.50 Snack packs? I certainly hope not. It's just plain ignorance and disrespect. Come on people. Pick up a history book, and you will realize that women have done a lot of amazing things for this country. So don't be an idiot and reply with Betty Crocker.
Overall, I am excited. Here is who I think would be good candidates for the $10 bill.
- Rosa Parks
- Eleanor Roosevelt
- Abigail Adams
- Harriet Tubman
- Sally Ride
- Jackie O
- Mae Jemison
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg (RBG)
- Sandra Day O'Connor
- Susan B Anthony
- Alice Paul
- Marjorie Pay Hinckley
- Besty Ross
I'm sure there are more, but that is currently all I can think of!
--B
Lately, Twitter has been a crazy storm of debate over this Rachel Dolezal business. I don't really have an opinion on that, but I have noticed a serious problem that results because of debates like these.
Early this morning, Matt Lauer and the Today Show crew interviewed Miss. Dolezal about this huge race issue. If you do not know the story I highly recommend watching the interview. Anyway, I have noticed the last couple of days that a lot of my liberal leaning friends on Facebook are quite upset at this and upset that people are claiming this to be a similar issue to Caitlyn Jenner and transgenderism. I have seen posts about trying to choose your race is immoral and can't be done, but you can change your gender.
To be clear, I am not going to give my opinion on either Caitlyn Jenner and her transgenderism or Rachel Dolezal and her trans-racialism. I have my own views on that and I don't feel that anyone would be benefited by rehashing that issue. However, I do have a strong opinion against those that have stood up and defended Caitlyn Jenner while at the same time condemning Rachel Dolezal.
I understand that race and gender are two very different aspects of the human experience, but a huge part of the argument for transgender people and Caitlyn Jenner, was that her soul was born different than her physical body. Whether or not you agree with that, you have to let her and others live their lives the way they want to. I'm confused and a little upset that the same people that encouraged Caitlyn to be her true self are so condemning to Rachel. How do you know if she feels that her soul was born Black instead of White?
Basically what I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy between those who are Caitlyn Jenner Proponents and Rachel Dolezal Opponents. It's clear hypocrisy to me. If you feel that people should be and do wahtever they want, then that has to be true for every type of person. If not, then all arguments are invalid.
SO..... In response to the Matt Lauer/Rachel Dolezal interview I got into the debate on Twitter and posted this:
I knew that I might get some hate from this tweet, but I honestly think that if you think you can be transgender, than why can't you be trans-racial?
The following is a response from a woman to my original tweet.
I wouldn't post anything, if I didn't want honest and clear dialogue between people from all view points. But the first thing @KarimiCan tweeted was hostile. She didn't understand where I was coming from and started calling names. (Hint: you should never start calling names in an argument because your opponent will automatically doubt your intelligence)
I don't ignore the face that many people may have a seriously different opinion on this issue than I do. and I think when people can cordially communicate, there can be understand. This conversation was not one of those debates.
Basically her response, shown above, told me I couldn't have an opinion on the Rachel Dolezal debate because I was white. What part of that is not racist? Honestly, why does she get to say that. She completely invalidated what I had to say about it, and she defended that statement with racism.
FACT: When you invalidate someone or someone's opinion using their race, than you are racist, and you are part of the problem.
I continued to argue with you and cited that she was using reversed racism also known as reversed discrimination to invalidate what I was saying. The same claim she was laying on me for being white. She claimed reverse discrimination was not a real thing. OH DARLING. That's when I got real excited and started typing 45894454 words a minute.
HAHA. Because Reverse Discrimination/Racism IS a thing. A legal thing. A legal thing that acknowledges that white people can also be discriminated against based on the color of their skin.
I now present you with the Supreme Court of the United States Case
After Affirmative Action had been established by SCOTUS there arose a problem with qualified individuals being chosen for things over equally qualified individuals because of race. Specifically in College Admissions. In California, I think it was a medical school, chose a black student applicant over a white student applicant. These two applicants had identical qualifications, and GPAs. The black student was selected over the white student, and the determining factor was race, something that no one can physically choose. (Just in case you were wondering, that's Racism, or reversed racism) SCOTUS thought so too, and ruled in favor of the white student stating that admissions boards could not select a person on the final factor being race. However, no precedent was set by the court, and so it is always overlooked.
Anyway, this girl had no idea what she was talking about. She was debating blind and ignorant, and nothing and no one is benefited from a debate like that. In her response, she stated that the government is racist and cited slavery, apartheid, Jim Crow Laws, and white preference all perpetrated by the government invalidated Bakke V. California. Which by the way, it DOES NOT. I agree with @KarimiCan. The US government along with many other governments in the world have done and been a party to some very horrible things in history. A lot of those horrible things having to do with race, and racism against minorities, especially black minorities. I am in no way invalidating those situations. But I do argue against the idea that since those happened the government can only be racist, because that simply isn't true. If a black or white student gets chosen over a white or black student (respectively) on the sole basis or race, than that is racist, regardless of what race it is happening to. If you deny the fact that there has been issues of racism against whites, then you yourself are part of the race problem in this country. Ignoring anyone's pain and invalidating their experiences is wrong, and is just as hurtful. DON'T DO IT.
The moment we accept that racism has happened, does happen, and will continue to happen AND that it happens to all races.... then that is the moment our nation will truly start to fix the massive race rift we still have. Racism isn't over, and it will never be over until we stop using race to invalidate others regardless of the color of their skin. Jude people for what they say and how they act and not on what they look like. Seriously so many problems would be solved if our society could do that. Don't ever tell me I can't have an opinion on something because of my skin color.
Early this morning, Matt Lauer and the Today Show crew interviewed Miss. Dolezal about this huge race issue. If you do not know the story I highly recommend watching the interview. Anyway, I have noticed the last couple of days that a lot of my liberal leaning friends on Facebook are quite upset at this and upset that people are claiming this to be a similar issue to Caitlyn Jenner and transgenderism. I have seen posts about trying to choose your race is immoral and can't be done, but you can change your gender.
To be clear, I am not going to give my opinion on either Caitlyn Jenner and her transgenderism or Rachel Dolezal and her trans-racialism. I have my own views on that and I don't feel that anyone would be benefited by rehashing that issue. However, I do have a strong opinion against those that have stood up and defended Caitlyn Jenner while at the same time condemning Rachel Dolezal.
I understand that race and gender are two very different aspects of the human experience, but a huge part of the argument for transgender people and Caitlyn Jenner, was that her soul was born different than her physical body. Whether or not you agree with that, you have to let her and others live their lives the way they want to. I'm confused and a little upset that the same people that encouraged Caitlyn to be her true self are so condemning to Rachel. How do you know if she feels that her soul was born Black instead of White?
Basically what I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy between those who are Caitlyn Jenner Proponents and Rachel Dolezal Opponents. It's clear hypocrisy to me. If you feel that people should be and do wahtever they want, then that has to be true for every type of person. If not, then all arguments are invalid.
SO..... In response to the Matt Lauer/Rachel Dolezal interview I got into the debate on Twitter and posted this:
I knew that I might get some hate from this tweet, but I honestly think that if you think you can be transgender, than why can't you be trans-racial?
The following is a response from a woman to my original tweet.
I wouldn't post anything, if I didn't want honest and clear dialogue between people from all view points. But the first thing @KarimiCan tweeted was hostile. She didn't understand where I was coming from and started calling names. (Hint: you should never start calling names in an argument because your opponent will automatically doubt your intelligence)
I don't ignore the face that many people may have a seriously different opinion on this issue than I do. and I think when people can cordially communicate, there can be understand. This conversation was not one of those debates.
Basically her response, shown above, told me I couldn't have an opinion on the Rachel Dolezal debate because I was white. What part of that is not racist? Honestly, why does she get to say that. She completely invalidated what I had to say about it, and she defended that statement with racism.
FACT: When you invalidate someone or someone's opinion using their race, than you are racist, and you are part of the problem.
I continued to argue with you and cited that she was using reversed racism also known as reversed discrimination to invalidate what I was saying. The same claim she was laying on me for being white. She claimed reverse discrimination was not a real thing. OH DARLING. That's when I got real excited and started typing 45894454 words a minute.
HAHA. Because Reverse Discrimination/Racism IS a thing. A legal thing. A legal thing that acknowledges that white people can also be discriminated against based on the color of their skin.
I now present you with the Supreme Court of the United States Case
Bakke V. University of California
Anyway, this girl had no idea what she was talking about. She was debating blind and ignorant, and nothing and no one is benefited from a debate like that. In her response, she stated that the government is racist and cited slavery, apartheid, Jim Crow Laws, and white preference all perpetrated by the government invalidated Bakke V. California. Which by the way, it DOES NOT. I agree with @KarimiCan. The US government along with many other governments in the world have done and been a party to some very horrible things in history. A lot of those horrible things having to do with race, and racism against minorities, especially black minorities. I am in no way invalidating those situations. But I do argue against the idea that since those happened the government can only be racist, because that simply isn't true. If a black or white student gets chosen over a white or black student (respectively) on the sole basis or race, than that is racist, regardless of what race it is happening to. If you deny the fact that there has been issues of racism against whites, then you yourself are part of the race problem in this country. Ignoring anyone's pain and invalidating their experiences is wrong, and is just as hurtful. DON'T DO IT.
The moment we accept that racism has happened, does happen, and will continue to happen AND that it happens to all races.... then that is the moment our nation will truly start to fix the massive race rift we still have. Racism isn't over, and it will never be over until we stop using race to invalidate others regardless of the color of their skin. Jude people for what they say and how they act and not on what they look like. Seriously so many problems would be solved if our society could do that. Don't ever tell me I can't have an opinion on something because of my skin color.
-- B
This blog post is not to argue for or against "transgenderism." I want to argue against one of negative effects that occurs when people like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner, who have sex changes and claim to be women. I'm of the opinion that people should do whatever they want. Never does my opinion or view have to change because of the actions of another, and the most important goal for me is to just be kind.
However, whether or not you agree with Bruce/Caitlyn's choices, there is an underlying message that is sneakily being spread by way of Bruce/Caitlyn's story. This message is destructive in nature and demeaning in content, and it's biggest proponent is Hollywood and the media. This issue doesn't offend me as someone against transgenderism, but as a woman.
To start this blog post I want to as a simple question.
PROBLEM: The problem is maybe not with how Caitlyn Jenner is now portraying herself, but maybe it is. There hasn't been a long enough time to see what it means to be a woman to Caitlyn. If it all it means to Caitlyn/Bruce is changing the hair, and makeup, and clothes of a person along with plastic surgery than Bruce/Caitlyn is part of the problem.
With the time constraints, it's my opinion that the problem is the media and the way they have portrayed Bruce/Caitlyn. All media outlets have summed up what it means to be a woman in one sentence. Being a woman lies with the cosmetic/surface changes and using different pronouns. WHAT? Isn't this what women have been fighting against for how long? If you haven't read the Vanity Fair cover on Bruce/Caitlyn you should. From what I read/saw there wasn't anything about what being a woman really means. Bruce/Caitlyn was asked questions about how his family was taking this change and how his mom was accepting his changes. In the initial interview that showed Bruce as a woman, it was all about his look. Even in the first commercial for Bruce/Caitlyn's docu-series was all about him putting his own make-up and how having it done professionally has made such a difference. Bruce/Caitlyn and proponents of his change have already said many times how much better he is now that he can wear women's clothing, and paint his finger nails, and let down his hair. How belittling and humiliating is that to the women of this world? I felt it. I felt like the world and the media, and Bruce/Caitlyn were accepting and praising the fact that becoming a woman can be as simple as breast implants, and a professional make-over. What a dehumanizing feeling? We shouldn't assign value to someone based on what they wear and look like, but this is exactly what is happening.
What Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner's coming out cover and the media's portrayal of it is telling the world that it doesn't matter if you have three degrees and successful career breaking glass ceilings. It doesn't matter that you have sacrificed everything to raise your children. It doesn't matter that being a woman is something that has evolved from the women you have leaned on and grown with and from. It doesn't matter that you have spent how many years creating/defining/modifying what it means to be a woman. None of that matters cause a woman can be created on a surgical table in California. That there is nothing inherently special in women, because it can all be recreated.
NO. I don't accept that. I don't accept that someone can schedule a time and in a matter of hours can become a woman. Women mean more to me than that. I MEAN MORE TO ME THAN THAT. I am not a woman and a feminist because of the make up I put on, or the clothes I wear, or even the physical traits I have. It means more. Being a woman means more than that. Regardless of how you feel about transgenderism, everyone should be weary of anything that would put women in such a limiting and destructive box. The reaction to Bruce/Caitlyn's news and the media's promotion of it should tell you something about the way our society values women. They don't. Gender is an easy changeable thing, and that it means nothing. That is what has been told with this news story, and that is not a world I want to live in.
It isn't a world I want young girls growing up in and understanding that there is nothing special about them and their gender besides cosmetics.
I am fighting for women who have spent their entire lives defining what it really means to be a woman. Being a woman does not have anything to do with make-up, breast size, clothing, or shoes. I hope one day our society will realize and accept the real value of women, because how much better will the world be when we value what women are instead of what they look like.
However, whether or not you agree with Bruce/Caitlyn's choices, there is an underlying message that is sneakily being spread by way of Bruce/Caitlyn's story. This message is destructive in nature and demeaning in content, and it's biggest proponent is Hollywood and the media. This issue doesn't offend me as someone against transgenderism, but as a woman.
To start this blog post I want to as a simple question.
What Does it Mean to Be A Woman?
BACKGROUND: Throughout the past year the idea of woman and what the female gender means has been evolving. Popular media networks like Huffington Post, BuzzFeed, TIME, and CNN have had several effective posts about how women should stop tearing each other down for the choices they make, and how women are so much more than what society has often labeled them as. A campaign against making women one dimensional characters based on their looks, beauty, chosen path. All of these posts I believe for the most part are helping improve how women are viewed in the workplace, in the home, and in general.
PROBLEM: The problem is maybe not with how Caitlyn Jenner is now portraying herself, but maybe it is. There hasn't been a long enough time to see what it means to be a woman to Caitlyn. If it all it means to Caitlyn/Bruce is changing the hair, and makeup, and clothes of a person along with plastic surgery than Bruce/Caitlyn is part of the problem.
With the time constraints, it's my opinion that the problem is the media and the way they have portrayed Bruce/Caitlyn. All media outlets have summed up what it means to be a woman in one sentence. Being a woman lies with the cosmetic/surface changes and using different pronouns. WHAT? Isn't this what women have been fighting against for how long? If you haven't read the Vanity Fair cover on Bruce/Caitlyn you should. From what I read/saw there wasn't anything about what being a woman really means. Bruce/Caitlyn was asked questions about how his family was taking this change and how his mom was accepting his changes. In the initial interview that showed Bruce as a woman, it was all about his look. Even in the first commercial for Bruce/Caitlyn's docu-series was all about him putting his own make-up and how having it done professionally has made such a difference. Bruce/Caitlyn and proponents of his change have already said many times how much better he is now that he can wear women's clothing, and paint his finger nails, and let down his hair. How belittling and humiliating is that to the women of this world? I felt it. I felt like the world and the media, and Bruce/Caitlyn were accepting and praising the fact that becoming a woman can be as simple as breast implants, and a professional make-over. What a dehumanizing feeling? We shouldn't assign value to someone based on what they wear and look like, but this is exactly what is happening.
What Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner's coming out cover and the media's portrayal of it is telling the world that it doesn't matter if you have three degrees and successful career breaking glass ceilings. It doesn't matter that you have sacrificed everything to raise your children. It doesn't matter that being a woman is something that has evolved from the women you have leaned on and grown with and from. It doesn't matter that you have spent how many years creating/defining/modifying what it means to be a woman. None of that matters cause a woman can be created on a surgical table in California. That there is nothing inherently special in women, because it can all be recreated.
NO. I don't accept that. I don't accept that someone can schedule a time and in a matter of hours can become a woman. Women mean more to me than that. I MEAN MORE TO ME THAN THAT. I am not a woman and a feminist because of the make up I put on, or the clothes I wear, or even the physical traits I have. It means more. Being a woman means more than that. Regardless of how you feel about transgenderism, everyone should be weary of anything that would put women in such a limiting and destructive box. The reaction to Bruce/Caitlyn's news and the media's promotion of it should tell you something about the way our society values women. They don't. Gender is an easy changeable thing, and that it means nothing. That is what has been told with this news story, and that is not a world I want to live in.
It isn't a world I want young girls growing up in and understanding that there is nothing special about them and their gender besides cosmetics.
I am fighting for women who have spent their entire lives defining what it really means to be a woman. Being a woman does not have anything to do with make-up, breast size, clothing, or shoes. I hope one day our society will realize and accept the real value of women, because how much better will the world be when we value what women are instead of what they look like.
***Disclaimer: This is my personal view on the Ordain Women Movement and if you don't agree with it that is completely 100% fine. I have tried to be as respectful as possible and I sincerely do not mean to offend anyone. ***
Initially I was upset with Kate Kelly and her OW movement because I was upset that she and her organization were trying to change something in the gospel using a political movement. Which if anyone is confused, that is EXACTLY what she is doing, or trying to do. As of now women do not hold the priesthood. I don't know the history of the priesthood well enough to know if women have held it before, and I don't know it well enough now to know if women not being able to hold the priesthood could change in the future. However, I do know that it will not change because someone within the church creates a clever hash tag and a few provocative memes.
The OW movement is trying to change something in the gospel with protests, publicity, blog posts and social medial following. And I think at first she was voicing her questions in a way that was maybe beneficial. Even to this day she claims she is innocent of apostasy and remained worthy the entire time and that she shouldn't have been excommunicated. When the OW website was first published I went to the site and read the '6 discussions' they had online. I wanted to know for real what OW was about before I decided they were in the wrong. For me, when I got on and read what they provided, I had a horrible feeling, a feeling that I knew what I was reading was wrong. There were clear signs of apostasy in my opinion. I can't answer for other people who have felt the same or have felt differently from what I'm explaining now. Anyway, I continued to follow the "Kate Kelly Story" because it was gaining a lot of traction and a lot of negative publicity for the church. I started noticing that as time went on and OW weren't getting what they wanted, leaders and followers started becoming more vindictive of the leaders of the church. It stopped being criticisms of these men, and started becoming complete rejection of their calling and like I said before she claims still to this day to do nothing to warrant an excommunication. Maybe not, I wasn't involved in her meetings with her church leaders and I don't know her personally. But I can make judgments based on what she put out herself on the Internet. She was condescending and questioning their authority as leaders of the LDS church. Which is where my first confusion starts. If you don't believe these men are called of God than how can you believe in the church at all? I'm not trying to be condescending, it's a real question. If you question the priesthood line of authority and the legitimacy of the men who have been called by that power, then why would you want something that you don't believe is true or real?
The second issue, and the issue that really makes me anti-OW and Kate Kelly, is her self-titled feminist or anti-patriarchy hypocrisy. Just on Sunday she posted an article that Deseret News has posted. The article was about the new statistics on Americans and religion and it was focused on the finding that women are leaving churches in droves. The author said something to the effect that women are leaving because they are selfish. I'm not here to argue the merits of the argument or whether the author is right or wrong. Her comments on this article is what I want to focus on. Throughout her statements the last few months Kate Kelly has attacked the patriarchal nature of the LDS church and used the patriarchy for its negative connotation. Now I'm paraphrasing here, but this is what I got from her comments now with this article and from past posts. She is telling women of the church to not let the power hungry men of the Mormon church control who you are and put you into a box labeled motherhood because it is limiting and a form of control. She said something that I interpreted as, don't let the patriarchy control your choices. Be a real woman and do what you want.
I have several issues with her point with these types of comments.
First, she is trying to raise contention within the church and between members of the church and outside commentators. Which I think is wrong. She is screaming the loudest on an issue with the church and non-LDS people are listening to her and gaining a perverted image of what the LDS religion is, and it's only because she is making the most and the loudest noise.
Second. I'm calling her out right now on being a hypocrite. She claims to be a fighter for women, but what she really means is that she is a fighter for women who believe the way she believes. She does just as much damage to the women of this church as the amount that she claims the power hungry controlling men of the priesthood do. I have heard many sisters of the church, including myself, feel personally belittled by Kate Kelly. She acts like you aren't intelligent until you see that you are being controlled and manipulated by the men of this church. And if you don't see it that you're either naive, unintelligent, or anti-woman. To me it also makes me feel like motherhood isn't an important or worthy role to have, because it's not the priesthood. It's a slap in the face to every woman on this planet that has dedicated and sacrificed to be a mother in this world today. I get so upset, that people champion her as a fighter for women when she so clearly tears down women who don't agree with her. You can go on her twitter right now back to the date of the last general session women's conference. Look at her comments, and then try to tell me she is a fighter for women. She's not. She's a fighter for a cause, and if you happen to be a woman who happens to believe in her cause, then she fights for you. But from my view, I say don't be fooled by this facade that she is fighting for women's rights.
Third. This argument she has against the negative patriarchal nature of the church because it tells women how and when they should live their lives. How is she not doing the exact same thing? She is telling you hey don't let those men tell you how to live your life, this is how you should live your life. It's blatant that she is doing the exact same thing she is claiming the leaders of this church are doing, aka running and controlling how women should behave and live their lives. If you aren't for female ordination than you're anti-woman and you need to change. How is that any different from the offenses she has charged against the LDS church?
The news only publishes all the headway and the 'good' Kate Kelly and OW are doing, but what they don't post is the hurt and the heartbreak she has made women of the church feel who do not share her feelings. Women like me who love this gospel and believe that it is the true church. Who support these men and women that she is tearing down. Me and other women who feel belittled and made to feel stupid by Kate Kelly and her followers and their condescending comments about how women should feel about her cause. About the mothers who have sacrificed all to be mothers, who are told that that isn't enough or not good enough. The news and blogs don't talk about this aspect of Ordain Women, and it's an aspect that I believe should also be heard.
Bottom line. I think women should do whatever they feel makes them the best self they can be. That will be different for everyone. Feminism to me is letting women do whatever they want and not belittle them whatever their choices may be. And Love. The most important aspect of being a member of the LDS church or even a human is being kind and loving everyone. I'm grateful for Kate Kelly and OW because through her experience my testimony of the gospel, of it's leaders, of my Heavenly Father, and of the priesthood has been strengthened. After taking a hard look at myself a woman, as a member, and a feminist I am comfortable and happy with where I am. Kate Kelly and her cause made me reflect and helped me to search deeper into my relationship with the gospel. I know for myself what I believe and that I truly believe and that is all I need, and I hope everyone can find that peace.
--B