This is an honest question: Wouldn't a better study be whether moms are taking more time off total than non-moms, not what the cause of that time off is? I mean, in my group at work, there is one mom and a few non-moms, and the issue isn't that the mom is taking off soooo much time because of her kids, but because she takes off the same amount of time the rest of us do for personal sickness/injury PLUS time off/working from home to take care of her kids.
(I realize this is purely anecdotal, and this particular coworker is her own special brand of difficult and probably doesn't represent all moms. Also, I definitely don't condone discriminating against women of child-bearing age or women who are already mothers even if they do need more time off--the real problem is that moms are the ones expected to sacrifice their work time/careers to take care of those issues and not dads. I'm just wondering how this study really proves that moms aren't in need of more time off than other non-mom workers.)
I love love love to read. Besides my husband, reading is the only non-survival thing I could not live without. That said, the faster and more easily you can get books to me, the better. I think ebooks are the best thing to happen since the printing press. Physical books are nice, but I haven't bought one since I got my Nook 2 years ago.
I read as much as you do and I'm also an editor who stares at a computer screen for 9 hours a day, so I was worried about the back-lit screen thing too when switching to an e-reader. But you can get e-ink readers like a Kindle or Nook that aren't back-lit and are no worse for wear on your eyes than a paper book. These days I read on my iPad (which is back lit) and even that doesn't feel like it's hard on my eyes like a computer screen does. You can set the brightness to auto-adjust so that the screen automatically gets brighter in the sun or dimmer in a dark room. The toll on my eyes was my biggest deterrent from switching to an e-reader and now I find that funny because it's so totally not an issue for me.
Any advice for what to do in a two-story house when the first floor is freezing and the second floor is like the flames of hell are upon it? We're keeping the thermostat at 59 right now (nights here are getting down to 20-25), and it's so hot upstairs we have to crack windows and sleep on top of the covers. But spend more than 2 minutes downstairs and we can't feel our noses. Any suggestions?
What's wrong with "binky"? Binky is just a specific brand of pacifier that used to be so common the brand name was adopted for the object. Like calling a tissue a kleenex. I still call pacifiers "binkies" and there is nothing wrong with my language development (in fact, I majored in English and am now a technical editor).
When I was 12-13, I discovered Madeleine L'Engle. "A Wrinkle in Time" is probably her most well known novel, but I loved the series about the Austin family in particular. I reread them all the time, and to this day I list "A Ring of Endless Light" as one of my favorite books. Plus when she gets older, there are adult books about the same characters, who have grown up along with the reader!
Yes, BYU-Idaho is also an LDS school. And yes, I went to BYU in Utah. :) I just didn't want people conflating this story with my alma mater, because they are two different schools, and BYU-Idaho has a reputation for being super strict, way more strict than BYU. Just different administrations and school cultures, I guess.
Some tests were given in classrooms, but the testing center was an option for professors who didn't want to waste instruction time on an exam. They could make the exam available in the testing center for a certain amount of time--say, a week--and each student in the class had to go to the testing center on their own time and take the exam within that time period. It was up to the individual professor, though.
As a BYU alum, just want to point a few things out. (1) This was BYU-Idaho, not the BYU in Provo, Utah (some commenters seem to think this article is about BYU). BYU-Idaho is a different university, not another campus of BYU. (2) If BYU-Idaho's testing center is like BYU's, the testing center employees are usually just students. So this guy who wouldn't let her take her test? Probably just a kid on a power trip. (3) The university released a statement saying that skinny jeans are NOT against the Honor Code and that they are working with the testing center to make sure this doesn't happen again: [www.byuicomm.net]
ETA: I'm a Mormon who loves her skinny jeans. You can pry them off my cold, dead, shapely legs.
ETA: I'm a Mormon who loves her skinny jeans. You can pry them off my cold, dead, shapely legs.
I think it's more likely the other way around. Books are just another way of advertising a candidate and furthering a campaign. Worked wonders for Obama with "The Audacity of Hope." Who wouldn't try it?
"Also, in the Mormon faith, a woman must be married to get into heaven."
This is technically true (although the LDS definition of "heaven" is very complex and not just heaven vs. hell like a lot of religions), but it is also true that MEN must be married. Everybody has to be, not just women.
There's a whole lot of other really problematic stuff in this article, but plenty of commenters have already addressed it. This was just the one thing that I hadn't seen pointed out so far.
ETA: Also, the Browns are not Mormon.
This is technically true (although the LDS definition of "heaven" is very complex and not just heaven vs. hell like a lot of religions), but it is also true that MEN must be married. Everybody has to be, not just women.
There's a whole lot of other really problematic stuff in this article, but plenty of commenters have already addressed it. This was just the one thing that I hadn't seen pointed out so far.
ETA: Also, the Browns are not Mormon.
"...nearly one in 10 unmarried women ages 20 to 29 has an unplanned pregnancy each year, or 1.3 million pregnancies annually..."
My husband and I are planning to start trying to get pregnant soon, so we've been reading up on boosting fertility, the best time to get it on, etc. We read that a woman who is in her peak fertility years (20-25) only has a 25% chance of getting pregnant if she has unprotected sex during her fertile time of the month. How the heck are all these accidental pregnancies happening? Those seem like really low odds to me. Also, if I were someone who was trying to get pregnant and was having a hard time, those statistics would make me mad.
My husband and I are planning to start trying to get pregnant soon, so we've been reading up on boosting fertility, the best time to get it on, etc. We read that a woman who is in her peak fertility years (20-25) only has a 25% chance of getting pregnant if she has unprotected sex during her fertile time of the month. How the heck are all these accidental pregnancies happening? Those seem like really low odds to me. Also, if I were someone who was trying to get pregnant and was having a hard time, those statistics would make me mad.
Also, FWIW, I personally think abortion is wrong but do not think it should be outlawed. I don't think anyone should be forced to have a baby they don't want, and the Church certainly isn't forcing anyone either (they don't even actively promote pro-life candidates or bills). To me, it's a personal, spiritual matter, not something the government should get to decide. The Church is just giving guidance to people on a very complex, emotional issue so they know which direction is the one that will ultimately bring them the most peace and happiness.
(1) Sex outside of marriage is considered a sin in the Church. Sex within marriage is not. However, choosing to have an elective abortion even if the pregnancy resulted from marital sex is still a sin. A woman who has been raped is "innocent" of the sin of premarital sex. Choosing to have sex outside of marriage means you are not innocent of that particular sin, not that it completely takes away your innocence. It's like if someone is convicted of the crime of theft, they are not "innocent" of theft, but that doesn't mean they aren't innocent in other ways. Innocence is not like a personality trait that you either have or you don't.
(2) This is where the Church, to me, is more liberal about this issue than you would expect. They do not, in fact, view the fetus as a person but as a potential person, and the health (physical or psychological) of an existing person (the mother) is more important than the opportunity for the fetus to experience life. To answer your last question, no, the Church would not condone the killing of a human being to spare the psychological welfare of another. The Church does differentiate between a fetus and a living person.
(3-4) I don't think the psychological harm that happens in these two instances is the same. Having a baby is not the same thing as being raped. I'm not saying that having a baby you don't wish to have can't be traumatic or harmful, but one act is the beginning of a life and the other is a horrible, destructive crime.
But you're right, the distinction is between whether the woman chose to have sex or not. It's not that a woman should be punished for having slutty-slutty sex by having to keep the baby, it's that all of us should accept responsibility for our actions. Pregnancy is a known consequence of having sex, and as the article says, you can't "unchoose" to do it after you already have. Just because physically, medically, there is a way out, doesn't meant that choosing that way out is the right thing to do. Church members are taught in all circumstances to accept responsibility for their actions.
A girl or woman who is raped has been robbed of her agency and her choice, so the burden of another's choice should not be hers to bear.
As UWSideStory said, choice is central to the Church's teachings, but you can't make a choice without consequences, good or bad.
(2) This is where the Church, to me, is more liberal about this issue than you would expect. They do not, in fact, view the fetus as a person but as a potential person, and the health (physical or psychological) of an existing person (the mother) is more important than the opportunity for the fetus to experience life. To answer your last question, no, the Church would not condone the killing of a human being to spare the psychological welfare of another. The Church does differentiate between a fetus and a living person.
(3-4) I don't think the psychological harm that happens in these two instances is the same. Having a baby is not the same thing as being raped. I'm not saying that having a baby you don't wish to have can't be traumatic or harmful, but one act is the beginning of a life and the other is a horrible, destructive crime.
But you're right, the distinction is between whether the woman chose to have sex or not. It's not that a woman should be punished for having slutty-slutty sex by having to keep the baby, it's that all of us should accept responsibility for our actions. Pregnancy is a known consequence of having sex, and as the article says, you can't "unchoose" to do it after you already have. Just because physically, medically, there is a way out, doesn't meant that choosing that way out is the right thing to do. Church members are taught in all circumstances to accept responsibility for their actions.
A girl or woman who is raped has been robbed of her agency and her choice, so the burden of another's choice should not be hers to bear.
As UWSideStory said, choice is central to the Church's teachings, but you can't make a choice without consequences, good or bad.
The position of the Church relies on the belief that abortion affects two individuals: the mother and the fetus. The decision of whether or not an abortion is a good/appropriate option in the situation depends on finding the best balance possible of what's best for both individuals involved; neither individual is more important. If the mother's health or life is at risk, then her life is not less important than the fetus, and often the fetus will not survive anyway, so abortion is the appropriate option. If the pregnancy is the result of a rape and the mother will suffer psychologically because of someone else's horrid actions if she goes through with the pregnancy, that is not fair to her and abortion is an appropriate option. If the mother had consensual sex that resulted in pregnancy and she wishes to end the pregnancy because having a child would be difficult for her financially, emotionally, or socially, none of those discomforts outweigh the worth of her fetus's life like her life or physical or mental health would.
Here's an article from a Church leader that explains it better than I do:
[lds.org]
Here's an article from a Church leader that explains it better than I do:
[lds.org]
As a Mormon who currently lives in Utah, I don't understand that bit about the "elders in Provo." The Church headquarters are in Salt Lake City, not Provo, so is that what Dushku meant? "Elders in Provo" would just be random older guys who are members of the Church, and even though they might hold local positions of authority within the Church, there would definitely be no reason for Romney to go them for political advice, unless they were his friends or something. And in that case it's just advice from friends who happen to be members of the Church.
If she did mean SLC and not Provo and was referring to the General Authorities (leaders of the whole Church), I have a really hard time believing they would seek Romney out to give him political advice or that if he went to them for advice that that's what they'd tell him. Church leaders make a VERY big deal of the fact that the Church and Church leaders do not support any particular political party or candidate. Every year at election time the leaders send out a letter to the local congregations encouraging them to vote, but the letter always emphasizes that the Church will NOT tell you what or who to vote for. In fact, the Church just recently made a new edict that any Church leaders with more than just local authority cannot run for political office. If they do, they will be released from their position of authority within the Church. Except for the random Prop. 8 business (which lots of members are still surprised about), the LDS Church tries very hard to keep out of the political arena.
If she did mean SLC and not Provo and was referring to the General Authorities (leaders of the whole Church), I have a really hard time believing they would seek Romney out to give him political advice or that if he went to them for advice that that's what they'd tell him. Church leaders make a VERY big deal of the fact that the Church and Church leaders do not support any particular political party or candidate. Every year at election time the leaders send out a letter to the local congregations encouraging them to vote, but the letter always emphasizes that the Church will NOT tell you what or who to vote for. In fact, the Church just recently made a new edict that any Church leaders with more than just local authority cannot run for political office. If they do, they will be released from their position of authority within the Church. Except for the random Prop. 8 business (which lots of members are still surprised about), the LDS Church tries very hard to keep out of the political arena.
I used a Nook for a year and loved it, and I swore I would never switch to a tablet because I didn't want to read on a backlit screen. Then my husband decided he wasn't getting enough use out of his iPad and gave it to me, and I discovered something that made me switch permanently to reading on the iPad: I have an iPhone as well, and if you have the iBooks app on both your iPhone and your iPad and you sync them with the same iTunes library, you can put a "bookmark" in the book you're reading on one device, and when you open it on your other device it will automatically flip to that bookmark. I think this is awesome because I do most of my reading on my iPad, but if I happen to find myself in a situation where I have to wait longer than I thought I would or I'm bored, I always have my phone in my pocket even when I don't have my iPad with me and I can pull out my phone and pick up where I left off. No more thinking, "Bah! If I had known the line at the DMV was going to be this long/the bus was going to get stuck in bumper-to-bumper traffic today/it was going to take me this long in the bathroom, I would have brought my Nook with me!"
I was in the room when my niece was born, and yes, my sister pooped. And no, it was not a big deal at all. The nurse just quietly leaned in, wiped it off, and everyone went on with the business of birthing a child. If you had looked away for 2 seconds, you would not have even seen it. I used to be afraid of pooping during delivery, but after that, I was like, "What the heck have I been freaking out about?" In fact, the whole thing made me much less terrified of birth in general. And it wasn't an easy one, either. My sister had preeclampsia and was in labor for almost two days, and the first half she did without drugs. But it was much less dramatic and traumatizing than TV, movies, or the "war stories" of my mommy friends made it seem.
My Google chat status is always "Available" because I'm always logged in through my phone. A while ago I got an email from an old acquaintance who I don't see any more wanting to let me know that she'd seen that my status was "Available" and was I okay? She had, apparently, always thought that I seemed "unhappy" and hoped that now that my marriage was over, my life was better. Except that I am still (happily) married, and if I seemed unhappy to her, it was probably because she bugged the crap out of me and every time she talked to me I was silently praying for her to go away. So I guess my IM status says I'm trapped in a loveless marriage.
I honestly thought this post was going to be about human injuries you could get from using an iPhone. Like, texter's thumb or that crick in your neck when you've been holding it between your ear and your shoulder for an hour and a half while your mother rambles on about how your ridiculous baby brother just refuses to grow up. I could use a post like that.
