for those of you who don't know, i am in the US Army. i joined the Utah National Guard 2 years ago--in march 2010. it has been a great experience. it has also been very different from my experiences in high school, at college, or on my church mission.
in comparing the army with my personal religious beliefs, i often have been faced with conflicts. i don't enjoy the dirty jokes, drunkenness, or profanities that are often a part of Army culture. in mentioning this, i want to point out that the Army is full of very good people. just because they differ from me in behavior or religious preference does not make them somehow "bad." i have often been impressed with the professionalism and conduct of my fellow soldiers. they strive to live the Army values, which are:
Loyalty
Duty
Respect
Selfless Service
Honor
Integrity
Personal Courage
in my unit, i interact with many soldiers--male and female, old and young, enlisted and officers. religion does not come up often in conversation (though we do start company activities with a prayer). in my company there are few people that are actively and openly religious. those few people tend to hold back in conversations because they do not want to be involved with some of the conversation topics that come up.
there is a brother and sister in my company who are very religious and innocent. they both recently turned in mission paperwork at the same time (she is 21, and he is 19). i have been impressed with how genuine and sincere they are. these two individuals are without guile.
yesterday at the chow hall, one of the soldiers brought up the "popcorn song." the young man did a little demonstration of the song, singing it for those of us at the table. if you are LDS you know it--just a ridiculous little ditty about how the blossoms on fruit trees looks like popcorn. a few minutes later the first sergeant came in the room. one of the soldiers at our table said, "hey first sergeant! this kid has a song he wants to sing for you! he's been practicing at our table." the first sergeant loved it. he called the young soldier over and announced to the whole company, "hey, listen up! we've got us some entertainment."
we all laughed and enjoyed as the soldier sang "popcorn popping on the apricot tree," complete with actions. he was red-faced and embarrassed, but a good sport about it. when he sat back down, one of the soldiers said, "man you are so innocent i fear for you." we laughed, but i could tell that he meant it. the young soldier could also sense that. one of the other soldiers said, "yeah, you need to get out of utah," somehow implying that his innocence was naive and ought to be outgrown. the implication was that only by getting out of utah could he experience what the world is really like.
what bothered me was the expectation that he needed to "finally grow up." did the other soldiers think that after living somewhere else he would come home with street smarts and cynicism, finally willing to laugh at their dirty jokes? i understand what they were saying. after all, i think utah is quite a protected place, separated from many aspects of the "real world." perhaps it is a good thing to go out and experience the difference. whether you live in south africa, russia, or south america (this young soldier will be serving in ecuador), i think that there is value in experiencing different cultures, religions, and languages. i also think that there is a lot of variety to be found within the united states.
while it is good to experience differences in culture and perspective, we do not have to change ourselves to fit whatever culture we live in. we can (and should) still be ourselves. i believe that we can let our experiences change us, and we can increase in our ability to understand and empathize with others. however this increase in understanding does not need to coincide with a decrease in those beliefs and behaviors that make us who we are.
i am glad to say that i never "grew up" from my state of innocence. i have learned and understood many things so far in my life, and i plan to learn much more. but i have come to the conclusion that innocence is not just a state of being; it is a choice. there are several definitions of innocence: freedom from sin/guilt, simplicity/naiveté, harmlessness, and lack of knowledge or understanding. i think all but the last are positive attributes that we ought to be developing in ourselves.
in conclusion, i want to go back to the story of this young solider. i hope he never grows up. i hope he expands in learning and understanding while remaining innocent, simple, and harmless. i hope he can stay strong and be himself in a world that sees innocence as weakness and naiveté as stupidity.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Friday, March 16, 2012
equality in relationships
this post was inspired by the thoughts of dr. kelly flanagan in a post called, "marriage is for losers." i encourage you to read it--it is relevant and well stated.
i have often thought about equality between relationship partners. in every relationship i have been in, i have considered whether one of us was more dominant than the other. think about the relationships you have had. did one person always make the decisions? did one person always get their way? was there usually a "winner" and a "loser" in fights, arguments, or conversation?
how much do you compromise in a relationship? how much ought you to give up for your partner's sake? i believe it is just as possible to give too much as it is to give too little.
your thoughts, feelings, and opinions are much of what makes up who you are. these things need to be shared VERY OPENLY in relationships. i have seen the effect of poor communication in relationships. in most cases, not sharing an opinion is infinitely worse than sharing one.
now i want to suggest that there is a correlation between relationship equality and compromise. in order to be equal, both partners in a relationship need to share their feelings. there also needs to be a willingness to compromise. sometimes this means that you don't get to eat at your choice of restaurant. sometimes this means that you allow your partner to "win" an argument even when you think he/she is clearly wrong. compromising does not mean that the same person is always compromising--it needs to go both ways. whatever the circumstance, we need to be open enough to consider the other person's point of view. and we should be able to expect that our partner is honestly sharing their point of view. there is no reason for silence.
dr. ben carson taught me a lesson at the BYU devotional on Feb 24th. he told the story of a pair of adult siamese twins. they were very intelligent. both had college degrees. both of them had doctorates (though only one of them had wanted one). in considering the operation to separate them, they were informed that there was a possibility that one or both of them could die. despite the danger, they decided to go ahead. ben quoted them as saying, "we would rather die than spend another day stuck together." dr. carson gave us this response: "i was surprised at first, but then i did something that i highly recommend you try out--i put myself in their shoes." after he considered how difficult it would be to spend literally every second of every day stuck to another person, regardless of how much you liked that person, he decided it would be very difficult indeed.
the point i am trying to make in sharing that story is that we need to put ourselves in our partners shoes. we may think that we know our partner very well, but chances are that you don't know everything. i bet that those siamese twins still had arguments. i bet that they sometimes surprised each other with their differences of opinion. as we interact with our significant others, we need to put ourselves in their shoes often. every time that we disagree. that doesn't mean we will necessarily change our minds, but it does mean we are more likely to understand and to empathize.
in dr. flanagan's blog, he speaks of three different kinds of marriage relationships. the first two are grossly unequal. i quote from his blog:
"In the first kind of marriage, both spouses are competing to win, and it’s a duel to the death. Husbands and wives are armed with a vast arsenal, ranging from fists, to words, to silence. These are the marriages that destroy. Spouses destroy each other, and, in the process, they destroy the peace of their children. In fact, the destruction is so complete that research tells us it is better for children to have divorced parents than warring parents. These marriages account for most of the fifty percent of marriages that fail, and then some."
"The second kind of marriage is ripe with winning and losing, but the roles are set, and the loser is always the same spouse. These are the truly abusive marriages, the ones in which one spouse dominates, the other submits, and in the process, both husband and wife are stripped of their dignity. These are the marriages of addicts and enablers, tyrants and slaves, and they may be the saddest marriages of all."
"But there is a third kind of marriage. The third kind of marriage is not perfect, not even close. But a decision has been made, and two people have decided to love each other to the limit, and to sacrifice the most important thing of all—themselves. In these marriages, losing becomes a way of life, a competition to see who can listen to, care for, serve, forgive, and accept the other the most. The marriage becomes a competition to see who can change in ways that are most healing to the other, to see who can give of themselves in ways that most increase the dignity and strength of the other. These marriages form people who can be small and humble and merciful and loving and peaceful."
after reading his words, i came to the conclusion that i need to work to have that third type of marriage in my future. the others are too painful and sad to consider. so how do we create that kind of self-sacrificing, loving, compromising relationship? and how do we do it without changing too much of ourselves?
i believe it is possible to change and compromise in a healthy way and in a healthy quantity. i think there are two main things that we can do to foster equality in our relationships:
1) listen to each other. try to listen more than you talk. when your partner is not speaking, listen more. as you listen, put on his/her shoes.
2) do not be silent. share your opinions, both big and small. there is no reason why a mother-in-law should hear the true feelings of a husband or wife before it has been shared with their partner.
i think there is too much of a tendency for one person in a relationship to dominate the relationship. that dominant person calls all the shots, makes all the plans, and ends up in control. at first there may be a reason why their partner puts up with it. maybe they are just glad to have a boyfriend/girlfriend (or husband/wife). maybe they don't like making choices or they have a hard time choosing between alternatives. but i don't think it is good for a relationship to be so one-sided. in most cases we will make better decisions when two people come together and deliberate. even if our decision is not the best (in our opinion) we may find that joint-solutions are more effective than a solution decided upon without mutual agreement.
i want a relationship where my opinion is equal to (not superior to) my wife's. i want a relationship where my wife feels comfortable calling me an idiot when i am acting like one. i want a relationship where we are both willing to admit it when we are at fault. what do you want? share your thoughts.
i have often thought about equality between relationship partners. in every relationship i have been in, i have considered whether one of us was more dominant than the other. think about the relationships you have had. did one person always make the decisions? did one person always get their way? was there usually a "winner" and a "loser" in fights, arguments, or conversation?
how much do you compromise in a relationship? how much ought you to give up for your partner's sake? i believe it is just as possible to give too much as it is to give too little.
your thoughts, feelings, and opinions are much of what makes up who you are. these things need to be shared VERY OPENLY in relationships. i have seen the effect of poor communication in relationships. in most cases, not sharing an opinion is infinitely worse than sharing one.
now i want to suggest that there is a correlation between relationship equality and compromise. in order to be equal, both partners in a relationship need to share their feelings. there also needs to be a willingness to compromise. sometimes this means that you don't get to eat at your choice of restaurant. sometimes this means that you allow your partner to "win" an argument even when you think he/she is clearly wrong. compromising does not mean that the same person is always compromising--it needs to go both ways. whatever the circumstance, we need to be open enough to consider the other person's point of view. and we should be able to expect that our partner is honestly sharing their point of view. there is no reason for silence.
dr. ben carson taught me a lesson at the BYU devotional on Feb 24th. he told the story of a pair of adult siamese twins. they were very intelligent. both had college degrees. both of them had doctorates (though only one of them had wanted one). in considering the operation to separate them, they were informed that there was a possibility that one or both of them could die. despite the danger, they decided to go ahead. ben quoted them as saying, "we would rather die than spend another day stuck together." dr. carson gave us this response: "i was surprised at first, but then i did something that i highly recommend you try out--i put myself in their shoes." after he considered how difficult it would be to spend literally every second of every day stuck to another person, regardless of how much you liked that person, he decided it would be very difficult indeed.
the point i am trying to make in sharing that story is that we need to put ourselves in our partners shoes. we may think that we know our partner very well, but chances are that you don't know everything. i bet that those siamese twins still had arguments. i bet that they sometimes surprised each other with their differences of opinion. as we interact with our significant others, we need to put ourselves in their shoes often. every time that we disagree. that doesn't mean we will necessarily change our minds, but it does mean we are more likely to understand and to empathize.
in dr. flanagan's blog, he speaks of three different kinds of marriage relationships. the first two are grossly unequal. i quote from his blog:
"In the first kind of marriage, both spouses are competing to win, and it’s a duel to the death. Husbands and wives are armed with a vast arsenal, ranging from fists, to words, to silence. These are the marriages that destroy. Spouses destroy each other, and, in the process, they destroy the peace of their children. In fact, the destruction is so complete that research tells us it is better for children to have divorced parents than warring parents. These marriages account for most of the fifty percent of marriages that fail, and then some."
"The second kind of marriage is ripe with winning and losing, but the roles are set, and the loser is always the same spouse. These are the truly abusive marriages, the ones in which one spouse dominates, the other submits, and in the process, both husband and wife are stripped of their dignity. These are the marriages of addicts and enablers, tyrants and slaves, and they may be the saddest marriages of all."
"But there is a third kind of marriage. The third kind of marriage is not perfect, not even close. But a decision has been made, and two people have decided to love each other to the limit, and to sacrifice the most important thing of all—themselves. In these marriages, losing becomes a way of life, a competition to see who can listen to, care for, serve, forgive, and accept the other the most. The marriage becomes a competition to see who can change in ways that are most healing to the other, to see who can give of themselves in ways that most increase the dignity and strength of the other. These marriages form people who can be small and humble and merciful and loving and peaceful."
after reading his words, i came to the conclusion that i need to work to have that third type of marriage in my future. the others are too painful and sad to consider. so how do we create that kind of self-sacrificing, loving, compromising relationship? and how do we do it without changing too much of ourselves?
i believe it is possible to change and compromise in a healthy way and in a healthy quantity. i think there are two main things that we can do to foster equality in our relationships:
1) listen to each other. try to listen more than you talk. when your partner is not speaking, listen more. as you listen, put on his/her shoes.
2) do not be silent. share your opinions, both big and small. there is no reason why a mother-in-law should hear the true feelings of a husband or wife before it has been shared with their partner.
i think there is too much of a tendency for one person in a relationship to dominate the relationship. that dominant person calls all the shots, makes all the plans, and ends up in control. at first there may be a reason why their partner puts up with it. maybe they are just glad to have a boyfriend/girlfriend (or husband/wife). maybe they don't like making choices or they have a hard time choosing between alternatives. but i don't think it is good for a relationship to be so one-sided. in most cases we will make better decisions when two people come together and deliberate. even if our decision is not the best (in our opinion) we may find that joint-solutions are more effective than a solution decided upon without mutual agreement.
i want a relationship where my opinion is equal to (not superior to) my wife's. i want a relationship where my wife feels comfortable calling me an idiot when i am acting like one. i want a relationship where we are both willing to admit it when we are at fault. what do you want? share your thoughts.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
can men and women be just friends?
on december 1st, two guys at USU made a video entitled "why men and women can't be friends." the video starts with interviews of many girls on USU campus. asking them if they think it is possible to be "just friends" with a guy. they all say yes. not only do they say yes, but they mean it! they answer without hesitation and with certainty.
as i watched the video, i thought, 'that's interesting, i don't agree with these girls at all.' then they switch it up and ask a bunch of guys the same question. some of them are ashamed to admit it, while some admit it outright, but they all say no. the consensus among the guys is quite clear: men and women cannot be "just friends."
the final section of the video goes back to the girls that were first interviewed. the interviewer asks each girl if she has a guy who she is "just friends" with. the girls respond: dave, trevor, and so forth. all of them have at least one guy friend that they can think of. then the girls are asked if that guy is interested in them.
this highlights how girls think differently than guys. the girls are aware that the guys are interested in them. some of the girls even say that the guy would be very willing to "hook up" with them if they allowed it. the strange thing is, they don't see this as an issue influencing their friendship. on the one hand you have the guys, who tend to develop crushes with these girls they spend time with, and on the other hand you have the girls, who think that there is no problem with being "just friends" with a guy, regardless of that guys feelings for her.
thus we have "the friend zone."
example (from the video):
"would he hook up with you if you wanted to hook up?"
"yeah."
"so he likes you."
"mhmm."
"so what you're saying is men and women can't be friends."
"no. we can be friends."
"so you're just friends, but he likes you."
"...yes."
"so it's a one-sided friendship."
some girls may have no problem with this scenario. but friendship involves openness and honesty. it also involves giving and receiving. in a "friendship" where one member wants to give and receive more than the other, we would have to admit that the friendship is unequal and flawed. if you imagine, most of these kind of friendships are not very open. a guy who likes a girl but sees that she doesn't feel similarly is relegated to the "friend zone" out of necessity. he has few options. either he continues to be "just friends" with her, therefore allowing him to continue to enjoy her company, or he confesses to her his feelings, therefore changing the nature of the relationship, and potentially losing the friendship all together. what kind of friendship is it, where both parties cannot share their feelings without fear of compromising the friendship?
this scenario can also apply to girls who like guys who do not feel similarly. however, girls are more likely than guys to be content with having "just friends" relationships.
the video ends with the interviewer talking to the camera: "as we can see after interviewing everyone in the library, it is impossible for men and women to be just friends. And under no circumstances can it happen."
although i find the premise of the video fascinating, thought-provoking, and largely accurate, i do not agree with this conclusion. when talking about relationships, there is never cut and dry rules for every situation. when considering myself, i have many female friends that i am legitimately "just friends" with. most of them are married or otherwise taken, which honestly wouldn't debunk the conclusion. however, i am additionally friends with many girls that i know from my childhood and high school days that i am friends with. i can think of several circumstances in which being "just friends" is quite possible. in an effort to be more accurate, i would rephrase the conclusion to say, "in situations where a man sees a woman as a viable partner, it is impossible for him to be content being 'just friends' with her." maybe still partially inaccurate, but it is a good start.
i attached the video below if you want to watch it. and as always, share your thoughts and opinions below.
as i watched the video, i thought, 'that's interesting, i don't agree with these girls at all.' then they switch it up and ask a bunch of guys the same question. some of them are ashamed to admit it, while some admit it outright, but they all say no. the consensus among the guys is quite clear: men and women cannot be "just friends."
the final section of the video goes back to the girls that were first interviewed. the interviewer asks each girl if she has a guy who she is "just friends" with. the girls respond: dave, trevor, and so forth. all of them have at least one guy friend that they can think of. then the girls are asked if that guy is interested in them.
this highlights how girls think differently than guys. the girls are aware that the guys are interested in them. some of the girls even say that the guy would be very willing to "hook up" with them if they allowed it. the strange thing is, they don't see this as an issue influencing their friendship. on the one hand you have the guys, who tend to develop crushes with these girls they spend time with, and on the other hand you have the girls, who think that there is no problem with being "just friends" with a guy, regardless of that guys feelings for her.
thus we have "the friend zone."
example (from the video):
"would he hook up with you if you wanted to hook up?"
"yeah."
"so he likes you."
"mhmm."
"so what you're saying is men and women can't be friends."
"no. we can be friends."
"so you're just friends, but he likes you."
"...yes."
"so it's a one-sided friendship."
some girls may have no problem with this scenario. but friendship involves openness and honesty. it also involves giving and receiving. in a "friendship" where one member wants to give and receive more than the other, we would have to admit that the friendship is unequal and flawed. if you imagine, most of these kind of friendships are not very open. a guy who likes a girl but sees that she doesn't feel similarly is relegated to the "friend zone" out of necessity. he has few options. either he continues to be "just friends" with her, therefore allowing him to continue to enjoy her company, or he confesses to her his feelings, therefore changing the nature of the relationship, and potentially losing the friendship all together. what kind of friendship is it, where both parties cannot share their feelings without fear of compromising the friendship?
this scenario can also apply to girls who like guys who do not feel similarly. however, girls are more likely than guys to be content with having "just friends" relationships.
the video ends with the interviewer talking to the camera: "as we can see after interviewing everyone in the library, it is impossible for men and women to be just friends. And under no circumstances can it happen."
although i find the premise of the video fascinating, thought-provoking, and largely accurate, i do not agree with this conclusion. when talking about relationships, there is never cut and dry rules for every situation. when considering myself, i have many female friends that i am legitimately "just friends" with. most of them are married or otherwise taken, which honestly wouldn't debunk the conclusion. however, i am additionally friends with many girls that i know from my childhood and high school days that i am friends with. i can think of several circumstances in which being "just friends" is quite possible. in an effort to be more accurate, i would rephrase the conclusion to say, "in situations where a man sees a woman as a viable partner, it is impossible for him to be content being 'just friends' with her." maybe still partially inaccurate, but it is a good start.
i attached the video below if you want to watch it. and as always, share your thoughts and opinions below.
Monday, February 6, 2012
shyness
for today's post, i wanted to share a story of shyness. this story made me reconsider how confident we are vs. how confident we may appear to be.
in Dr. Broomhead's choir class, he has all of his students do something to get out of their comfort zone. he shares a story (anonymously) every class period. i think his reasoning is that we will be better singers if we don't worry about how we are perceived.
what i have come to realize is that by looking at someone, you cannot tell how comfortable they are. you can't see the hidden anxieties and little quirks that people have. what may be easy for you can be painfully uncomfortable for others.
while reading this story, i want you to think about this person. they have a really hard time trying to sit and eat with a stranger. what makes he/she uncomfortable with the situation? why is it any harder to do than sitting with friends or eating alone? If you have your own shyness story, or if there is something funny that causes you anxiety, share it. also give your comments on the story:
For my comfort zone assignment I decided to do something I have been wanting to do for a long time: eat with someone else at the Morris Center. Every day after class, I eat dinner there. I don't know many people, so I always eat alone. When we started talking about getting out of our comfort zone, I realized that this would be the perfect opportunity to do what I already wanted to do.
in Dr. Broomhead's choir class, he has all of his students do something to get out of their comfort zone. he shares a story (anonymously) every class period. i think his reasoning is that we will be better singers if we don't worry about how we are perceived.
what i have come to realize is that by looking at someone, you cannot tell how comfortable they are. you can't see the hidden anxieties and little quirks that people have. what may be easy for you can be painfully uncomfortable for others.
while reading this story, i want you to think about this person. they have a really hard time trying to sit and eat with a stranger. what makes he/she uncomfortable with the situation? why is it any harder to do than sitting with friends or eating alone? If you have your own shyness story, or if there is something funny that causes you anxiety, share it. also give your comments on the story:
For my comfort zone assignment I decided to do something I have been wanting to do for a long time: eat with someone else at the Morris Center. Every day after class, I eat dinner there. I don't know many people, so I always eat alone. When we started talking about getting out of our comfort zone, I realized that this would be the perfect opportunity to do what I already wanted to do.
Tuesday after class, I was pumped up and ready to go. I started making plans as I walked. As I got my food, I was going to look for other people who were eating alone. I didn't want to interrupt an important conversation, or make a date situation super awkward. I figured the easiest thing would be to ask some other loner if I could eat with them. As I approached the Morris Center, my stomach began to turn in anticipation. My earlier excitement had abated, and I began to be fearful.
I got a tray and started to get some food, scanning the room for people that were eating alone. There was a girl near the entrance, a guy with headphones near the fruit, and another guy who looked really serious all alone at one of the long tables. I didn't want to sit with any of them! I just wanted to sit alone!
"I always sit alone!" I told myself. "Why should today be any different? Can't I do something less out of my comfort zone? Something I'm comfortable with?"
"No!" I told myself. "If you do something you are comfortable with, you're not getting out of your comfort zone."
I knew I was right. I argue with myself a lot, and I'm always right. I decided to sit with the girl by the entrance--the least intimidating of my options. I walked towards her---and right past her--and sat at the next table.
I was furious with myself. Why couldn't I do it? I wanted to get up and move to her table, but I couldn't bring myself to do it. How awkward would that be, to sit at the table next to her and then move to her table a few seconds later? What would I say, "Uh, excuse me, but I meant to sit at your table, and I accidentally sat at this one." So instead of subjecting myself to that awkwardness, I spend the next 45 minutes (far longer than it usually takes me to eat) beating myself up about it. Because of my inability to face my fears, I was angry at myself. Wasn't I strong enough to talk to a stranger for a few minutes? What is the worst thing that could have happened?
I imagined a worst-case scenario: I walk up and say, "Hey, do you mind if I join you?" Girl: "Yeah, I actually eat alone because I like being alone. You better not sit here you weirdo. If you try it, I'll move to another table." How bad would that be? I continued to think about it. I guess there is another scenario that could be worse. I walk up and ask the same question: "Hey, do you mind if I join you?" Girl: "No problem, go ahead. But watch out--I'm a dangerous psychopath, I can read your mind, and I have several highly contagious diseases." Though it seems unlikely, I imagine that could be a possible outcome...
In the end, the girl finished her meal and left. After several more minutes of increasing frustration, I also left, thinking of something else I could do for my comfort zone assignment.
I could end the story at this point--I felt like I had gone quite a way out of my comfort zone just considering sitting with someone. However, the very next day, I found myself walking to the Morris Center after class.
Long story short--I did the same thing, and again experienced the torment of determining who to sit with. I actually walked two or three laps around the cafeteria before making up my mind. When I decided to sit down, it was mostly because my arms were tired from holding my food-laden tray. Besides, I was afraid that the staff would notice me wandering around and ask what I was doing.
I could end the story at this point--I felt like I had gone quite a way out of my comfort zone just considering sitting with someone. However, the very next day, I found myself walking to the Morris Center after class.
Long story short--I did the same thing, and again experienced the torment of determining who to sit with. I actually walked two or three laps around the cafeteria before making up my mind. When I decided to sit down, it was mostly because my arms were tired from holding my food-laden tray. Besides, I was afraid that the staff would notice me wandering around and ask what I was doing.
I sat with this guy right by the entrance. He was kind enough to allow me to sit with him. We talked about his missionary service and swapped stories about our jobs. I ended up spending about 45 minutes at dinner (again, much longer than I am accustomed to) because I had such a great conversation with him.
In the end, I am glad I stepped outside of my comfort zone. I'm not sure if I want to make it a habit--the idea is still terrifying--but I had a good experience, and despite my initial failure, I proved that I am capable of facing my fears.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
photography exhibit
this last weekend we had our first annual photography exhibit at my house. there was a lot of work that went into it, particularly from my brother travis. there were a few unique things about the exhibit:
- we invited photographers to select a theme, then take photos on that theme. those attending the exhibit had the opportunity to guess the theme from the context of the photos. there were prizes for the closest guessers and the most humorous guessers..
- all of the photos were displayed in 4x6 frames. this happened to be the cheapest way we could have displayed them, but money was not the issue. we just thought it would be funny to have a photography exhibit with really small photos.
- photos were displayed in every room, including the bathrooms, laundry room, and kitchen.
- the event was formal, so everyone dressed up. we also had some classy music, particularly from ms. godfrey and ms. george (the other musicians showed that we also have contemporary interests)
- our cuisine consisted of brooke's delicious brownies and crackers with spray cheese, with wassail to drink.
i felt like my roommates, the photographers, our musicians, and our guests were very creative and fun. the whole environment was unique and refreshing, and everyone enjoyed themselves. the photos were very good, i was impressed. also, the themes were so much fun:
Photographers
Carissa Mills roy g. biv in b&w
Chris Harrison vanity plates
Travis Moore will (brock durfee)
Julie Davey dead things
Julie Davey dead things
Ellen Doxey things you see in priesthood that you wouldn’t see in relief society
Kenyon Africa Waddoups outtakes
Savannah Woods burn the witch
Kenyon Africa Waddoups outtakes
Savannah Woods burn the witch
Eric Campbell in health and sickness
Spencer Campbell my perfect day
Alex Badger Lewis the evolution of travis
Alex Badger Lewis the evolution of travis
Dean Rodrick people sleeping
i want to give a special shout out to our musicians, who not only played very well, but also came with little notice, yet great preparation.
Musicians
Matt Pace-guitar, piano, and vocals (we heard one of his brand new songs)
Joe Bryce-guitar and vocals (his irish popcorn song is my favorite)
Ana George-cello (one of my favorite instruments)
Jordan Kalamu-piano (this guy can literally play anything)
Sarah Godfrey-vocals (I loved the Italian stuff particularly)
Dallin Shaner-guitar and vocals (yay for sing alongs!)
Matt Pace-guitar, piano, and vocals (we heard one of his brand new songs)
Joe Bryce-guitar and vocals (his irish popcorn song is my favorite)
Ana George-cello (one of my favorite instruments)
Jordan Kalamu-piano (this guy can literally play anything)
Sarah Godfrey-vocals (I loved the Italian stuff particularly)
Dallin Shaner-guitar and vocals (yay for sing alongs!)
strangely, i have no pictures from the exhibit to share. as soon as we get an album up on facebook, i'll add a link here so that you can take a look.
lastly, feel free to read the biographies of our photographers. look out for the second annual photography exhibit next year! we are also open to having more photographers/musicians, so if you are interested, send me an email or make a comment.
Biographies
Alex Lewis was born and raised in Brazil, and has been living in Florida since 2001. A graduate from UCF with a B.A. in Arts, she uses photography as a way of expressing herself and bringing out the best in her subjects. Through constant research for new techniques and attention to lighting, composition, and detail, she is always looking for new and creative ways to bring uniqueness into her portrait photography. Her male photographs for development through relationships have been a huge part of her photography and have exhibited nationally in galleries and juried exhibits. She aims to use her images to please the eyes as well as question emotion and inspire reaction.
Christopher Kupa'a Isao Harrison was born into the city of Los Angeles, sometime back during the roaring 80's. He was naked and he was ashamed. Like most adolescent males where he comes from, he spent his young life obsessed with music and playing with firearms. He now lives in Happy Valley where he studies Criminalistics at Utah Valley University. His hobbies are avoidance, piracy, and the occasional photography he accomplishes with his trusty point-and-shoot-himself-in-
One thing that everybody needs to know about Carissa Mills is that she really loves all colors. Last summer she studied and researched each color very carefully and she has learned to love each individual color. Today she may still favor some colors more than others and also may not love specific color combinations but she at least love each individual color in some unique way. From her studies she has learned that each color tells a story. If there is one color that tells the story of her life then it is the color purple. If the color purple never came into existence then the story of her life could not be told. Thank goodness for the color purple!
Eric Voiten Campbell, age 26, married, in love and currently living in Flagstaff, AZ. Eric use to be a chef and worked at several restaurants, hotels and resorts. Wanting something more intellectual he went back to college and is earning a degree in chemistry at Northern Arizona University. Currently he is a TA for the second level organic chemistry lab. In the 100+ years NAU has been around, he is the first undergraduate student to be a TA for that lab. He served his mission in New Jersey Morristown from 2006-2008.
Spencer Campbell spent most of his years growing up in the lovely town of Prescott, Arizona or "Everybody's Hometown." Growing up he found himself often involved with the fine arts, but usually on the performance end. Until one late night his best friend, Amanda, asked him to photograph star trails with her. Since then, Spencer would ask Amanda how he could help and be involved with her photography. His interest has continued to grow so he has now presented his first exhibit of work. Spencer is interested in not just the aesthetics of life but the realism of each day. The beauty in simplicity. He has found nature to be more talented in that regard than anyone or anything his camera can capture. Tis the gift to be simple and dream big
Kenyon Waddoups comes from a wonderful, loud, and colorful family in Central Florida. She learned to love photographing families and children by forcing members of her ward to let her practice on them. She is currently studying visual arts with am emphasis on photography at BYU.
Dean Rodrick is 24 years old, born in San Diego, CA. He met Travis in 2004 during his Senior year road trip to Canada. They met at the beach in San Diego randomly, and started talking about the Borne Supremacy, which came out that year. He ended up taking a few days off work and going with those guys up to Canada. It was a lot of fun. Dean loves wakeboarding, rock climbing, playing the guitar, singing, and recently took up photography. He won a local photography contest in Pasadena last year, not because his photos were particularly good, but because he is good at portraying themes. So that was pretty sweet. He has a dog named Sunshine. He takes her hiking sometimes, and they go running on the beach. Travis asked him what his motto would be. He would have to say that his motto, if he had one, would be "Just Do It." Oh, that one is already taken? Uh, okay... how about, "Live, Love, Laugh." He likes that one. Well, he hopes you enjoy the photos, and next year he hopes to make it out there himself for the exhibit.
Ellen Madison Doxey (born January 26, 1958) is an American stand-up comedienne, television host and actress. She hosts the syndicated talk show The Ellen Doxey Show. Doxey has hosted both the Academy Awards and the Primetime Emmys. As a film actress, she starred in Mr. Wrong, appeared in EDtvand The Love Letter, and provided the voice of Dory in the Disney-Pixar animated film Finding Nemo, for which she was awarded a Saturn Award for Best Supporting Actress, the first and only time a voice performance won a Saturn Award. She was a judge on American Idol for one year, having joined the show in its ninth season. She also starred in two television sitcoms, Ellen from 1994 to 1998 and The Ellen Show from 2001 to 2002. During the fourth season of Ellen in 1997, Doxey came out publicly as a Mormon in an appearance on The Oprah Winfrey Show. Shortly afterwards, her character Ellen Morgan also came out to a therapist played by Winfrey, and the series went on to explore various LDS issues including the coming out process. She has won thirteen Emmys and numerous other awards for her work and charitable efforts. In November 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named her a Special Envoy for Global AIDS Awareness.
Julie Davey was born and raised Lindon, Utah. She later made the lengthy exodus to Provo where she attends BYU and pretends like she's an adult. Julie majored in psychology for a year and a half, and consequently can probably read your mind. When she grows up, Julie would like to be a superhero (but failing that will settle for writing and illustrating children's books.) Her great hates include cooked mushrooms, math, and writing about herself, and her talents include ukulele, watching Jane Austen films, and typing speedy fast.
Savannah Woods is 387 years old, but when she was 12 she made a deal with the Sphinx (the one in Egypt, not the one in Vegas) to make her 23, because she really wanted to be 23. It's a 12 year old thing. Anyway, in exchange for annual performances of whatever the top pop song of the year is, he made her 23. Unfortunately, she’s stuck now, and she can never be 12 again.
Travis Jay "Kyle" "Thomas" "Hey you!" Moore hails from Sedona's finest Vortex School of Reflexology and Mysticism. He draws inspiration from huge spiders and ugly babies. He dreams of someday being a professional BASE jumper and father of 16 children. You can purchase his latest book, "Musings of a Long Summer Night" at bookstores everywhere.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
feminism
i am a big fan of women. not only do i find them incredible and attractive, but i also see that they are often unappreciated. i applaud the efforts of women's rights activists, and i am glad that women are now nearly equal in society. they are not treated perfectly equal to men, but i also think that there is no level of equality that would please everyone. because men and women are different, i don't know the point at which we would all agree that 'we are equal enough.'
i hope that the woman i one day marry will be equal to me in many ways. i want her to be equal in intellect. i want her to have her own ideas, and i will value those ideas as equal to my own. i want her to have ambition, goals, and dreams.
i wonder whether some feminists take things too far. i think that many girls and women are afraid to identify themselves as feminists because that word has a negative connotation. is it a deserved connotation?
i was surprised as one of my BYU professors identified himself as a 'flaming feminist' on the first day of the semester. he said that his girls were going to grow up in a world where they were treated as equals and were not told what they could and could not do and what they could and could not accomplish. i totally agree with him. but am i willing to call myself a feminist, let alone a 'flaming' one? i'm not sure.
is there any specific definition of feminism that is generally accepted?
the merriam-webster dictionary defines feminism as:
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
i hope that the woman i one day marry will be equal to me in many ways. i want her to be equal in intellect. i want her to have her own ideas, and i will value those ideas as equal to my own. i want her to have ambition, goals, and dreams.
i wonder whether some feminists take things too far. i think that many girls and women are afraid to identify themselves as feminists because that word has a negative connotation. is it a deserved connotation?
i was surprised as one of my BYU professors identified himself as a 'flaming feminist' on the first day of the semester. he said that his girls were going to grow up in a world where they were treated as equals and were not told what they could and could not do and what they could and could not accomplish. i totally agree with him. but am i willing to call myself a feminist, let alone a 'flaming' one? i'm not sure.
is there any specific definition of feminism that is generally accepted?
the merriam-webster dictionary defines feminism as:
1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
working with that definition, i am quite comfortable calling myself a feminist. in contrast, casual conversation tends to depict feminists as man haters.
compare the merriam-webster definition with this one, found on urbandictionary.com:
working with that definition, i am quite comfortable calling myself a feminist. in contrast, casual conversation tends to depict feminists as man haters.
compare the merriam-webster definition with this one, found on urbandictionary.com:
feminism: An ideology defined by the following equation: F = (A + B) - C. Feminism equals Avarice plus Bigotry minus Conscience. Its most recent incarnation is characterized by supremacist whining, a form of double-think that would have made Orwell retch... This, in turn, guides us to feminism's core philosophy: "Our say-so makes it so; if our pronouncements contradict each other, you males are required to believe both but only to the extent that they run counter to your interests and in favor of our convenience. This rule is absolute until it yields an outcome we don't like. Then we will pretend - and you are required to believe - that it never existed. Oh, and you are evil and sexist if you point to any flaw in this philosophy, even after we've abandoned or changed it. But you are a patronizing bastard if you fail to give our point-of-view your full critical consideration ... just as long as you don't disagree with it ... or agree with it for the wrong reasons ... and we will from time-to-time declare what the right and wrong reasons are ... and then change them to suit ourselves." |
Feminism is nothing more than the politics of convenience.
i think that the variety of opinions on the subject is astounding. i found another interesting definition on urbandictionary.com (unlike the last definition, i like this one):
feminism:
i think that the variety of opinions on the subject is astounding. i found another interesting definition on urbandictionary.com (unlike the last definition, i like this one):
feminism:
1. The radical idea that women are people.
2. A social movement created by those who believe that women are people.
3. Something a women is accused of believing in if she does or says anything that implies she believes she is a person.
it is interesting that definition number three shows that some women are fearful of being labeled as feminists.
as usual, i am interested in the thoughts and ideas of my assorted readers. what is your take on feminism and sexism?
2. A social movement created by those who believe that women are people.
3. Something a women is accused of believing in if she does or says anything that implies she believes she is a person.
it is interesting that definition number three shows that some women are fearful of being labeled as feminists.
as usual, i am interested in the thoughts and ideas of my assorted readers. what is your take on feminism and sexism?
Monday, December 5, 2011
optimism
about two weeks ago, i was thinking about the many demands on my time and worrying about the end of the semester. as i walked home, the thought came to me: 'there is nothing wrong in your life.' all of the sudden my perspective changed. here i was, worrying about classes and my gpa, while in the rest of the world there are billions worrying about poor health, poverty, and starvation. i sit in my nice desk chair typing at my brand new computer, while hundreds of millions cannot even read, let alone type.
i guess my gpa is important, but compared to the problems of the world, it is insignificant. i am so blessed! i have everything i need to survive and thrive.
since that moment i have been more optimistic. i have very little reason to ever let myself become down. i can laugh a little more at my worries with this more optimistic perspective. things will work out. as long as i have my family, my health, and something to eat, i am well off indeed.
this morning i was a little frustrated. yesterday my national guard unit was mobilized to respond to a disaster in northern Utah. there was a wind storm in Davis County that left a lot of damage, debris, and trash. i missed church, my ward break the fast (that i was in charge of), the first presidency Christmas devotional, the weekly Sunday game night at my home, and worst of all--i didn't get to prepare for my multiple tests, my project, and my oral presentation for today.
after my initial frustration, i had a few thoughts. first i remembered my experience from a few weeks earlier. i thought of that phrase: 'there is nothing wrong in your life.' and with that thought, my perspective changed. i was excited for the opportunity to work in the community, doing the things i had trained to do. i thought of all the soldiers at war, and was glad that i am safe. i also remembered a song.
Believe by Yellowcard
"Believe" celebrates the firemen and policemen on September 11th who lost their lives trying to save people trapped in the towers. their lives were tough. they gave the ultimate sacrifice. i worried about missing an exam.
in the end i was blessed to get off of work today to take my tests and give my presentation. tomorrow i will go back to Farmington to continue helping with the cleanup. even though i was able to avoid missing my tests, i was willing to skip them after i considered the sacrifices of those who have gone before and given much more.
(if you want more info on that song, visit the wikipedia article, it is pretty cool.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)