4 Sentences on Feminism

Modern day feminists treat men and women more as though they are the same than as though they are different, but equal.

"Feminists" hurt women by denying the importance of women's unique ability to produce and care for children, and lifting up women who destroy this power through abortion.

"Feminists" devalue men by insisting that men's abilities are never greater than women's and demanding equal wages, regardless of job performance.

"Feminists" shift the blame to men and dilute real discussion of issues by carelessly throwing out the "sexist" label.

Realization

Until the last year, my ambition was to attend the University of Nebraska and study nursing. That way, I could get a full scholarship, ace a public university's easy classes, sit in the student section at Husker football games, see a lot of my high school friends, and be able to go out and have fun in a city I know well instead of just studying. These were my reasons to attend UNL.

The only other college on my radar was Hillsdale (where my sister attends), a very intellectual liberal arts school that is one of the most difficult colleges in the nation. I had dismissed Hillsdale in my mind, telling myself this was because it was too far away and wasn't a good college to study science anyway, but my real reason had been that I didn't think it was fun enough.

My realization came in July when I took part in a girls' Bible study on Ruth. One week, the question was posed: did Ruth really want to stay with Naomi? The leader of our study made the point that the biggest decisions we ourselves make often reveal our deepest desires. Perhaps Ruth didn't want to stay with Naomi–who, in her situation, really would? But more than to please herself, Ruth desired to do what was best for Naomi (even though Naomi told her to go) and what was best for herself (not the same as what she might have liked).

I pondered this and eventually came to the conclusion that my reasons for wanting to attend UNL were all wrong. Don't get me wrong–there are good reasons to attend the University of Nebraska, but mine were not good. I began thinking about college entirely differently, asking questions like: what is best for me as a person? what college will benefit my future life the most?

I came to the conclusion that Hillsdale is what is best for me. I need to be challenged, taken out of my comfort zone, and educated on what it means to be human instead of simply what I have to know to get the right job. Hillsdale has an excellent community of students–the kind with whom I want to engage and make lifelong friendships.

If the price of my college education is five figures, whether I, my family, or a scholarship pays for it, I'd be a terrible steward to make my college decision based on fun. Instead, I decided to follow Ruth's example and do what will truly be good for me as a person.

Why Smart ≠ Popular: Thoughts From a Harvard Grad

". . . if intelligence in itself is not a factor in popularity, why are smart kids so consistently unpopular? The answer, I think, is that they don't really want to be popular.

If someone had told me that at the time, I would have laughed at him. . . . Telling me that I didn't want to be popular would have seemed like telling someone dying of thirst in a desert that he didn't want a glass of water. Of course I wanted to be popular.

But in fact I didn't, not enough. There was something else I wanted more: to be smart. Not simply to do well in school, though that counted for something, but to design beautiful rockets, or to write well, or to understand how to program computers. In general, to make great things.

. . . If someone had offered me the chance to be the most popular kid in school, but only at the price of being of average intelligence (humor me here), I wouldn't have taken it.

Much as they suffer from their unpopularity, I don't think many nerds would. To them the thought of average intelligence is unbearable. But most kids would take that deal. For half of them, it would be a step up. Even for someone in the eightieth percentile (assuming, as everyone seemed to then, that intelligence is a scalar), who wouldn't drop thirty points in exchange for being loved and admired by everyone?

And that, I think, is the root of the problem. Nerds serve two masters. They want to be popular, certainly, but they want even more to be smart. And popularity is not something you can do in your spare time . . . ."

-Paul Graham, "Why Nerds Are Unpopular"

You can read his full article here.

Conditional Love

People seem think shy people have a problem. Apparently, introverts just need to, "get over themselves," because, of course, extroversion is the preferable trait. I, myself, am sort of halfway in between, so I can relate to both sides, but these ideas about shy people really bother me. 

Those who know me well know I can be very shy at times or very lively and social at other times. Shyness can come across as disapproving, but I'm not shy because I dislike people. I'm shy because I'm afraid. I can work to overcome fear, but I can't take away what I'm afraid of. Now, I'm not afraid of vulnerability—rather, that which often come with it: rejection. See, I love getting to know people well and understanding their strengths and faults and their beautiful little details that make them unique, but I see a lot of people who value others for completely different things. 

People value the person who talks the most, tells the most gossip, says the funniest things, looks the cutest, flirts the most, has the most friends, or dresses the best. I don't want to be valued because I have any of that or rejected because I don't have any of that. It absolutely disgusts me. Unfortunately, it's become a reality difficult to escape in this day and age. 

We seem to have forgotten what love is—and it's no wonder, since we use "love" interchangeable with "like." People are so quick to say, "I love you," but what I hear so often instead is, "I love me." See, when you value someone for their money, their appearance, or the nice things they say to you, you aren't valuing them. You are valuing you. If you like a friend because they make you feel popular, that's valuing you. If you like a crush because they make you feel giddy and special, that's valuing you. Additionally, "loving" someone for their body, their popularity, their money, or how they make you feel is not love. All of those things are changeable, but love–love is unconditional. 

When two people break up or get divorced because they can't get along anymore and say, "well, people change," I say to them in my head, "then you never really loved each other." Love, by definition, is unconditional and is not dependent on changeable things. I see faulty relationships of all kinds everywhere I turn because our idea of love has been distorted. It is that—conditional love (which really isn't even love)—which I am afraid of. I'm afriad of being valued for the wrong things. I'm afriad of being cared for only as long as I please people and hide my faults because I know that I, like everyone else in this world, will fail. I'm sinful and flawed, but unconditional love—true love—acknowledges that people are broken, and it is forgiving and understanding (and I'm not talking about romantic love, this is about all love). It is the love the Father has for us, and it is this kind of love that I strive to give and seek to receive.

God Does Not = Success

Often I hear or read other Christians praising our great God for causing them to win prizes, protecting them from failure or catastrophe, and enabling them to conquer any struggle. My [silent] response is, "yes, but aren't you missing something?" I have heard too many a dramatic testimonies of how, "when I found God, everything went right," or what have you. This is such a false idea of what the Christian life should/does look like. Why, of course, when some people put their faith in Christ, God may heal, protect, and raise up his people. But what about those who have true faith and still suffer hardship? What do you say to them? 

I heard a fellow Christian recount the story of a tornado that was heading toward her home. She talked for some time about the greatness and faithfulness of God because when she and her family were praying hard that they would be protected, the tornado changed route and they were one of the few areas not destroyed. By all means, praise God that he kept you safe, but what about all the other people whose homes were destroyed? Was God unfaithful to them? I think so many people have allowed these ideas to distort their faith in God. If we are taught that God keeps us safe and helps us succeed, it's no wonder that so many lose their faith when bad things happen. 

Instead, we need to learn from the martyrs of the early Church who understood that our faithful, loving God does not protect us from suffering; rather, He protects us in suffering. With God in our hearts, we aren't guaranteed to be happy, but we can be content in any situation. 

In the words of Paul, "I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want."

All blessings and success come from God. H o w e v e r, God is not great simply because he gives us blessings and success. A faith based on this false idea is a selfish one. We are not called to trust our Lord because we will get a good life in return. We deserve absolutely nothing. God is great because He is the Author of everything, He is goodness and right, He is all-powerful... and, on top of all that, He loves us. To me, the most incredible part of the Christian life is not when God blesses us with success–because, um, not all of us live perfect, happy, "successful" lives. It is when God enables us to rejoice in suffering and be content in hardship.