Jump to content

BlueDreams

Contributor
  • Content Count

    3,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,974 Excellent

About BlueDreams

  • Rank
    If only there was blue cocoa too
  • Birthday 05/17/1988

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Under the mountains
  • Interests
    People, art, politics, diet, social issues, living and breathing, etc

Recent Profile Visitors

3,031 profile views
  1. I would say neither because such ideas and contexts that surround the idea of "liberal" or "conservative" were not around in said time.
  2. THe only way I could post this was in 2 posts for some reason and without the quote of the OP. Sorry if this seems out of place. To me, the case for male disenfranchisement only works when the data is cherry-picked. When there's a more general survey, the results are less straight-forward. The examples you give don't make a lot of sense of proving disenfranchisement to me. Women are 51% of white collar professionals and are overrepresented to the end of white-collar work that's lower pay in comparison. Captain marvel is captain marvel. I love marvel movies and am not sure how she stands out from the superhero crowd in your mind. Sure, she's uber powerful....but the marvel cinematic universe is heavily male. I don't see her on a pedestal. She's another superhero...with superhero powers....like a lot of other superheroes. As for #metoo repercussions, from what I see, the overreactive tip-toeing is not just a metoo movement phenomenon....people unversed in gender or race issues often can suddenly get very nervous about their behaviors and how they come off. It doesn't say much about the movement, to me, but about the people who do not understand the experience of sexual harassment, assault, etc. And the work still ahead in changing cultural and structural problems that have been overlooked. With luv, BD
  3. Testing something.... I don't see a good case for the generalized displacement of men...at least in this definition of the word via google: the state of being deprived of a right or privilege, especially the right to vote. In my personal view, being deprived a right or privilege.....or at least a great inequality would need to be tied specifically to being of the male gender in order to hold weight. I have 8 brothers and my husband. Though some of them have experienced discrimination or disenfranchisement it was not specifically related to their experience as a man. So, for example, I'm the most educated out of all of them in terms of types of degrees received. Which would fit a lot of the education stats. BUT the reason for why my brothers do not have equivalent degrees entail delayed schooling due to childhood issues that bled into adulthood (not gender specific), personal decisions for their careers that often entail less schooling (not a barring from choice), and disenfranchisement tied with being an international student (my husband had to repeat his undergrad degree when he was expecting to come for a master's program because they wouldn't recognize his previous degree). When forms of discrimination do entail to some degree their gender, it's not JUST gender that's pulling the problem. My black brothers and father, for example, have faced more fears and scrutiny from cops/others. More so than my half white siblings, some of which look very white. Being male does not entirely encapsulate the disenfranchisement. Rather, being visible men of color does.
  4. Yeah, no....I wouldn't call this a "win" per se from a religious perspective. The article also noted that the stats also point to a reduction in actual coupling as well. That means a reduction in long-lasting marital relationships....or any committal relationship really. And what several of these trends that the article talks about is a focus on sex that is highly self-oriented and individual-satisfaction oriented. If the LoC is solely about "don't have sex till marriage," then this could be seen as maybe a partial "win"....sorta. But I don't think that's even the main point of the LoC (just the culturized version of it). The main point of it is creating and then sustaining a relational path that is marked by deep commitment, love, knowledge of the other, sharing of self, and building a partnership that is structured around God. Through which, at times, children are to be brought into the world through said act. S*xual/relational expression prior should help develop both a sense of self and respect/love of oneself as well as practice and seeking sharing of self with potential partners that matches the degree of one's commitment to them. This is my personal belief....but it's based on what relationships I see that have the strongest capacity to have a relationship that fosters love through their s*xuality as well as maintaining a God-oriented relationship noted in many LDS aspirations and beliefs around marriage. So these trends by no means meet the degree of relational and s*xual aspirations I feel are tied to the LoC or leading to a sealing relationship, even if there are some temporal benefits. With luv, BD
  5. You're fine. It's helpful to know that sanitized/sterile and healthful aren't exactly the same thing. You can read a little about it here and here: You can usually see and taste the difference between the varying chicken eggs fairly clearly. My husband buys "cheapo" eggs as we call them and they're a pale yellow yoke and an extremely thin shell. I tend to buy either organic free range, organic pasture raised, or local farmer's market eggs. The color differs from a strong yellow to a dark orange. And there's research/evidence for greater nutritional value for chickens with diets and environments closer to a natural setting. I hope to one day to have some chickens of my own! I'm a little envious you get that With luv, BD
  6. I think the history and complexities around this bill are being lost in our Partisan climate. For anyone interested I really like this outlook that points out the problems on both democrat and republican lines surrounding this bill. A bill may be fairly simple in language and still have problematic ramifications or concerns to something that is actually more complex than currently mentioned. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/03/abortion-will-play-big-role-2020/583873/ Personally, I find the emotive reactivity around these things annoying. I get that this is an issue that can pull at people's heart strings a lot. It takes in people's sense of moral ideals, packages it in a simple message about a helpless baby or an overreach into women and their bodies. And it ignores that there is likely a better reality somewhere in the middle. Meanwhile other issues with great moral consequence that harm both women and children get ignored for a lightning rod issue. I am neither adamantly pro-life or pro-choice. I am pro finding solutions that do the least harm overall and promote agency in difficult circumstances. In order for that to happen I see both ends needing to recognize the holes and weaknesses in their positions. I don't think our current rhetoric of attack and defense is helpful in getting us there. With luv, BD
  7. Unfortunately sexism and gender discrimination has been bad in many societies but I think the trend has been moving against this for a century. In the secular world not only is discrimination based upon sex highly unethical but probably illegal. I hadn't considered the perspective of a woman enjoying a life free from discrimination because of her gender everywhere but within the organization of the church. I'm the demographic that Jana Riess mentions: millenial woman who works outside the home (and will to some extent after baby), educated, and with currently fewer children. I do not relate to the comment that the church is the only place that I've experienced or seen discrimination and/or sexism. It could strongly be tied to my job of course. Themes of discrimination and sexism are fairly common in my work space. This can include medical discrimination (fairly common honestly), legal protections, family discriminatory beliefs, other cultural expectations, small rural communities, and yes church related discrimination. In my life, sexism takes on different flavors in differing avenues. Am I barred from differing positions or experiences at my work or at public venues due to my gender? Generally no....but I may be catcalled while walking down the street to said public venues. One thing I have noticed that may be effecting that sense is that I've noticed in my work that people are really really good at pinpointing the cultural problems within the church that effect them....and have a bit of a blindspot towards everything else that may have also had an effect. I do believe discrimination based on gender has reduced over the years, but we are far from a completely egalitarian society as a whole. The fact that they cannot see other forms of discrimination outside a church setting actually somewhat concerns me as a feminist. Personally, overt discrimination outside a church setting has been rare in my life. I do feel there are limitations and an imbalance in the church based on gender that reduces our capacity to further create zion. I don't believe the answer is a simple one, but I do believe it's moving in the right/positive direction. I'm excited to see the further unfolding of the restoration. Covert discrimination, mysogyny, and sexism are something that I have found in and outside of the church. Often I view some of the sexist beliefs and assumptions in the church body are really just religiously-repackaged versions of what happens in the larger culture. Sometimes I can see some of the positive differences that have developed because of the Gospel, that often makes me feel a little safer. With luv, BD
  8. Walden was talking about a plant-based diet...which is not the same (though they can be) as a vegan diet. Every blue zone diet is still plant-based. I have a heavily plant based diet but i’m not vegan. That’s what i was referring to as to not being accurate. In your response it placed an emphasis on the meat or dairy of the okinawan/other ling-lived populations where the emphasis and bulk of long life populations that are studied emphasize plants with meats or animal dericatives being sparse or tiny in proportions. The okinawan diet was more veggie oriented than anything else. I’m just reporting on the stats and figures i found on the diet which all point to the meat being small and sparingly used. Like really really small. Smaller than i even eat (at least compared to dairy and egg intake). Emphasizing their meats in most blue zone diets just doesn’t bode accurate to me. from what i’ve read study-wise the difficultly with vegan diets is that a) they’re not a set population like blue zones are b) they’re usually younger so longevity is guess work c) people who go vegan often overlap with conscientious/health oriented people anyways. Cfr on the men and possible soy connection?? I looked up the age gap...but the gap between men and women is about the same as you see in the US (5-6 yrs). But okinawans both lived longer than americans based on gender by 8-9 yrs. Kudos on good food with luv, bd
  9. I finally have a minute to address the OP, though I'm sure this thread has moved a bit passed it. I'm a whole-foods plant-based vegetarian....but not a vegan. I've been a vegetarian for 17 years now, which for me equals over half of my life. I have two vegan cousins (well one now occasionally eats some dairy, I believe) though neither ID's as LDS currently. I wouldn't describe them as "extremely vocal." They're actually fairly reserved and I find that mot vegans/vegetarian's I've known past the teens are generally cautious about sharing their views in a way that's not too judgy in part because of the stereotype of us being super judgy and peta-radicals. Plus I haven't enjoyed all the judgments and prodding questions thrown my way over the years from meat-eaters. I remember one time a friend of mine wouldn't stop ribbing me about being a vegetarian. So I showed him one video about pig factory farm conditions. I still remember him first arguing back at the video to silence and then later telling me he's worked to incorporate more veggies and fruits into his diet. Though I'll share my views and reasons, I'm not trying to push someone to be like me. Both vegan, vegetarian, and generally heavily plant-based diets are on the rise....though we're still a small percentage in the US. Animal kindness is only a small part of the reason most people are vegetarian or vegan. The big ones I hear are health, environmental/sustainability concerns, cruelty, and some spiritual reasons. Mine went health --> cruelty --> habit --> environmental/spiritual over time. I'm grateful that I went vegetarian at a pretty young age because it was the marker that changed how I thought about my food, brought me more into gardening, made me a more conscientious buyer of goods, and shifted my diet more and more to one that resonates with the WoW. I'm not vegan because I love cheese and eggs. Just no way around it. But I go for eggs that are either organic and pasture-raised and/or local. Over time I want my own chickens. And I try to buy my cheese from sources I feel are at least aiming for better practices. My milk is also either organic or follow more sustainable practices. They all cost more, which to me feels right. On an LDS, spiritual orientation....I think about my diet in terms of the WoW and then earth stewardship. I want to reduce my negative impact on the environment. This oddly has gotten more poignant for me recently, being pregnant. I've found myself more than once wondering what world my daughter would inhabit....what was being lost because of our carelessness with the earth? There's more I could do and we won't be raising our kids strictly vegetarian (my husband isn't vegetarian....though he prefers my diet over the standard american one any day ) but I want them to have a sense of conscientiousness about how our choices impact our home. I find plenty of scriptural references to direct the belief in earth-stewardship is a sacred duty. The WoW talks about eating meat with great thanksgiving and then also pretty dang rarely or in specific circumstances. Circumstances I've never really had problems with. For me, though I don't think there is something intrinsically evil or wrong about eating meat....I think we've become far removed from the spirit of what eating meat means and practices that are good for the earth or for us really. I get that Jesus ate fish, but Jesus was a part of a community that was far more sustainable to the land around them than we are today....and I doubt it was to the far larger amount of meat consumed in the SAD. And Nephi fits the WoW reference of having meat during times of famine. In other words the context to me is different and that difference means a change in practice to better meet the needs of our current society. Again, I'm not saying that means everybody must eat like I do and forego meat entirely. But we'd all very much benefit in reducing foods that don't match the WoW and being more mindful or seeking practices that are more environmentally sustainable in the long run, IMHO. I do think that the experience of being a vegetarian pushed me into healthier food-choices and directions. In part in response to so many people asking how I got this or that vitamin, but also with some of the underlying constructs that are reasons for me being a vegetarian. I don't think I've seen many vegans on this thread....but plenty of smaller judgments of those who decide on a vegan diet. Which I find a little silly. I've learned and enjoyed from my vegan cousins and by accommodating their food restrictions, I've learned a few more things myself about food and cooking that have been further beneficial to my health. I'm sometimes surprised how reactive people can get about vegan or vegetarian meals. I make a delish vegan pancake, but when I brought this up to some ward friends there was a noticeable recoil to the idea of eating it. I don't necessarily promote a vegan or even vegetarian diet outright...but I think that they along with other plant-based (preferably whole foods) diets are more in line with the WoW than what is more common in certain western cultures. for an LDS vegan or WFPB diet focus, here's a few videos that may be of interest https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82xBjqPKAQc https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMfX664LXYoTonHUH29SlGA With luv, BD
  10. This isn't exactly accurate. I think you're describing blue zones....ie the longest lived populations (one of which is 7th day adventists in california....they're largely vegetarian). Though an okinawan's traditional diet does include fish, pork, eggs, and dairy, it's far far less than the average western/American diet. Each category makes up 1% of their food....it's basically a condiment for them. All blue zone diets are extreme fruits, veg, and beans heavy (ie .they're largely plant-based diets SEe here). Don't have time to say more than this. I do agree that we would be better off if we laid off of highly processed foods. With luv, BD
  11. This was not an attacking point, just my perspective that the concern you brought up may be a little less concerning than you quickly portrayed. If by plants, you were meaning highly processed derivatives of plants, I completely agree. If it was simply a tomato, carrot, apple, etc than I was stating it needed more nuance and wasn't as big of an effect as initially portrayed.
  12. Well i wrote that on my phone without contacts. If that’s my worst typo, i’m calling it a victory 😛
  13. I dont know if i agree entirely. I know there’s been depletion, but i think there’s a few more parts that are equally if not more important. I think there’s a big problem with lack of diversity in our diets and the tendency to have it heavily processed (though I definitely agree with the sugar in practically everything). I eat a plant based largely whole foods diet: when my bro decided to start eating healthy i decided in solidarity to count calories and teach him about labels and such. Calorie counting for a person who cooks the majority of her food from scratch is a pain in the butt, btw. But what it taught me was that i naturally eat under the recommended calories. My food is energy dense, fiber rich, and diverse (especially come summer/fall). So i’m full with less and for longer periods. I had a roommate with a very problematic american diet who for several months i took control of her food as she paid me to cook the meals basically. It’s the first time i really got to see the difference in action. She began learning the difference between physical fullness and satiated. She was flushed out from the excessive fiber for the first bit. And after, her digestive problems started to lessen or all together disappear. There’s a lot of ways that one can mitigate the problem you mentioned enough that we’d likely be more filled with less if our diets were simply more rich and whole as for refined sugar, it’s so not my friend. My migraines get worse if i eat too much of it, so i’ve reduced the the stuff to very small/limited levels. Many things at church events are just too sweet (or really any event where desert is served 😛)
  14. I know there's been other answers that have been really good, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents. 1.) I don't have experience with issuing a calling and on the recipient end, I've had a variety experiences with how I've received a calling that tells me that the simplest methodology (prayer-seek out-issue to a person) may not be the best way all the time. Several callings I've volunteered for or asked for specifically (temple, teaching an ARP class in my ward, etc). Others I've reached collaboratively with leaders to have. I've had at least one calling issued in the regular way that I also felt a spiritual reassurance that I needed to have even though it wasn't a natural calling I'd gravitate to. I don't know what is expected for me to believe about inspired callings. I know there's often cultural expectations around callings that can view it as quasi-fate oriented. For myself I believe it's an open opportunity for learning in one way or another...and likely in a few that we could not anticipate 2. This one I have more personal experiences with. Since I work primarily with married people who are LDS, I get to hear many of their stories about coming together...including the spiritual experiences leading up to it. Note, if they're seeing me something isn't going well in their marriage (usually s*x....but not always just that). There are people who received clear answers to marry this person. THere are people that didn't feel God saying no and went for it. There are people who didn't really take much spiritual consideration period. And there are a few who felt like they shouldn't go through the marriage emotionally or spiritually. Receiving an answer about marriage partner doesn't seem to heavily correlate to outcomes in marriage. Some really struggle, some don't. I do notice that the ones who did receive an answer feel more motivation to stick through difficult times...so that could be a reason in itself. But there's also the opposite, where when the marriage is beginning to show signs of dissolution that they begin to question why they felt that prompting (especially if it was a strong one) or the Spirit/God in general (especially if the marriage is ending on really bad terms). It's interesting to watch them navigate these answers and experiences. Sometimes I can tell that the "answer" they received was in part more of an assumption based on their personal desires and cultural contexts. So for example, for a number the sense of urgency to marry period often can cloud really obvious problems or concerns. They've check-listed Jesus (as in here is the expected and appropriate formula to eternal life/happiness), marriage was the next step on their check list, and their partner at the time fit their marital partner checklist. When their marriage isn't easy or hits hard times, they're often the ones to end up really really questioning the marriage and struggling to understand why this was happening. I think the majority I meet have good intentions with asking. THey want to make sure they're making the "right" decision, to some level. They know marriage is a big step and have a pattern of taking things to God to know what to do....so why wouldn't they ask God about this? I think assumptions as to what that answer means can vary. I think, due to the nature of what most people are feeling pre-marriage (high infatuation) there's an assumption that a positive answer means they're about to live happily ever after or be fulfilled in a way they couldn't prior. For the rest, I think it gives them confidence to work through things when they do get tough. Personally I definitely prayed and received answers in my dating life and to marry. 3 specifically come to mind when thinking about this topic. The first was an answer to be with a guy who had several issues and didn't make sense to me. I really believed I would inevitably marry him, if he cleaned up his act and was simply waiting for him to do so. I received STRONG answers at times to stick with him. It sucked....like signing yourself up to be yo-yo'd around and to have an emotional gut punch every 6 months or so.... For about 7-8 years. Fun times. But the experience gave me knowledge, patience, and compassion in ways I never could. It chipped off some of my worst traits. And brought me closer to God and able to recognize the spirit in very personal ways. It ate up most of my 20's relationally, but expanded me spiritually in ways I couldn't have without walking in the "wilderness" as BB described it. By the end of the experience, I had come to a point in my faith that if God asked me to walk off a cliff I would ask "which one?" Oddly, the journey that was confusing, tiring, painful, etc gave me a rooted and deep relationship with God. The 2nd was short and came after that guy. I knew we were a mismatch spiritually and I was definitely done wasting my time on dead end relationships. I remember chatting with God and saying, "he's not the one right" and God said "No." Then saying" THen I should probably drop it" and God said "Not yet." So I dated him some more, learned and grew, and we both quietly drifted apart. The 3rd was my husband. I won't go into details about this one because it would take a lot of a back story and sharing a few things I wouldn't on a public forum. But coming to the realization that I would marry him was strongly spiritual (and rapid....we were seriously planning our marriage after 13 days of knowing each other). Though the answers were clear and indicated that what I'd just received was a bit rare and a gift, I never took it to mean that we would from then on live problem free. Like any spiritual gift, it needed to be cultivated. That what we would become was still our choice each and every day. All of these answers, to me, were tied to figuring out where I needed to go to learn and grow and become as God would have me. It was part of my Walk with Christ and healing. Often in the moment I don't know exactly what it is that God's getting at. But my experiences align me to the idea that it is worth it. As I mentioned, I know there are others whose seeking inspiration for marriage is not on this same line of thought. With luv, BD
  15. That's exciting! Congrats Pogi. I've worked with a lot of people with variations of infertility and watching them become parents is always a beautiful thing. My daughter is due sometime early June. I'm not big on due dates because that just sets me up for disappointment when I'm as big as a house and feel tempted to count down. I wasn't too worried about getting pregnant. My family is notoriously fertile and I followed that family tradition to a tee. But I've been waiting to be a wife/mom for a long time, so that part very much seems miraculous that it all came together in what will be less than the duration of my bro's mission. He knew it could happen when he left (especially considering there's a 10 year age gap), but I still feel a little bad that he missed so many big events. With luv, BD
×
×
  • Create New...