A Fundamental Belief About Men and Women

So, Gabe and I are both a little bit sexist, but unusual ways that are both opposite and the same. It's going to be difficult to articulate, but this is the blog where I try anyway. It is definitely going to be offensive to some because 1) it divides the world into two genders, and 2) it's fundamentally sexist (although I want to work on it).

I would consider both of us to be feminists in the healthy sense of the word. (What do I mean by that? Ask me in person and I would love to talk about it.) However, we are both a little biased. Gabe is biased toward women and I am biased toward men.

If you told Gabe that he had to choose between two strangers to converse with/hang out with/have a meal with and one was a male and one was a female, he would choose female every time. When interviewing potential engineers, his gut is going to be to hire the female candidate over the male (although he's aware of this bias and doesn't actually make unfair decisions). If a heterosexual couple that he doesn't know well (e.g., friends of friends or people on a reality TV show that he walked in on) is arguing, he's going to assume the woman is in the right until presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary.

In Scenario 1, there's like a 55% chance that I'd choose a male stranger to hang with. In Scenario 2, my gut is equally biased against both candidates until one of them proves me wrong. In Scenario 3...this is where it gets tricky.

See, I realized something a couple of weeks ago: I have a core belief that deep down, men are fundamentally dumb and fragile. I also have a core belief that deep down, women are fundamentally savvy and tough. Because of this, I seem to have an infinite supply of sympathy and grace for men, and absolutely zero for women. Like it's the women's job to take care of the stupid men because they can. With great power comes great responsibility XD

If a man is sad in a relationship, how dare the woman have made him feel that way*. She should know he's pitiful and fragile and protect him. If a woman is sad in a relationship, she's probably fine; she's tough enough to get over it, and smart enough that honestly she should've known better than to let herself get into that situation. If a man does something "wrong" in a relationship, it's probably because he's dumb and oblivious and a slow learner and maybe emotionally stunted. If a woman does something "wrong" in a relationship, it was intentional and unacceptable because she knew EXACTLY what she was doing. I try to be very careful not to hurt guys' feelings. I assume girls will be fine.

*let's that sit there for a second*

Yeah. I hear it. I hate it too. I don't know where this core belief comes from and I know I need to work on it. Maybe it's because I AM a girl and I know firsthand that I'm savvy and tough? I just think the world is a giant showcase of women being stronger and smarter, but like, I don't want to say that because what if it makes the guys sad? XD

The funny thing is, Gabe actually shares the exact same belief, he just thinks it's the men's problem and women shouldn't have to deal with it. Yes, men are stupid; that's why he prefers women. Yes, men are stupid; that's why things are probably their fault.

What does this mean? Well, on a personal level, it means that I've let men treat me much worse than I would let women treat me.

"Yeah. Sigh." I once texted Cassidy about a male who had crossed an emotional boundary I had worked hard to set clearly. "He's, like, dumb and arrogant, but he isn't malicious."

Her reply: "I don't think you'd tolerate this nonsense from a female XD"

And she's for sure correct.

Again, what does this mean? I don't really know, except that recognizing my bias is a step toward...toward what? Giving women more grace? Refusing to excuse rude and ridiculous behavior from men? Probably both.

The older I get the more things I have to evaluate. Life these days is a series of firm beliefs turning to loosely held ideas that get thrown into triage on their way to being deconstructed and—hopefully—rebuilt into something closer to the truth.

~Stephanie

* I know we're all responsible for our own emotions and no one can "make" someone else feel a certain way.

Society and Cynicism

I've been thinking about this idea for a long time, like years. It's a little saltier than I usually care to be here, but I'm ready to get these thoughts "onto paper" and out of my brain.

I saw a video today about rest. A YouTuber had recently been bed-ridden for five days due to sickness, and the experience reminded her of the importance of rest—not just when you've finished something or had a period of high achievement, but as a part of regular life. You don't have to "earn" rest.

I think this resonates with a lot of people...but only on a surface level. We don't actually believe it. In fact, we hate people who operate like this. If someone we perceive as lazy or underachieving takes a Saturday to lie around, we roll our eyes and judge them. If someone says No to plans just because they want to do nothing instead, we react with puzzled, even offended, disapproval. All righty then.

If you have surgery or get injured, you are expected to push your limits. You're expected to require friends and family to exclaim, "Now, stop that! The doctor told you to take it easy!" If you actually did take it easy—refused to lift heavy things, stayed home from work, lay on the couch, stayed off the foot—then people would accuse you of milking the situation, or at the very least think that you were taking the doctor's orders a little too seriously. We demand that people push themselves just so we can tsk at them, while secretly being proud or taking it for granted that they will ignore rest.

There's a lot of talk in the world about believing you're beautiful and body positivity, but we only push this type of thinking for people who are ugly or overweight. If a pretty, thin girl conducts herself like she's beautiful, she's "conceited" or "vain." We push loving oneself, but mostly as a form of pity or condescension. We don't actually mean it in every case.

Now, maybe this is just me projecting. Maybe you are putting your beliefs where you mouth is and your social circles really do want people to rest and think they're beautiful. It's very possible that I'm just cynical. I have very little patience for perceived hypocrisy. I would much rather people say what they mean even if it comes across as heartless than have people champion things just because they think they should. I wish I could be sure of what people say.

But maybe society's "faking it" is the first step toward its being reality? Maybe if we fake-support resting and recovering and loving ourselves, eventually it'll become true, especially for future generations. In general, that's not a bad strategy.* Don't feel brave? Do it scared and fake it. Don't feel confident? Fix your posture and fake it. Don't feel like worshipping? Put your hands up and fake it. Best case scenario, things flow from the heart, but realistically? Sometimes we have to fake it and let the universe meet us halfway.

If that's what's happening with society's disingenuous support of rest etc. then maybe I can get on board. But in the meantime, I see through you, Society! You're not fooling me. I know you secretly love it when people work til they're burnt out and act insecure about their appearances.

I see you.

~Stephanie

* says the girl who just talked about hating hypocrisy. What can I say, I have an asterisk tattoo for a reason.

The Tyranny of Efficiency

My brain is obsessed with efficiency, to the point that it becomes inefficient.

When clearing the table, most people probably think—or do without thinking—"I will take my plate and cup to the dishwasher at the same time." It just makes good sense. Both things are there in front of you and both of them will be going in the dishwasher. Just make one trip. No big deal.

Well, at some point, this normal mindset grew so big that it's been trying to eat me for the last couple of years. Sometimes I'll be trying to do something—often cooking—and I'll get in a state that's an oxymoronic combination of being in a frenzy and being paralyzed. THIS FIRST—NO THIS FIRST WHILE THIS—NO, THAT—WAIT, OVER THERE—NO, GRAB THA—NO, STOP. It feels like it has something to do with my having OCD. I need things to be the most efficient:

Open the cabinet, grab the pepper THEN the salt behind it, leave the cabinet open, season the meat, put the salt back then—no, you need the salt for the brussel sprouts—leave the salt and pepper on the counter—the cabinet door is still open, which bothers you, but it's okay because it doesn't make sense to close it yet—wasted energy—chop the brussel sprouts, get their bowl—while you're on this side of the kitchen grab the spoon you'll need, close the silverware drawer—open the other cabinet, get the oil, don't close the cabinet door because you'll have to put the oil back in a second, now two cabinet doors are open, which bothers you, but it's okay because it's efficient, pour oil in the bowl with the brussels, add salt and pepper, put the salt and pepper away FINALLY, close the cabinet door, while you're on this side of the kitchen—oh, should've brought the cutting board with the brussels sprout ends on it because the trash can is on this side of the kitchen too, wasted trip, ugh, go back and get the cutting board, yes, now you have the cutting board and you can put the oil back and close the other cabinet FINALLY and slide over and step on the trash can and the lid opens and scrape the brussel sprouts ends into it with the knife and while you're here you should get the tin foil out of the drawer, but your hands are full of cutting board and knife but you're here so put the knife on the cutting board and balance it and grab the tin foil out of the drawer and take everything back with you, the drawer is open and that bothers you but it's okay because you'll just have to open it to put the tin foil back in a minute and do you think you could get the maple syrup out of the fridge too though because you're right here beside the fridge and efficiency and—

Slowly but surely, my OCD brain has become consumed not just with counting sounds and making sure I blink right, but with efficiency. Everything has to be as efficient as possible. No wasted time, energy, effort—

Except that I am wasting time, energy, and effort. My brain comes up with cost-saving plans only to abort them and replace them halfway through with new, grander, more efficient plans, filling me with artificial urgency and robbing every moment of its potential for quiet joy.

I can't just brush my teeth. I have to be catching up on work messages or listening to a podcast or—hey, what about BOTH? You could TRIPLE-task, wouldn't that be the MOST efficient?

This is much more than just getting the groceries in one trip; this is...not being able to take out the salt and pepper unless I can find a second activity to pair that with, to make the most of every second.

Where is this coming from? Who has told me that things must be fast and efficient?

No one, really. It might be the mental illness, or it might be "society." We are a people obsessed with instant gratification and a fast pace, which might be related. I'm not sure, but I am sure that this growing obsession is making me a little crazy.

For a few months, I've known that this is something I need to get ahold of. I'm heaping huge amounts of stress onto myself for absolutely no reason. I am rarely in a legitimate rush. There is usually no one around me to impress with my speed. I have nothing in mind that I want to do with my saved time or energy.

So, in December, I decided to slow down. I decided to go so slowly. I decided to be as inefficient as possible.

After folding laundry, I made myself take each stack into the bedroom separately. I took only my socks to the closet and put them away, then I went back and got my underwear and put them in the drawer right under my sock drawer. I could've easily done that in one trip, but I chose not to.

When I refilled the water pitcher, I stood in front of the sink and watched it fill. I only did that. I didn't rush to the pantry to get my drink mix before the pitcher overflowed or try to put something away while the pitcher filled.

When I unloaded the dishwasher, I took out the silverware holder and unloaded it by itself, even though it would've been more efficient to take the cutting boards with me since they go in the cabinet right under the silverware.

I've continued to discipline myself to do this in the new year.

How much more time does all of this take? Negligible. Cannot even tell a difference.

How much more peace am I able to retain?

I N F I N I T E L Y more.

There's no rush. There never has been any rush, I just convinced myself there was, for no reason.

When I die, I don't want to be able say that I saved the most time putting away the salt and pepper. What the hell? I would like to be able to say that I enjoyed my life, that I noticed little things that made me happy, and that I was able to confer peace on others.

I'm sharing this for two reasons: 1) It clearly falls under the umbrella of "becoming me." I'm trying to become a less hurried person. But also 2) I wonder if other people struggle with the tyranny of efficiency. You know, if you choose to slowly, it's not "losing." You can't lose a game you're not playing. Don't play the efficiency game. Go slow on purpose. See what happens.

~Stephanie

"Do You Feel Like You Were Allowed to Show Emotion As a Kid?"

For the past few months, I've been getting closer to a friend who enjoys the same kinds of conversations I do: marriage, spiritual exploration, coping with depression, personality types, emotional intelligence, childhood development, boundaries—you know, the fun stuff XD

In some ways, I consider myself to be an open book, or at least a book that is willing to be opened. I don't go around wearing my heart on my sleeve and I can usually hide socially inappropriate thoughts and feelings, but I will answer almost any question you ask me. There are VERY few topics that are off-limits for me. This friend has never asked me anything that I wasn't happy to answer—but she has asked me a lot of things no one has asked before.

A few weeks ago, during a conversation that I'm gonna simplify into "having difficulty expressing feelings," she asked,

"Do you feel like you were allowed to show emotion as a kid?"

I hesitated for a second because I'd never considered that question before. I think I probably dry chuckled before saying,

"Well, the short answer is yes...but with two big conditions. I do think my parents believed that emotions were natural and healthy, but for one parent, the emotion had to make sense. Emotions that were irrational or of unknown origin were often unacceptable. For the other parent, I was allowed to have emotions as long as they were polite. Emotions that came out in ways that were perceived as disrespectful were not treated as legitimate."

I think when I was growing up, society emphasized...I honestly don't even know. Appearances, maybe? Kids were trained to appear normal and polite, and the neatest way to do that was to teach them to get rid of everything inside that was inconvenient. Lots of "YOU MAY NOT THROW A TANTRUM" and less "Your feelings are very real. I recognize that you are three and you do not have the cognitive development to manage your disappointment in the way that I, an adult, would. You are having big feelings and I am going to be in this moment with you calmly, and after I've helped you regulate yourself, we'll talk about better ways to manage your disappointment in the future."

I'm still processing all of this, and while I do, I'm also holding a lot of other truths in mind:

1) Every generation of parents tries to do better than the one before.

2) Every generation of parents is doing the best they can with the knowledge they do have.

3) As far as I know, these findings about how children's brains develop is new-ish, or at least new enough that parents twenty, thirty, forty years ago didn't know they were asking their kids to do things that their kids were developmentally incapable of doing.

4) Science and philosophy are constantly evolving. It's possible that what I believe now may be deemed ridiculous and inappropriate by the time I have grandkids.

5) I have no children and have no idea how difficult it is to go the long route when it comes to helping a child develop emotional intelligence. All this stuff may sound great in theory until I have to do it. Maybe I'll get to see one day.

I'm definitely not blaming my parents for being feelings-repressed myself. I think I was born that way. On the enneagram, I'm dominant in Type Eight, and Type Eights are, in fact, feelings repressed. In MBTI, I'm an ENFJ, which is other-peoples'-feelings dominant, but my-feelings repressed. That checks out too. It's just interesting to think about the frameworks we were raised with, and how they manifest as an adult. Growing up is about learning, but it's about unlearning too.

I'm so grateful that God gave me Gabe, who is my opposite in most ways. Enneagram-wise, he's feelings-dominant; MBTI-wise, he's his-feelings dominant. He's slowly teaching me that there really is a place for feelings and that MY feelings—independent of anybody else in any way—deserve a second glance. They're not always the deciding factor (which is what he's learning), but they deserve to be dug up and acknowledged.

Sometimes my feelings aren't going to make sense—and that's actually okay. They don't have to be logical to be real. Feelings aren't truth, but neither are they trash. Sometimes my feelings aren't going to manifest politely—and, as an adult, it's my job to figure out how to fix that, so that if we ever have kids, I can teach them to do it too.

Starting to think that becoming a good human is gonna take a lifetime ;)

~Stephanie

They Kissed, and I was Pissed

A few months ago, I was watching a TV show about two female best friends. At the end of one episode, they kiss. Apparently their love for each other had become something other than platonic.

I was pissed. It took me a couple of days to wrestle through why, because I could tell that my outrage was unrelated to the gender thing. I wasn't mad that they were surprise bisexual; I could tell it was something else that bothered me.

It's that I detest the best-friends-to-lovers trope. Like I cannot overstate to you how much I HATE that.

I had (misguidedly) assumed that I didn't have to worry about that trope with female best friends, so I felt blindsided/betrayed/bummed by the show. Like now I can't even safely enjoy best friendships between females in media.

Here's why I think I hate BFTL so much.

1) Best-friends-to-lovers devalues friendship. The trope makes it seem like the ULTIMATE stage of any relationship is romance. It makes relationships a hierarchy of strangers > acquaintances > friends > best friends > dating. Being best friends with someone is just the last stage before it "elevates" to also being romantic.

The AUDACITY. Lovers is a DIFFERENT type of relationship. It's not necessarily "BETTER." My relationship with Cassidy is no less meaningful, vital, healthy because it's not sexual. I didn't date anyone until I was eighteen years old, and I can tell you that every non-romantic relationship I had before that was better and more important than the romantic one, especially in the long run.

I resent fiction for conditioning the world to think that best-friendship is a lower category than romance, which leads me to Reason #2.

2) The relentless portrayal of BFTL in media distorts expectations in friendships, especially in opposite-sex friendships. For me, there was nothing worse than becoming close friends with a guy only to have him confess that he had romantic feelings for me*. As a Christian girl, I was taught to expect this; it's why opposite-sex friendships can be so "dangerous." As a thinking human, that offended me, and still does.

Telling a guy that I didn't want to become romantic with him was not an INSULT. In fact, it was usually the opposite. I've always felt that romance is temporary, whereas deep friendship is eternal. By declining to become romantic with guy friends, I felt like I was saying, "No, I'd rather love and trust you forever, rather than until we grow apart." For me, friendship and familyship (looking at my brothers: Aaron, Daniel, David) was so much more important, even intimate.

This kind of sounds like Reason #1b, so let me anchor it back into Reason #2: I feel like the relentless media portrayal of best-friends-to-lovers gave my guy friends unrealistic expectations about where our friendship was "going." The trope set them up for disappointment, and me for disillusionment. Guess they only cared about me until they found out they were never gonna kiss me. Cool.

3) BFTL is just cliché at this point. It is NEVER** the case that girl-guy best friendships stay that way in fiction. Even KIM POSSIBLE and LIZZIE McGUIRE went there in the end. STOP IT. Stop devaluing best-friendships by portraying them as the dissatisfying level before things get good. Stop writing predictable plots.

Here's my new philosophy: I think romance should be thought of as an add-on. Romance not a type of relationship; it's a quality of some relationships. If ALL you have is romance, you don't actually have a relationship of any type. You have to add romance to some type of relationship, and you get different things based on that equation. You can be strangers + romance (one-night stand), acquaintances + romance (friends with benefits), friends + romance (friends with benefits or dating), and best friends + romance (dating/engaged/married). Romance is not the highest type of relationship because it isn't a relationship at all; it's a quality.

Now, do I recommend being friends with someone before dating them? Yeah. Do I recommend dating your best friend? Maybe—but not NECESSARILY, and neither of you should be in a friendship or best-friendship only because maybe one day you'll get to sleep with each other. Gross.

So yeah. Glad I got this off my chest XD

~ Stephanie

* I know that for every one of these stories, there's the opposite side too: the poor guy who really liked a girl, got up the nerve to tell her, and got rejected. That is also really hard, and I'm sorry.

** I mean, I haven't seen everything in the world, so maybe not NEVER, but—okay wait, Little Women. And that goes over like a ton of bricks*** due to all the social conditioning. Sigh.

*** Okay tbh, I kinda do prefer Laurie to Professor Bhaer. Have I fallen victim to the very thing I want to destroy? Hm.

P.S. You may be wondering why this post has a crocodile as its photo. Well, I went to the free images site I use and typed in "mouth," because I was trying to get something related to kissing without getting something romantic. I saw this crocodile and I liked it, and it also fits with the blog's color scheme, so here we are.

I Apologize—or Do I?

I've been thinking about apologies a lot lately, from a lot of different angles. We'll see if this fits into one post or if it takes off into A Series.

Apologizing versus Sympathizing
I think this is one of the times English sets us up for imprecision, like the way it only has one word for "love." Nine times out of ten, when you say, "I'm sorry," some wise guy retorts, "wHy ArE yOu sOrRy iT'S nOt LikE it'S YoUr fAulT." Yeah, I know, Jim, I'm expressing sympathy; I'm not apologizing. English needs more words XD

Over-Apologizing: My Version
Gabe and I both over-apologize, but very differently. For me, appropriate apologies weren't something I studied as a kid. However, like many female Eights, I did internalize the belief that much of my natural behavior must warrant an apology. Because of this, I tend to apologize a lot because I feel like I don't have an accurate read on what people expect me to regret. I apologize for things that didn't need it, and sometimes miss opportunities where an apology would've been helpful.

Since Gabe is the person I'm closest to, I apologize to him the most. I apologize mostly 1) when I think I'm being "too much," and 2) because I've imagined blame/passive aggression from him. For example, I might notice that he started the dishwasher and assume that he's mad that I didn't do it first. I'll come to him and apologize for not starting the dishwasher, assure him that I was planning to do it, and ask if he's mad at me. We talked about this last night.

"It's like...it feels like a test," I told him, thinking out loud as usual. "Like you're waiting to see if I'll apologize for not doing it. If I do apologize, then of course you're not mad—and I pass the test because I apologized. But if I don't apologize, then you are mad, because you think I should've done it and if I don't show remorse that I didn't, I'm in the wrong."

He stared at me and then said, "I assure you I'm not putting that much thought into it. I just started the dishwasher."

Over-Apologizing: Gabe's Version
The way Gabe over-apologizes is...an absolute disease. He'll basically ask the waiter for the check and then apologize. When we checked into our hotel for our anniversary, we couldn't remember if we had reservations at one hotel or its sister hotel next door, so we needed to ask at the front desk. As we stood in line, I said to Gabe, "Do not apologize at any point during this interaction. You are doing nothing wrong. I'm sure people have this question all the time."

And he would've made it, too, but when we stepped up to the desk, the girl said, "Just give me one minute to wrap this up" as she typed into her computer and Gabe immediately: "Oh my gosh, I'm so sorry, yes, I'm sorry." BRUH.

When Apologies Become About the Apologizer
Gabe's apology disease (sorry, Love, I love you) leads into one of my biggest pet peeves about apologies: when the apologizer makes it about him/herself.

I believe the point of an apology is to express regret to the injured party, and maybe make plans to avoid causing pain/inconvenience in the future. Apologies should be about respecting or honoring the injured party. This goes awry in two ways:

1) When you fall all over yourself apologizing for something that doesn't merit an apology, you force the "injured party" to reassure you. It's no longer about expressing regret to the injured party. Now the injured party has to do the obligatory dance of, "Oh goodness, no, you're totally fine, don't even worry about it, no problem, no apology needed" and it's all about you, the apologizer. You've put a burden on the injured party. Now they feel a social obligation to reassure you that you were fine, your apology is unnecessary, etc. If you really want to do something kind or take a burden off the party you feel like you injured...don't force them into this dance of having to make you feel better. They'd probably rather just get on with their lives. Stop being annoying and emotionally demanding.

2) I also have beef with people who replace "I'm sorry" with "I feel so bad!" No. This isn't about you. You did something that hurt or inconvenienced me. If your reaction to hurting or inconveniencing me is to share how you are negatively affected...you're missing the point of an apology. Once again, you've put the burden on the injured party to reassure you: "Oh, don't feel bad!" etc. I am just about done with interactions that go like this:

Me: "You hurt/inconvenienced me."

Other person: "What?! I feel terrible! No! I would never do that on purpose! How could you think that of me? I would never! You always ascribe such negative intent to me! That's so unfair!"

Me: "Oh my gosh, I'm sorry! I didn't mean to make you feel bad."

I was in a relationship for years where the other party turned every situation into something I needed to apologize for. Imagine a situation where Person A was driving Person B around while high on acid, and somehow Person B ends up profusely apologizing. A master of madness and manipulation, I tell ya.

If you are in the wrong, apologize first. You can share how broken up you are about hurting the other person second, if you have to, but for heaven's sake, is the apology about genuinely expressing regret or about assuaging your own conscience?

Of Interest, Particularly If You're a Five on the Enneagram or an INTJ
Technically—etymologically—I guess apologies ARE about the apologizer. I'm pretty sure the word means "away word," as in, using words to cast blame away from yourself. "Apology" implies a defense/justification of the offender's action, so maybe all the obnoxious "I Know You Think I Hurt You But Here's Why You're Wrong" people have a leg to stand on after all XD

Anyway, I'm sure you have your own opinions and pet peeves surrounding apologies—or the English language :) What are they?

~Stephanie

Maybe We Don't "Do" Anything

"So, what do we do about that?" a friend said to me. We were talking about the clothing designer for Target who got fired because he was openly a Satanist. "Do we support Target for firing someone with beliefs like that? Or do we not support Target because they're firing someone based on their beliefs? Like, what if a Christian got fired because they were a Christian? What do we do?"

"Maybe we don't 'do' anything," I said, having this thought for the very first time. "Maybe we just...live our lives."

And if someone confronts us about our stance, we can say that: we don't know what our opinion is. We're still thinking about it, for XYZ reasons.

This was a brand new thought for me, and one that is very counter to how I've always thought and lived. In the era of social media especially, it feels like we have to take a side, post for or against, share some hot take. But we if we don't have to do that? What if we don't have to "do" anything?* What if the world needs and Jesus wants something more mundane than that?

The Jews were expecting a leader who would rescue them from the evil, corrupt government and restore Truth to the world via war and politics. What they got was the exact opposite of a political leader. Jesus largely ignored the politics of his day, not even taking the "right side." He spoke in riddles to force people to talk to each other, and loved children to highlight the importance of faith, and toyed with religious leaders to prove they didn't have all the answers, and ate with sinners to model doing the contemporarily unthinkable, and overturned temple tables to mourn the house of worship becoming something commercial and gross.

Jesus did do things, but not...not what I see a lot of Christians doing today. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think Jesus would be posting all over his social media—or even boycotting or not boycotting Target. I kind of think he'd be talking one-on-one to the person your Facebook post is mocking, and buying food at Target for the homeless guy.

Jesus never delighted in making fun of people—and in fact, the people he came closest to "making fun of" were actually the religious blowhards who saw the world as black and white and thought they knew everything.

Maybe when we see or hear things that outrage us, our reaction doesn't need to be to DO something, but to BE something? I wonder if Jesus is unimpressed with most of the actions we take, if he feels like we're missing the point. Like, posting Bible verses and labeling sinners is one thing, but have you tried loving your neighbor?

I'm tired of being told I need to be mad about something or DO something in response to every little thing. Maybe it's not that deep. Try your best to live like Jesus, and trust him to sort out the details.

~Stephanie

* This will need to be a longer post at some point, but I'm NOT saying I think Christians should stand by while atrocities and injustices happen. I think Christians are called to advocate for people who are abused or endangered, whether by systems or individuals. There are definitely times when we should "do" something; I just wonder if the something is more personal, less performative than what we've been doing.

The YA Author Who Hates YA?

I'm confused.

This is about to be one of those posts where I'm not sure what I need to say, so I ramble until we figure it out together.

Sort of like the exact opposite of a good essay. Or a good novel.

Some of y'all know I'm trying to write a young adult fantasy novel. One of my editors, Chersti, reminded me that the best continuing education I can do is read current YA fantasy novels: see what's out there, what young adults are enjoying, how the characters and stories feel.

In the spring of 2021, I read An Ember in the Ashes and The Wicked Prince. I didn't particularly enjoy either (though I liked Wicked Prince more), for several reasons:

1) I read them quickly, mostly "to have read them," rather than to enjoy them. (I've recently learned that that's a very ENFJ thing to do.)

2) I was haunted by the fear that they'd somehow invalidate the Fire Faery Story, that they'd be too similar, or much better.

3) They were written in present tense, which I hate.

4) The characters and stories felt thin and pale.

5) I felt like I was too close to the book-writing process to enjoy them as literature, like a freshly graduated magician watching someone do tricks at a kid's birthday party. I saw all the fishing line hanging from the authors' props, all the ways they'd choreographed situations to tell the reader what the characters looked like, how old they were, what different world-building terms meant, what the characters' "story goals" were. Everything felt clumsy and contrived.

This weekend, I started reading The Stardust Thief. It is blessedly past tense, but that's my favorite thing about it so far. I'm still nearly paralyzed by the fear that something about this book will hurt the process of my own novel. I still see fishing line everywhere.

And what's worse is that the author is doing tons of things that I did or wanted to do in the Fire Faery Story, but was told "you can't do that" (e.g., italicized flashbacks in the middle of a chapter). It makes me angry and indignant. If this author can break "the rules," why can't I? Why was I hamstrung into writing something that felt forced and soulless when CLEARLY doing what I wanted to do would not have been the authorial suicide I was led to believe? I may be flattering myself, but I do not think Abdullah is doing it significantly "better" than I was.

As far as I can tell, reading current YA isn't working for me. I hate it. I hate the process, I hate the stories, I hate the characters, I hate the conflicts. (At least part of this isn't YA's fault; my current state of mind is partly to blame.) I hate that current YA feels different from the YA I knew and loved as a kid. What's changed? Is it really me, or are "kids these days" wanting something different than what I grew up reading?

I decided that maybe it would be better to reread some YA that I loved as a teenager. I Googled "YA fantasy books 2007–2014" and started skimming some titles. I remembered a lot of them. And you know what feeling welled up in me as I read probably 80% the titles I recognized?

Disdain.

WHAT?!

YA fantasy was my drug of CHOICE back in the day. YA fantasy is THE ONLY type of story I have ever wanted to write, or ever tried to write.

And yet, if memory is serving me as I scroll through titles, I disliked the majority of YA fantasy even as a young adult myself (looking at you, Wicked Lovely, Divergent, Maximum Ride, Dark Angel, Across the Universe, etc.)

I tried to think of the YA fantasy books that I remember loving: Inkheart, the Mortal Instruments trilogy, the Twilight saga (yes, I would be happy to have a conversation about that with you, thanks for asking), the Hunger Games trilogy, the Inheritance cycle (ONLY the first two) the Uglies series, the Farsala trilogy.

But like...that's it. Those are IT. Those are the sum total of the YA fantasy books that evoke good feelings off the top of my head.

That...is not a lot of books. That doesn't feel like a wide enough sample for me to have branded myself as a lover of YA fantasy for MY ENTIRE LIFE.

What does this mean?!

I just glanced over at my bookshelves and saw non-YA fantasy titles that I loved as a teenager: Homeless Bird, Angel on the Square, Homecoming, The Thief Lord, From the Mixed Up Files of Mrs. Basil E. Frankweiler, On to Oregon. Very few of those conform to the "rules" I'm told I need to follow if I'm going to be successful as a YA writer. In fact, by today's standards, many of those probably wouldn't fit into the YA genre at all.

So I'm left with lots of overwhelming questions, in no particular order:

1) Did I actually love "YA fantasy" as a kid, or did I just like well-written books?

2) Are kids these days THAT fundamentally different from kids who were fourteen in 2008?

3) If I follow my gut/heart and write the way I want, will my story actually flop, or will it just appeal to a narrower slice of the demographic (which might be the same thing to publishers)?

I'm so confused. I'm confused about what made me like certain books as a teen, and what to do with all these modern rules and standards and exceptions that make a YA fantasy book marketable. If Chelsea Abdullah can splice loosely-related italicized flashbacks into the middle of chapters in The Stardust Thief (published 2022), why the hell can't I? And if Angel on the Square (published 2001) had a time skip of four years, can I really not have a one-year time skip in my book?

I know writing books is both an art and a science, but I'm having trouble knowing when to break the rules and when to keep them. When is it wise to be the artist, and when is it wise to the the scientist?

I also know that this is probably what all first-time aspiring authors go through. I know this is what good editors will help me navigate. I know life is full of calculated risks. I know there's no way to know what will work until I just do it.

But it's really frustrating and confusing. I can do hard things, but this isn't just a hard thing, it's a...I don't even know what it is. I think that's what makes it so hard. It's not like trying to do a maze in the dark, it's like walking around in the dark not knowing if it's a maze, or someone's house, or the middle of a forest, or a different planet, or if everyone else has night vision, or if you're actually dead or—

It's just a lot.

~Stephanie

Jocosity and Other Words

I had a life-changing moment this morning. Or really, I guess it started on Tuesday.

A few weeks ago, my boss and I were talking, and she mentioned that Shakespeare's vocabulary is estimated to have been about 29,000 words. I just fell down a rabbit hole of statistics concerning Shakespeare's and modern Americans' vocabularies, but long story short: Shakespeare puts us all to shame.

That's been bumming me out lately. I consider myself to be well-educated, and I LOVE words. However, I encounter words I don't know pretty often, and I just sort of move on. I can usually guess what they mean from context, or my ignorance doesn't affect me—that I can tell.

I've wanted to develop my working vocabulary, but I haven't known what to do. Do I just get a Word-a-Day calendar and hope something sticks?

As I read my most recent Agatha Christie (The Mysterious Affair at Styles), I decided I would make a note of words I didn't know. I'd look them up and record them in a Note on my phone. I'd think about them during the day and recite their definitions so I could keep them in my head.

One of the words I've collected is "jocosely: playfully." This morning when I was doing a writing assignment for work, I paused and tried to think of a word. "Jocosity" came to mind. I wondered if that was a real form of "jocosely," and when I looked it up, it was. It meant exactly what I thought it meant, and it worked in the sentence I was writing. (Don't worry; I was doing an exercise that had me mimicking Jane Austen's style, not writing for YA at large.)

My jaw dropped a little.

It's working.

I know this is a small, silly thing, but it filled me with a happy hopefulness I haven't felt in a while. It's always exciting and a little unbelievable when I manage to make objective progress on myself. It's like lifting heavier at the gym. You don't feel any stronger, but suddenly you just are.

New Words So Far :)
1) Stentorian: strong, powerful
2) Unctuous: excessively flattering
3) Chary: cautiously or suspiciously reluctant
4) Jocosely: playfully
5) Numinous: having a strong spiritual quality

~Stephanie

One of the Worst Things I Can Imagine

There is something about "grown-ups" that I have been wary of for as long as I can remember—and I have memories from when I was two. It's a quality that has always been very important to me not to adopt.

I recognized it when I was little, and it scared me so much that I didn't want to get older. How could I avoid it if I didn't understand what it was? Maybe it could come upon me all of a sudden before I could do anything about it. Maybe it was one of those horrible things that come upon you, and then you don't mind. Maybe part of possessing the quality is that you don't mind possessing the quality.

I dreaded turning sweet sixteen.

I recognized that not all grown-ups shared this terrible quality—whatever it was—to the same degree. There were a handful of grown-ups who were still largely okay. They weren't fully okay, but they hadn't completely adopted the terrible quality, or maybe they still had some good one that protected them, like some kind of psychic amulet.

I'm still not sure what the quality is, but I suspect that it has to do with imagination, and I suspect that Antoine de Saint-Exupéry knew what it was.

I'm still scared of the quality, but I know that it does not overtake you all of a sudden before you can do anything about it, because I can feel myself fighting it every day. I fight it every time a kid tells me about a rock he found; every time a dance student launches into a conversation she had with her mom; every time an adult talks about a child as if he isn't right there, hearing everything said.

The quality has something to do with priorities and perspective, and maybe personhood, although that might be my obsession with alliteration talking.

I think I've avoided the quality for the most part, or maybe I have the psychic amulet too. I know this because of the way The Little Prince and Christopher Robin make me feel. It's some kind of soul-related equivalent of Cogito ergo sum.

I hope that when kids talk to me, they feel the same kind of vague reassurance and relief that I found in the adults who were still largely okay. If they do, then it means I'm right, and I haven't succumbed. One of the worst things I can imagine is that the quality turns out to be imperceptible to those affected. Or maybe not caring would still be worse.

~Stephanie

Do You Want to Be Comfortable or Do You Want to Be Happy?

It occurred to me the other day that I've gotten out of practice doing things I don't want to do.

{Aaaaaaand from here, this post went in a direction I didn't see coming, which happens to me a lot. I really thought this would be a short post, and yet here I am, adding this note thirty minutes into writing it. I think some of the post is going to seem anti-mental health. I don't think I am. If you want to talk about it, I'd love for you to message me.}

As a kid you often have to do things you don't want to do. Your parents make you do chores before you can hang out with your friends or watch TV. Then, if you go to college, you have more things to do that you don't want to do—even if you like your major. Your professors make you turn in papers and drafts, show up to classes, read books and plays and articles, and books and articles about books and plays.

In today's society (all of my English professors just died inside), we seem to be glorifying comfort more and more. "Glorifying" might not even be strong enough; "idolizing" might be more accurate.

If someone is "stealing your peace," cut her out of your life. You don't need that kind of negativity.

If you suddenly don't feel like doing something you RSVP'd to, don't go. You don't owe anybody anything.

If you've had a rough week, you should just watch Netflix and scroll on your phone for hours. You deserve a break.

There are all these movements to "normalize" things too—AKA force people to accept things because the idea of their not accepting them makes you uncomfortable.

Normalize women having body hair. Or how about if you're a woman, you do what you want with your body hair and don't care what other people think?

Normalize men showing emotions. Or maybe if you're a man, show emotion as much as you want and don't care what other people think?

Normalize eating at restaurants alone. Or maybe if you want to eat at a restaurant alone, just do it.

Things don't have to be "normalized" for you to do them. It isn't as though these things aren't allowed; people are just too chicken and uncomfortable to do things until society accepts them. It isn't everyone else's job to make sure you feel "normal."

(Do people even want to be "normal"? Isn't it more fun to stand out?)

If you don't feel like cooking, you can have food delivered to your door.

If you don't feel like shopping, you can buy anything online and have it shipped to you.

If you don't like cleaning, maybe you hire some help.

Now, on one hand, I get all of these things. Mental health and boundaries are important.

If someone is stealing your peace, it may be a healthy thing to get some distance. But it might also be healthy to have an uncomfortable conversation with the person.

If you are running yourself ragged and need a break, you might be right to sit out a social event that you RSVP'd do. However, my gut says that commitments to other people are important. It's not all about you. You don't get to let people down just because you're feeling tired. You should've thought of that before you RSVP'd, or planned your week better since you knew this event was coming up.

Sometimes turning your brain off to watch TV or scroll social media might work, but maybe spending time in prayer, taking a walk, or journaling—things that are less comfortable, but may do more to heal you—are a better option.

I get it: no one wants to be labeled rudely for their body hair, being emotional, or eating alone. Yes, if all these things were "normalized" you'd be more comfortable with yourself.

But you might also be lazier and less brave.

I've been living as an adult for a few years now. It has been a really long time since someone has made me do something. I spend a good amount of time on Facebook and Instagram, where trends and Society run rampant. I think the message of King (or Queen, if you'd like) Comfort have slowly sunk into my subconscious.

Why should I clean my apartment? I don't want to.

Why should I grade these papers? I don't want to.

Why should I read this book for work? I don't want to.

Why should I go to the grocery store? I don't want to.

Gradually, it has gotten harder and harder to make myself do these things.

I just won't clean. We rarely have guests. Who cares? No one is going to make me.

I just won't grade these papers. I'll do it next week. Maybe.

I just won't read this book. I'll read it tomorrow. Or the SparkNotes. Or watch the movie.

I just won't go to the grocery store. I'll get things delivered or ask Gabe to stop on the way home from work.

All these are viable options, and what's more, I've allowed myself to be conditioned by Society into thinking I deserve to take these shortcuts. I deserve to be comfortable. I deserve to be happy.

Ooh, that's it. Society has decided that comfort equals happiness, and we all deserve to be happy.

Well, I don't think I'm happy. I think this has been a huge bait-and-switch. I took a bite of happiness and it turned to discontentment inside my mouth.

I don't like the "comfortable" person I've become.

At Classical Conversations, one of the things we want students to learn is "how to do hard things." You don't like Latin? It's hard for you? Good. You're going to have to do difficult things you don't like your whole life. This isn't about a subject, it's about your character. Learn to do hard things.

I've gotten out of the habit doing hard things. I've begun to believe the lie that comfort will make me happy. I don't think comfort will make me happy. I think doing hard things will make me happy. I think cleaning my apartment even when I don't want to will make me a better person. The goal is not even to get to a place where I want clean my apartment. I should clean my apartment in the midst of the not wanting to.

No one makes me do things I don't want to do anymore. Not my parents, not my professors, not my boss(es), not my husband. I am the only one who will make myself do hard things, and for a while now, I often haven't.

Yesterday, when these thoughts began forming in my mind, I decided that I would do one thing a day that I didn't want to do. Yesterday it was cleaning the apartment.

It was weird, because I really didn't want to. It was like I thought if I made it a game, a challenge—"Today cleaning the apartment will be the thing I do even though I don't want to"—it wouldn't suck as much. But I found that it still did. I almost didn't do it, because I REALLY still didn't want to. But I did do it. I was really glad that I had. (And I was REALLY glad today that I had.)

Today I didn't want to assess some formal logic midterms that students took last week. I didn't have to. I have time to do it other days. But I did. I really didn't want to, but I did. It was easier than cleaning the apartment. I feel really good having done some of them.

I know a lot of things I don't want to do tomorrow, but I'm going to pick one—one I really don't want to do—and I'm going to do it.

Mental health is important. But that's not why I wasn't cleaning the apartment. I wasn't cleaning the apartment because the sacrificial part of my character was growing weak.

And I don't want to live like that. It doesn't make me happy.

~Stephanie

This is Where I Might Lose You

I'm about to say something that is going to make some of you curl your lip in disgust and stop reading. Before that happens, I'd like to ask you a question:

Do you think that little of me?

The answer might be "yes," and if so, that is totally fine. I know many people for whom the answer would be "yes, I do." If that's the case, then feel free to curl your lip in disgust and stop reading. But if your answer was, "Well, no" or "Not usually," then I would ask you to hear me out. If you respect someone, then you ought to hear them out, even—maybe especially—when they start down a road you wouldn't normally travel.

I think Dungeons and Dragons might be helping me grow as a person.

If you're still here, let's get some things straight. (Gabe also blogged about this last year, so if you're interested in his take, you can check out his post here.)

1) Dungeons and Dragons is not necessarily a game about magic.

Dungeons and Dragons is a game where everyone except one person makes up a character, and the remaining person is like the narrator. The rules of Dungeons and Dragons are basically just a guide to translating any conceivable action into a die roll so that you're able to "do" it in the game in a quantifiable way. If you want to have your character squawk like a chicken and jump off a roof wielding a spatula, DnD can tell you which dice to roll to see how that goes.

Most people who play Dungeons and Dragons are into magic, so they set their games in magical worlds and have their characters use magic. Most DnD resources cater to this group. This is a choice, however. Gabe is currently playing a Sci-Fi game where there is zero magic; everything is technology-based.

2) Dungeons and Dragons has no more agency than video games, books, podcasts, or playing pretend with the kids you babysit.

DnD does not have the power to make you possessed, obsessed, or...duressed? Help me out with the parallelism XD DnD is just a game. It does not involve anything legitimately spiritual. If anyone has ever gone crazy from Dungeons and Dragons (and I know they have; Hello Satanic Panic of the '80s), the person was unstable to begin with, played with bad people, intentionally summoned demons, or some combination of the above.

As Christians, we do not need to be afraid of our imaginations in and of themselves. Monitor them, yes. Do an idolatry check on them, yes. But no game has the agency or authority to possess a person—especially a Christian.

3) Dungeons and Dragons is role playing, yes—but so is fiction writing, acting, playing video games, etc.

Role playing is not an inherently slippery slope. Most people will be able to keep fantasy and reality separate. For people who cannot, DnD is not for them. But neither are a lot of other things that would require a person to think clearly and keep her feet rooted in reality.

If you're concerned and it's bothering you, I suggest doing some research into what the bare bones of the game entail, or talking to someone who plays. Gabe would be glad to have a conversation about this (and he is much more empathetic and diplomatic than I am).

However, at the end of the day, I'm not here to convince you that Dungeons and Dragons isn't evil. I'm just here to ask you to read the next post that mentions it, because I think it's going to teach me how to open the Feelings Door.

~Stephanie

I am a Republican, Therefore So is Jesus

A couple of months ago, I realized I was falling into a trap that I think Americans struggle with more than any other nationality: prioritizing politics over Christianity.

(Note: I went off on a tangent that I didn't see coming. It is thoughts that have been floating around my head for a long time, needing to be organized. It is relevant to this post, but not necessary. If you want to read that part, it's in a PS at the bottom.)

I get why America has a high degree of national pride. I believe in her founding principles and I really hope that one day they are—and feel—true for everyone equally.

Because I believe in America's founding principles so wholeheartedly and am proud of her potential as a country, belief and pride in her have become values of mine. Because they have become values of mine, I believe that they are right and true, as is the case for values that anyone holds. If you didn't believe a value was right and true, you wouldn't hold it as a value, would you?

However, as you are aware, we also have a lovely thing called "political parties." I would like to think that both parties have the interests of America and her citizens at heart. So, assuming that we all have the American value of loving our country, we all pick a political party that we think best upholds that value.

Love of freedom, one's country, and one's neighbors feel easily compatible with Christianity. Jesus is all about freedom, I imagine that he would rather a healthy country, and we know he prioritizes loving our neighbors.

With that in mind, we tend to assume that if we are Christians, our politics will align with Christianity automatically. If we hold X values related to our country and we also hold X values related to Christianity, they're probably going to coexist fine because they're held by the same person. It wouldn't make any sense for the same person to hold values that were at odds with each other. Because of this, we usually choose one of the Lovely Political Parties that aligns with our political beliefs and assume that it aligns with our Christian beliefs.

In theory, that should work. But we have two major problems:

1) Only one of them can be the top priority.
You can have Christian values and you can have political values (and theoretically they can coexist). However, one of them is going to be the deciding vote at some point. If you can't serve both God and money (Matthew 6:24), you can't serve both God and your political party either.

2) Politics is in our line of sight more often.
This may not always be the case (it certainly should not be the case), but thanks to social media, we are drowning in politics 24/7. Everything is political. EV. ER. RY. THING. EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!! You literally cannot swing a dead cat* without hitting an opinion that finds itself rooted in politics.

Because politics is what's in front of us most often, we allow the positions of our parties to dictate our opinions on politics, which is—as we established—actually our opinions on EVERYTHING. We don't stop to think, "How is this aligning with my beliefs as a Christian?" because we assume it must.

We continue on our merry ways, drinking the Kool-Aid of our given political party and assuming that whatever it thinks is what Jesus would do.

Well, folks, there are Christians of both parties, so clearly that's not true. Clearly politics is NOT synonymous with our Christian values, at least not all of the time or by default.

So what do we do, as Christians?

We need to stop voting by political party.

We need to check in with Jesus and the Bible for our values and political opinions. We need to pray. We need to prioritize loving our neighbors and living the fruits of the spirit and fighting for justice. We need to put Jesus in our line of sight more often than politics. We need to saturate ourselves in the Word. We need to dwell with Jesus, letting him transform our hearts and minds to be more like his.

THEN, with our minds informed by Jesus, we should form our opinions on current issues and find a candidate/bill that aligns with our value as a Christian. Sometimes that may be one political party, sometimes it may be another.

And you know what? As Christians, that shouldn't bother us. Our loyalty is not to a political party or our country. Our hope is not in a political party or our country. Our loyalty is to JESUS. Our hope is in JESUS. The end.

It's embarrassing that it took me this long to untangle my patriotism from my hope in Jesus. It's embarrassing that I would form a political opinion and then ascribe it to Jesus. It's embarrassing that I was letting the opinions of my political party transform my mind rather than the Holy Spirit.

I want to be done with that. I want you to be too.

~Stephanie

P.S. In general, I think Americans have more national pride than most other countries. In general, I think this makes sense. America was founded very much "on purpose." She didn't evolve as much as she shouted, "NOT TODAY" at England and then sat down with the journal prompt "If I could start a new country, what would it be like?"

When America closed her journal with a contented sigh and nod, she had decided on several specific principles that I happen to agree with wholeheartedly:

- Everyone has the right to political and religious freedom.
- No one has the right to rule without the people's consent.
- Governments are naturally power-hungry and should always be kept in check, hard.

Has America lived up to these ideals? Not so much. However, that doesn't make her ideals any less beautiful or noble or worth fighting for. The Founding Fathers were onto something, and the fact that we've executed it imperfectly is not cause to disparage them or their ideals, but an inspiration, an obligation to do better.

It makes sense to me that a nation founded with this degree of intentionality is generally proud of itself. If you move into a house that's a few generations old, you will redecorate it and make it your own and you'll like it. You may move later, or your children may decide to sell it after you die, but for now you like your house and—sure—you're "proud" of it.

However, if you buy a couple of acres of land, design a house, and build it from the ground up? Whole 'nother level. That is YOUR house. You will be PROUD of it. You will think long and hard before moving. Your children will know that you built that house and they'll be a little bit proud of it too. This house belongs to the family.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* Like, actually imagine swinging a dead cat and how you would get caught and BLASTED with an admonishment that quickly turns political (even though, like, it really wouldn't need to because swinging a dead cat would be wrong for reasons in many other spheres first).

Racism: The First Step

For some reason I've been attempting to process all that has been happening in my head instead of in writing, which we all know doesn't work for me.

I care deeply and I've been wanting to say more, but I'm exhausted. I only know two ways to feel: all or nothing. The "all" was keeping me awake at night, giving me chest pains, and making me shaky. Every day is something new. Every day is some difference injustice, some other constitutional violation, some new threat to freedom.

But this morning, a couple of things hit me:

1) This may be how people of color feel 100% of the time.
2) If God gave me a love and ability for writing, then the worst thing I can do is sit on it when real things come up.

I'm not here to defend my character or be sure that you know my opinions on every facet of this issue. >deleted sentences that amounted to exactly that< If you want to go in-depth, let's get coffee and chat sometime. You know discussion is my love language.

It has taken me an embarrassingly long time to begin to see the racism situation for what it might be.

Do you remember Formspring? It was around when I was like a freshman and sophomore in high school, and it was a platform where your Facebook friends could anonymously ask you questions, you'd answer them, and they'd appear on like a rolling profile page. It was mostly used for trying to get your crush to think about you Differently, but one question and answer by a white "friend" has stuck with me for a decade:

Q: Would you ever date a black guy?
A: No, sorry, I'm not racist, it's just the way I was raised.

I remember thinking, "Wait, that is absolutely racist. What does that even mean? How can you think that's not racist? Are people raising their children not to date black people?!"

That, at age fifteen, was my first recognized brush with racism. A decade and a half on the earth, and the first time I experienced racism was as the most passive of passive observers.

And somehow I still didn't think racism was a real problem.

Some people have said that while personal racism, like the above, is disgusting and may exist, institutional racism is a myth. I can't speak to this from experience, but I think that on paper, that may be true; there may be no racist laws anymore.

Here's the thing though: as long as there is personal racism, there will be institutional racism, because people run the institutions. There ARE racist teachers. There ARE racist politicians. There ARE racist cops. It's not so much that we need to work on racist laws anymore, but racist people.

I can tell you the real turning point in my opinion of racism, and it is both ridiculous and profound.

It was walking in on Gabe watching the TV show Luke Cage a couple of years ago. I remember passing through the living room and watching for a few minutes. I kind of frowned and an absentminded thought floated through my head:

Why is everyone black?

The thought exploded into my consciousness and I made Gabe pause the show.

"They're all black," I said to him. He stared at me.

"Yeah?"

"And it struck me as weird," I continued. "My knee jerk reaction was, 'Why aren't there some white characters?'" I couldn't believe was was unfolding inside my head. "Do you know how many TV shows I've watched where everyone was white and it never even occurred to me? It didn't seem weird. It didn't seem anything. It was just the default. I see ten minutes of Luke Cage and..."

That was when it started to make sense.

The world IS different for me because I'm white. That's not my fault and I don't need to feel personal guilt for being born into this skin or what my ancestors may have done. However it IS my fault that I refused to see this sooner, and I SHOULD feel guilty if I don't fight for real equality.

I said REAL equality. Not just equality under the law, but equality that extends to dating, media, institutions, and everything in between.

Was the murder of George Floyd "racist," or just cruel? We can all have opinions on that, and the truth is, we will probably never know. But I think that might be just the disgusting, tragic tip of the iceberg.

There IS a problem. You might disagree about what it is exactly, but there IS a problem.

I'm sorry it took me so long to admit it, but I'm really glad that first step is over.

~ Stephanie

P.S. I know this can be really obnoxious and I AM trying to work on it, but the way I naturally understand things better is to challenge them and play devil's advocate. If we end up talking and I push on your ideas in a way that seems "wrong," just push back (logically). I want to understand.