I don't believe in Santa. Not just that I don't believe hes real, but I don't believe he should be part of the Christmas traditions. That being said, I love my husband and I like him happy and he always had Santa in his home growing up. We've talked about Santa many times in our marriage, and I believe he supports me. Even so, I bring it up around Christmas time to make sure we're still on the same page. So the other day I asked him, "are we going to tell our kids about Santa?" and he said, "No Well tell them about Sandy Clause."
"Santy Clause?" I said laughing at his pronunciation.
"No, San-dy. Sandy. Sexy Santa,"
This is his way of changing the subject and keeping me from ranting. It worked. I'm still laughing.
Ok that wasn't as my blog sudgests a fallacy, but its funny.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
The longer you know your spouse before you get married, the better?
Most people will tell you its better to date a while before you get married. There seems to be a general feeling of disapproval for anyone who doesn't know each other for at least a year. I've especially heard a lot of people criticize Utah Mormons for getting married too fast. I got married to my husband after knowing him almost a year, and yet when people ask how long we knew each other before we got married, I still fudge a little on the exact timing, leaving out that we only dated for only about four months of that. And when I say, "about a year", people always say, "oh good. I don't think you should ever rush into it."
Well, the whole thing is silly, and its a fallacy to boot. As with many fallacies, it comes from a partial truth. Of course you want to get to know one another before you get married. But how long does that take? There doesn't seem to be a magic number on dating time for optimum success. Some will tell you the longer the better. Well, I hate to say, that just isn't true. Statistically speaking, time dating doesn't seem to make that much difference on long term success.
There are two exceptions to that of course. Those who elope after knowing each other too short a time (as in like a day or two) don't give themselves great chances of success. The other exception is those who wait too long. Particularly those who co-habitate. If you believe that waiting longer gives you greater chances of success, you'd think that people who live together for a few years would know each other so well, being married would be a snap afterward. But statistically, those who live together before getting married have about 50% more chance of divorce. Crazy, but true. Why? Didn't they know what they were getting into? I've watched many a Divorce Court with such cases, and they always say, "Well she changed," or even more often, "I though he would change and he didn't." It appears that getting to know each other well didn't really help them that much. The reasons for getting a divorce were still the same as couples who waited to live together until after they were married. I think the problem is that people change. Feelings change, priorities change, bodies change and in lots of cases marriage changes you no matter how long you were dating beforehand.
There are some things that I think people ought to know about thier spouse before getting engaged: Common values, mutual goals; but in my opinion, commitment level is the biggie. It can see you through most of anything. My parents, for instance, got married after knowing each other no more than 4 months. Lots of people would shake their heads in disgust at that (sorry mom). But my parents have been married for 41 years. They are very different people, they don't think the same, they don't really like the same kinds of things. But because they are committed in their heart to each other, they make an effort to continually cultivate love, to make common goals, and to have fun. So there.
Well, the whole thing is silly, and its a fallacy to boot. As with many fallacies, it comes from a partial truth. Of course you want to get to know one another before you get married. But how long does that take? There doesn't seem to be a magic number on dating time for optimum success. Some will tell you the longer the better. Well, I hate to say, that just isn't true. Statistically speaking, time dating doesn't seem to make that much difference on long term success.
There are two exceptions to that of course. Those who elope after knowing each other too short a time (as in like a day or two) don't give themselves great chances of success. The other exception is those who wait too long. Particularly those who co-habitate. If you believe that waiting longer gives you greater chances of success, you'd think that people who live together for a few years would know each other so well, being married would be a snap afterward. But statistically, those who live together before getting married have about 50% more chance of divorce. Crazy, but true. Why? Didn't they know what they were getting into? I've watched many a Divorce Court with such cases, and they always say, "Well she changed," or even more often, "I though he would change and he didn't." It appears that getting to know each other well didn't really help them that much. The reasons for getting a divorce were still the same as couples who waited to live together until after they were married. I think the problem is that people change. Feelings change, priorities change, bodies change and in lots of cases marriage changes you no matter how long you were dating beforehand.
There are some things that I think people ought to know about thier spouse before getting engaged: Common values, mutual goals; but in my opinion, commitment level is the biggie. It can see you through most of anything. My parents, for instance, got married after knowing each other no more than 4 months. Lots of people would shake their heads in disgust at that (sorry mom). But my parents have been married for 41 years. They are very different people, they don't think the same, they don't really like the same kinds of things. But because they are committed in their heart to each other, they make an effort to continually cultivate love, to make common goals, and to have fun. So there.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Do women accept advice easier than men?
Why do men never ask for directions? Its an old joke thats so overused it's become passe. There is some psychological backup for it, however. When a man asks for directions, advice, or even just talks about his problems he is admitting that these are problems that he can't handle on his own. In a way, how ever small or insignificant, he is admitting the superiority of the person he asks advice. This is why men don't talk about their problems or ask advice very often. They would rather work it out on their own if they can. Its got more to do with self-respect than pride.
As hard to understand for women as that is, I've seen a mirroring of that in an issue I've newly become acquainted with: Motherhood.
Motherhood changes everything in the way we speak to each other. Where normally we would happily share our struggles in order to build emotional closeness, when it comes to discussing mothering problems often we keep our mouth shut. Where normally we would respond to other's struggles with understanding and validation, we give only advice. Whats happened to us?!! What is it about motherhood that has changed the way we deal with each other? Are we just as afraid to receive advice as men?
I think so, but we're just not used to receiving it so readily from each other.
Many would disagree with me. And perhaps I am projecting my problems onto everyone else. But in my experience, whenever the mothers around me talk about problems they either talk about them in the general sense, or in the past tense: "Sleep issues are always hard..." or "A while back we were struggling but now..." Just in case no one noticed, this is not the way we talked to each other before or about other issues. And despite my desperate desire for comfort and validation about the subject, I just can't bear to share my feelings for fear I will only receive advice; Like it would mean somehow that the adviser is a better parent and knew intuitively what I was too week and stupid to try. I've even been too scared to read about the subject for fear it would say anything but your struggles are valid and normal. It sounds crazy: suspiciously like a joke by Dave Barry about why men never stop to ask for directions. And yet, when the tables are turned and another mother is sharing with me, I have a really hard time not responding with advice too. But why!!
My theory is that motherhood is just too darn important to us. Its so integrated in the way we feel about ourselves and our divine role and inborn abilities that we just can't risk being told we're bad at it: Or even have it implied. We can't bear to think that everyone around us is getting it, and we're not. So whats the result? We only ever share specific successes and offer advice to each other to show ourselves that we do know what we're doing after all. Unfortunately, this means we get exactly what we were trying to avoid. All around us, everyone is always talking about how easy such and such method was, or how long their baby is sleeping, and since no one is talking about the struggles, deep inside we assume no one else is having any. We get the opposite of the validation we were seeking. Its got to stop! Struggling Mothers of the Universe, speak up! And lets leave the advice for after the comfort, ok? Remember when we always used to do that?
Are we just afraid of advice as men? I think so, it just depends on how close the issue is to our hearts.
As hard to understand for women as that is, I've seen a mirroring of that in an issue I've newly become acquainted with: Motherhood.
Motherhood changes everything in the way we speak to each other. Where normally we would happily share our struggles in order to build emotional closeness, when it comes to discussing mothering problems often we keep our mouth shut. Where normally we would respond to other's struggles with understanding and validation, we give only advice. Whats happened to us?!! What is it about motherhood that has changed the way we deal with each other? Are we just as afraid to receive advice as men?
I think so, but we're just not used to receiving it so readily from each other.
Many would disagree with me. And perhaps I am projecting my problems onto everyone else. But in my experience, whenever the mothers around me talk about problems they either talk about them in the general sense, or in the past tense: "Sleep issues are always hard..." or "A while back we were struggling but now..." Just in case no one noticed, this is not the way we talked to each other before or about other issues. And despite my desperate desire for comfort and validation about the subject, I just can't bear to share my feelings for fear I will only receive advice; Like it would mean somehow that the adviser is a better parent and knew intuitively what I was too week and stupid to try. I've even been too scared to read about the subject for fear it would say anything but your struggles are valid and normal. It sounds crazy: suspiciously like a joke by Dave Barry about why men never stop to ask for directions. And yet, when the tables are turned and another mother is sharing with me, I have a really hard time not responding with advice too. But why!!
My theory is that motherhood is just too darn important to us. Its so integrated in the way we feel about ourselves and our divine role and inborn abilities that we just can't risk being told we're bad at it: Or even have it implied. We can't bear to think that everyone around us is getting it, and we're not. So whats the result? We only ever share specific successes and offer advice to each other to show ourselves that we do know what we're doing after all. Unfortunately, this means we get exactly what we were trying to avoid. All around us, everyone is always talking about how easy such and such method was, or how long their baby is sleeping, and since no one is talking about the struggles, deep inside we assume no one else is having any. We get the opposite of the validation we were seeking. Its got to stop! Struggling Mothers of the Universe, speak up! And lets leave the advice for after the comfort, ok? Remember when we always used to do that?
Are we just afraid of advice as men? I think so, it just depends on how close the issue is to our hearts.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Horses in America
Even though a lot has been said on this subject, the fallacy that there were no horses in America during Book of Mormon times annoyingly continues to prevail. Actually, I guess the real Fallacy is that there is any certainty about it. In truth, there is no conclusive evidence either way. Most LDS don't think about it much probably, just as we don't tend to think about most other anti-Mormon propaganda. I was surprised when I did some studying how much information there was out there. Anti-Mormon literature still maintains, "There were no Horses in America prior to Columbus." and though there are many rebuttals to this made by Mormons, there are also many things written by non-Mormons which, with no apparent awareness or regard to BOM claims, still claim the possible existence of pre-Columbian horses in America.
The fallacy was born from some premature conclusions by the early Europeans. When Spanish horses were brought to the Americas, there was no native horses to be found , nor did the native Americans seem to know what the beast was, calling it a deer. Many Europeans saw this as another reason America was inferior to Europe. So out of national pride the idea prevailed far longer than the evidence did.
By the mid 1800s, fossils were found in America from horses during the ice age. The big question was (and still is by the way) when and more importantly why did these species die out? There are plenty of disagreements about the answer to that. Only two things are clear: first, there were horses in prehistoric America, and second, there weren't any when the Spanish arrived.
Everything excluding that becomes a little fuzzy. Theres practically no Archaeological evidence of horses after 10,000 BC. There are several native American pictographs depicting horses for a long time after, but none after about 200BC, (The Book of Mormon mentions horses about up till the birth of Christ). The lack of bone or fossil evidence many scientists say is really not that spectacular. Many different species in different places, if there weren't many of the animal or if their bones were not used as tools, leave very little if any archaeological evidence. As to those who say there should at least be more pictures or paintings of the horse if there still were any: I say, we haven't found everything there is out there. And the pictures were not usually meant as an encyclopedia of all the animals they encountered. From my understanding, pictographs were usually made to tell a story, or honor a hero. I just don't think we can assume that only those animals pictured at any given time were the animals that were there.
Also, not meaning to be cheeky, but there is some important evidence from the natives, not in the form of pictures, but in writings: The Book of Mormon. If the scientific community did accept the book of Mormon as ancient writings, then they would accept it as evidence of horses or something similar in the Americas during that time. Its not in contrast to any other evidence, just the lack of evidence. Lack of evidence frankly can't be taken as evidence.
Others say references to the horse may not be a horse at all. But another similar creature that we already know was present during that time. This is a whole different argument entirely, but in my mind, its slightly irrelevant. The point to me is, the scientific community admits there is no evidence against the existence of horses is America during this time, and there may be some evidence for it. Thats good enough for me.
The fallacy was born from some premature conclusions by the early Europeans. When Spanish horses were brought to the Americas, there was no native horses to be found , nor did the native Americans seem to know what the beast was, calling it a deer. Many Europeans saw this as another reason America was inferior to Europe. So out of national pride the idea prevailed far longer than the evidence did.
By the mid 1800s, fossils were found in America from horses during the ice age. The big question was (and still is by the way) when and more importantly why did these species die out? There are plenty of disagreements about the answer to that. Only two things are clear: first, there were horses in prehistoric America, and second, there weren't any when the Spanish arrived.
Everything excluding that becomes a little fuzzy. Theres practically no Archaeological evidence of horses after 10,000 BC. There are several native American pictographs depicting horses for a long time after, but none after about 200BC, (The Book of Mormon mentions horses about up till the birth of Christ). The lack of bone or fossil evidence many scientists say is really not that spectacular. Many different species in different places, if there weren't many of the animal or if their bones were not used as tools, leave very little if any archaeological evidence. As to those who say there should at least be more pictures or paintings of the horse if there still were any: I say, we haven't found everything there is out there. And the pictures were not usually meant as an encyclopedia of all the animals they encountered. From my understanding, pictographs were usually made to tell a story, or honor a hero. I just don't think we can assume that only those animals pictured at any given time were the animals that were there.
Also, not meaning to be cheeky, but there is some important evidence from the natives, not in the form of pictures, but in writings: The Book of Mormon. If the scientific community did accept the book of Mormon as ancient writings, then they would accept it as evidence of horses or something similar in the Americas during that time. Its not in contrast to any other evidence, just the lack of evidence. Lack of evidence frankly can't be taken as evidence.
Others say references to the horse may not be a horse at all. But another similar creature that we already know was present during that time. This is a whole different argument entirely, but in my mind, its slightly irrelevant. The point to me is, the scientific community admits there is no evidence against the existence of horses is America during this time, and there may be some evidence for it. Thats good enough for me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
