Baby Hands

While working at Jansport during the summer of 2008, my friends and I used to ask a "question of the day" to keep ourselves entertained. In order to consume a greater amount of time, these questions were meant to be as thought-provoking as possible. One day I asked, "If you met someone who was a perfect match for you--the only thing wrong with this person is his or her baby hands--would you date them?" For clarity, we're talking not talking about little hands, but actual infant hands on the ends of average-sized arms. What's interesting is that when I've asked guys this question, they usually answer positively, while girls generally squirm until they shamefully admit they would not date a wonderful guy with baby hands. My guess is this distinction between genders comes from a typical woman's desire to feel protected by her significant other. How is your boyfriend supposed to save you from muggers and rapists if his fist isn't large enough to even bruise his opponent?

This year, Burger King came out with a new commercial that, for us, was very nostalgic:




Would you date someone with baby hands? Let me know on the poll!

I'm a Machine!

In my Family Interactions class, we were recently discussing education, or gender roles, or something--I honestly can't remember--but this guy expressed his opinion that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints places a man's education above that of a woman's. Needless to say, he was verbally mauled by several girls in the class. Sorry, but I have to agree with him.

In the September 2007 New Era the question was asked, "What is more important for women after they get married: to finish an education or to start a family?"

The answer:

"President Gordon B. Hinckley has often stressed getting a good education. To the women of the Church he says that education 'is the latchkey to success in life,' but in the next breath he reminds us of President David O. McKay's teaching, 'No other success can compensate for failure in the home' ("To the Women of the Church," Ensign, Nov. 2003, 115). While education is important, it shouldn't displace the importance of children and family--for either men or women. Your choice to have children does not have to exclude finishing your education, or vice versa. A classroom is not the only place to gain an education. Many part-time or distance study options are available to you if you want to finish your education. Even if you have completed the degree you were seeking, you can always become more educated through personal study and experience."

So, according to the church, education is important as long as it doesn't interfere with having children. It does say this is true for both men and women, but who does the church encourage to stay home with the children? Women. Who, if anyone, is going to have to sacrifice their education or at least put it on hold? Women. Who's going to bring home the bacon? Men. Who's education is more important? Men's. I'm not disagreeing with this reasoning. I think that if a man and a woman are married and have agreed the wife will stay home and rear their children while the husband goes off to work every day, then his education is naturally a higher priority. The wife can seek education as time and money allow, but she doesn't need to have a college education to be a stay-at-home mom. It's not a matter of whether or not her education is important--it is. But it comes second to the breadwinner's education. How many times do women in the church hear that they need to have an education "to fall back on" if for some reason their husband is unable to provide for the family? Thus, a woman's education becomes a plan B.

Obviously the church supports education--a great deal of tithing money goes to supporting church-affiliated schools, and General Authorities clearly urge all, regardless of gender, to seek higher education. The importance of a woman's education is specifically addressed; however, more often than not, I feel like I am being urged to get married and make babies. Families are wonderful, and I am very excited to have my own someday, but sometimes I wish that, every once in a while, someone would get up in a Relief Society meeting and talk about careers and how women can make a difference in the world in ways other than being a wife and mother. Maybe they do, but it doesn't happen often enough if I can't think of a single instance. It seems like every visiting teaching message, if it isn't about appreciating Relief Society, discusses the importance of motherhood. I completely agree! But what am I if I'm not a mother?

For a while, there was a poster on campus that I saw every day on my way to class. In big letters, it said, "Preparing for the Future..." and it had pictures of a young woman playing with her baby and another young woman planting a flower. What about the unmarried women who graduate from BYU-I? What about the LDS woman who never marries at all? What is her role in society? I'm sure she can plant flowers too, but why can't the school add a third woman who is dressed in a business suit and holding a clipboard in her hand? In my FHE group alone, there are twice as many girls as there are guys. Only two of those guys are neither engaged nor dating someone. A similar ratio has existed with every BYU-I approved apartment complex I have lived in. Chances are, a significant amount of women will leave BYU-I without rocks on their fingers, and those women are not any less valuable because they are not yet mothers. In fact, they will have many opportunities opened to them because they don't have families to care for.

I guess my main point is that I am more than just a baby machine. Do I want to fall in love and have a family? Of course, I do. Do I feel like that is all I'm capable of doing as a woman. No. I have no intention of sitting around on my hope chest, waiting for Mr. Right to come along. I hope he shows up someday, but until then, I'm excited for my post-grad adventures of finding and working a "real" job and finding my own way to contribute to society.

P.S. My title is a tribute to Buster Bluth and his hand.


Check out this video too. It's an amazing Buster montage, but it won't 
let me embed it. Lame.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJqjLN9wAmU

Help Me Plan My Life

I've been spending a lot of time doing some soul searching, trying to figure out some career goals. I applied for graduation April 2010, and I'm very excited for moving on to the next phase of my life and whatever that will bring; however, I'm also nervous because I don't know what I'm doing. I've been reading this book by Tim Lemire called I'm an English Major--Now What? I got it on Amazon for five bucks, and it has actually been pretty helpful in the narrowing down process. I don't think most people realize how versatile an English degree is, but I won't bore you with that right now. What I ask of you now is a favor (this is actually one of Lemire's suggestions): If you find a moment to spare, please leave a comment on this post telling me one or two things you think I'm good at and one or two of my best character traits. If you can, please also tell me why you chose those things. Thank you so much for your help!

I could do this.

You Should Be a Teacher

You are patient, optimistic, and good at explaining things. You work well with all types of people, and you are a good role model. Success and positive outcomes are extremely important to you. You are both a good leader and instructor. People look up to and depend on you. You do best when you: - Can see the results of your work - Are able to teach someone a new skill You would also be a good nurse or non fiction writer.

What Should You Be When You Grow Up?

Taking this quiz was kind of funny because all you have to do is choose one of eight patterns that most appeals to you. It took me a little while to narrow it down, but when I finally decided and it said I should be a teacher, I couldn't help but laugh to myself because that's actually what I've recently been thinking about doing. Maybe it's a sign. I really do enjoy teaching people new things and being able to see the results of my efforts, so maybe I really will become a teacher despite the stigma often carried with that profession and the "the look" that I will inevitably receive from more than one person when I confess my career of choice.


What is so wrong with being a teacher, anyway? Yes, I probably won't get rich from teaching high school students to dot their i's and how to form complete sentences, but their future employers will be grateful, and who knows how long I'll be bringing bringing the ship into port all by me onsie, anyway? A single person with absolutely no dependents and no sign of any in the near future does not need overwhelming amounts of extra moolah. With nothing to spend it on and nothing to save up for (That's not to say I'll be closing my savings account), it's as good as presidential flash cards. I would be able to buy a car on a teacher's salary. I could buy a house, a big screen TV, a puppy, whatever. I would be totally fine funding my own cause, and I'd even donate to charity, all while doing something I enjoy and making a difference in kids' lives. Granted, not all people look back and remember thier high school English teachers, but I'll do it for those who will remember me and for those who wish they would have paid better attention in my class.


I'm really beginning to think this is something I am going to pursue. I've had plenty of other goals and I've written up countless life plans, but I don't think I've ever felt as confident about one of my hypothetical careers before. I like kids that age; I get along with them; I can talk with them. My supposed Peter Pan complex may even come in handy. I would always have a nice Christmas break, not to mention all the little holidays that no one ever celebrates except students, teachers, and postal workers. It doesn't sound like a bad deal to me. Maybe I'll even teach college someday.