Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. Types of Tornado Alert (July 3) From xkcd.

2. Chip Off The Old Block (July 1) "I’m not claiming any of this is smart or interesting. I’m claiming he constantly says whatever he’s thinking about to anyone around him, no matter how irrelevant and repetitive, and that this is of course the first sign of a future great blogger."

His kids are about the same age as my daughter, and yeah this whole post is what it's like.

3. On Christianity and Aliens (cont’d.) (June 29) "Your faith can be shattered not just by visitors from Vulcan and Vega, but by visitors from Samaria and the uttermost parts of the earth. It is existentially threatened by the idea that God might also love anybody who isn’t you."

4. Platner formally withdraws from Maine Senate race and Democrats announce process to name new nominee (July 11) "The formal withdrawal comes two days after Platner said he would quit the race, facing an allegation of sexual assault that he has denied."

And: The Banality of Misogyny (July 7, via) "It’s just occurring to me, she says, because I’ve never told anyone he assaulted me, I don’t know how I would ever get anyone to believe me if I needed to down the line. So I wanted to tell you, just in case."

And also, about Graham Platner, there are some corners of the internet (for example) which are discussing the fact that the victim apparently had texted him to say she needed a "glute massage", and he said he was coming over, and she told him not to. Discussing whether this means that it's not really rape.

I'm kind of thinking about this from 3 different angles. First, there's the modesty/ purity culture angle, which says that if a girl/woman does anything that might inspire a man to think about her body in a sexual way, well, men just aren't able to control themselves. From that point, whatever he does is not his fault. She should know that.

There's also the "it was a misunderstanding" angle. Whenever there's a big news story where a victim comes forward to talk about being sexually assaulted, and we hear the details of the story, there are always things that people will point to and say "she was sending mixed messages" and how could the perpetrator have known that the victim didn't want it? If she doesn't want it, but she doesn't tell him that directly, and she just goes along with it, then from his perspective it's consensual, and he is utterly shocked to later find out that she feels it was not consensual. I don't think this applies to the Platner case because the victim says she directly said no (here's the link to the Politico article that broke the story), but I've seen it in other cases.

I think there's quite a difference between "mixed messages" and "literally how could he have known that she didn't want it, there were no signs." And I think it's very normal that there would be [what people call] "mixed messages" leading up to a sexual assault, because the reason the perpetrator was able to get that close is because the victim does like them / trust them / is attracted to them, to some extent. Calling it "mixed messages" assumes that the only 2 possibilities are "she wants to have sex with him, specifically in the way that he wants" or "she doesn't want anything to do with him at all", and when we categorize her actions into these 2 categories, wow it's so puzzling how some of them fit into one category and some of them fit into the other one. Mixed messages. 

Like, uh, maybe she actually wanted something else, and the problem is that we're trying to force it to be one of these 2 specific things.

And then there's the "playing social games" angle (not sure what to call it, but we'll call it that). Basically, there's sort of a set of rules for social interactions between people, and you can manipulate people to get what you want- as long as you stay within the rules, no one can blame you. For example, if someone says "no", then you have to stop, and you can't have sex with them. But if you ask them over and over, and you manage to catch them in a state of mind where they don't say "no" because they don't have energy or they're not thinking clearly- ha, they didn't say "no", that means you *can* have sex with them and you can't be blamed. You've played the game and won, that's how it works.

You see this same kind of thinking when kids annoy each other playing the "I'm not touching you" game. One kid is hovering in the other kid's personal space, but because they are not *actually* touching, they are still acting within the rules, and they claim that the other kid therefore can't complain about it. It's a line of thinking based on "see what I can get away with", where the standard way we interact with other people is that we try to get what we want, we try to do things to people that they don't like, and it's just a matter of being clever enough to do it within the rules that society has prescribed.

So then when people talk about rape and consent, and say things like "drunk people can't consent to sex," for people who are coming from that "playing social games" perspective, it comes across like a slight modification in the rules of the social games. Like, now instead of targeting drunk people, in your efforts to do things to people that they don't want, you can maybe try getting your victim to drink a little bit but not enough to "count" as drunk under the societally-recognized rules.

And for the people arguing "it was a misunderstanding"- maybe we shouldn't take that to mean "if you, as an objective observer, witnessed the entire sequence of events, you genuinely might not realize that this person didn't want it" but rather "this person said something flirty, therefore the rules of social obligation say that the other person is *right* to expect that they are going to have sex. Why are you feminists suddenly trying to change the rules? This is so unfair." The "misunderstanding" is about whether the victim said something which does or does not belong to the category of "flirty things that mean they want to have sex"- if it does fit in that category, then they *do* owe the other person sex- the "misunderstanding" is that the victim believed it did not fit in that category, but the perpetrator thought it did. Rather than the "misunderstanding" being about "I paid attention to all of your behavior and I actually had no idea that you didn't want it."

But the real solution is not about closing loopholes, defining the rules perfectly so that there's no opportunity for rapists to rape while still carefully following all the rules. What we actually want is consent culture. A cultural norm where people own their own bodies, and you cannot do something to someone that they don't want. Like, genuinely, it's not about keeping within society's rules; it's about not doing things to people that they don't want.

It was so mind-blowing to me to learn about boundaries- the idea that the bedrock truth is that I own myself, my body, my money, my feelings, etc, and the challenge of navigating the social games of what to say in a confusing situation is just a superficial external layer, rather than a game that I need to win in order to escape the prospect of people doing things to me that I don't want. 

Like if a pushy salesperson keeps telling me I should buy their product, and I tell them I don't want it, and they explain to me why my reasons for not wanting it are not valid, and we go back and forth, until I don't know what to say anymore- so, that means I have to buy it. Under the "playing social games" logic, that's what it means. The salesperson is better at the game of staying within the appearance of having a polite conversation while also pushing me into something I don't want. But, no, let's not look at it that way, let's look at it from the "boundaries" perspective. My money is mine, and nobody has the right to *make* me buy something- and that's true regardless of my ability to think of a polite/convincing response. "No" is a complete sentence. You don't *have* to explain your reasons. Sure, it's good to be polite about it- it's a little rude to just directly say "you can't make me do this, you have no right"- but that politeness is just a surface-level thing, that's just a layer you put on the top, while the bedrock truth of it is nobody has the right to make you do something you don't want. If you can't think of a polite response, that doesn't mean you lost the social game and now people have a right to do things to you- it means you are allowed to be a little rude, to say "no" even though people might think that level of directness is a bit outside of the rules of the social games.

It's like I said in this post, Welcome to Purity Culture, Today We are Overanalyzing Hugs, where I responded to an article that included a section on what to do "If his hug makes you feel uncomfortable" that gave some tips about how to avoid a hug while still staying within the rules of the social games- for example, "When he reaches out to hug you, turn and give him a side hug rather than a front-on hug." Sure, these can be useful suggestions, but I didn't like how it was framed like, here are some strategies for playing this social game, hope this helps you win. Rather than, like, you have an absolute right to refuse a hug, and here are some tips for how to spin your refusal in a socially-acceptable polite way, but at the end of the day, if someone doesn't get the hint and they're still trying to invade your space, they are the one in the wrong, and you are allowed to be rude.

Anyway, something I've seen on the internet, where people talk about consent and explain it as, literally you should only have sex with someone who wants to have sex with you. It's not about memorizing more and more detailed rules and staying within them while also manipulating people to get what you want. No, it's way simpler than that- it's about whether the other person *genuinely wants to have sex with you*. And then there are replies from people who finally got that that's what "consent" means, and they're incredulous. They reply and say 'this sounds totally unworkable. I can only have sex with someone who genuinely wants to have sex with me? That doesn't sound like something that would ever happen- you feminists are saying I can never have sex at all.' This really says something about them- maybe they haven't technically raped anyone (?), but their entire approach for all of their previous sexual experiences has been about manipulating people into things they may or may not want. Like, approaching dating/sex more as a game theory thing than as a "we both actually want this" thing.

Playing social games vs actually caring about what the other person wants. If someone says she wants a "glute massage", then by the rules of the social games, you can probably get away with claiming that she was asking for it. And, from the "playing social games" perspective, that's what matters- rather than genuinely caring about what the other person wants or doesn't want.

5. Sunday reading (July 5) "There is not a man beneath the canopy of heaven, that does not know that slavery is wrong for him."

6. Sen. Lindsey Graham, a close Trump ally, dies after a brief and unexpected illness, his office says (July 12) "Graham appeared to break with Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, saying, “Count me out. Enough is enough.” But the senator returned to the fold and remained close with the president during his second term."

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. Two-hundred-and-fifty years in, Justice Jackson is doing the work that is needed from our leaders (July 5) "On this Fourth of July, I am thinking about how important it is for the United States that we have leaders willing to speak forthrightly about our past and ambitiously about our future in order to make it through the treacherous present."

2. The Wet And Wild Freedom Day Catastrophe (July 7) "The only place for these tens of thousands to go, realistically, was the streets outside the event, which is exactly what happened: a crush of bodies clustered at the entrance points and choking off traffic for blocks. Everyone is just as exposed to the elements out here as we were in there, except now we are angrily bunched together with nothing to do but endure the storm and stew about the stupidity of it all."

Donald Trump Throws Miserable Tribute To Himself On America's 250th Birthday (July 6) "The Trump team claims it had planned for the weather, but the slapdash look and feel of the tents, the free-for-all of water distribution from pallets, and the general lack of common sense and guidance in dealing with (increasingly) extreme weather suggests otherwise."

3. Lorenzo Salgado Araujo shot and killed by ICE agent in Houston, authorities confirm: Live updates (July 11) 

Men who witnessed deadly Houston shooting say ICE statement is false, attorney says (July 10) "But the three men who were riding in Salgado Araujo’s work van told attorney Hugo Balderas-Ibarra the version of events presented by ICE is false: 'At no point did they use the van to ram into the ICE agents and at no point were these ICE agents’ lives ever in any danger,' the lawyer said in a video posted to his Instagram."

4. GOP governor signs bill forcing trans inmates to detransition (July 6) "The bill does not allow those who have already begun treatment to continue and does not offer any plan to wean them off the medication. Experts say forcing them to stop at all, let alone cold turkey, will have disastrous mental and physical health consequences."

5. The Christian Past That Wasn't (June 30, via) "There are many stories like this that invent a grand narrative about the Christian past of our nation— a Christian past that, put simply, wasn’t. Some of these stories are false. Some contain a measure of truth, but they are exaggerated in such a way that they become mythical. Those who believe America was or is or should be a Christian nation use these fabrications to create myths about America from the days of the first European arrival to the present."

About Vulnerability, Boundaries, and Oversharing

Book cover for "Daring Greatly"

I read Daring Greatly: How the Courage to Be Vulnerable Transforms the Way We Live, Love, Parent, and Lead by Brené Brown. It's about the importance of "being vulnerable." This means things like: Sharing your feelings with other people, instead of pretending that you always have everything under control. Trying new things, rather than avoiding this because of fear of failure. Stop being a perfectionist- which is defined as believing that you need to do everything perfectly, because if people see you as less than perfect, you believe it means you are worthless. As leaders, cultivating a culture (at work, school, in a family, etc) where people are not shamed or criticized for making mistakes- this way, it is easier for people to learn from their mistakes and do better.

This is great. Definitely recommend this book if you want to learn more about shame and vulnerability. For myself, though, I felt like I already understood a lot of this. And there was something that was bothering me as I was reading: Does "vulnerability" mean just letting people see your real, raw emotions? Like just letting anyone see that? Is that a good thing? No, I don't think that's a good thing- I believe in boundaries instead.

Full-Service Movers (a post about being in charge of your own life)

Movers carrying boxes. Image source.

A few years ago, when my husband and I were moving to a new apartment, we heard about a moving service that said they would do everything for you. You don't have to do anything at all. You don't have to pack or do anything. They do it.

My first thought was "that's not possible."

Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. The Fatima Sun Miracle: Much More Than You Wanted To Know (October 2) An extremely long post overanalyzing a weird thing- this is the exact content I am interested in.

2. The phantom menace of biblical chronology (October 7) "No Star Wars fan will let you get away with suggesting that Episode IV: A New Hope was written as a sequel to Rogue One. They’ll be upset by the suggestion not just because it is incorrect, but because that error would change how we should understand and interpret both of those stories."

3. 30 Years Ex-evangelical (August 29, via) "In other words, I was under the impression that evangelicalism was a deep personal commitment to love Jesus for the sake of making the world a more just and beautiful place for all of God’s children. Lol."

4. Israel, Hamas reach a ceasefire, with hostages and prisoners to be freed within days (October 9)

Gazans stream towards wrecked homes as Israeli forces pull back under ceasefire (October 10)

And another thought related to this: That felon supposedly has a plan where the whole population of Gaza would "voluntarily" leave and then the land would be turned into a nice resort (?) and then the people of Gaza would come back (??). Uh, but, fact check, relocating a population is ethnic cleansing and can sometimes even count as genocide. I wish I had a good article that explained this. I think a lot of Americans may have this really naive idea that it's not a bad thing to just move people from one place to another. It would be nice to have a link which very clearly lays out what exactly the problem is and why this is a bad thing.

5. A rescue ship saved them from the sea. Now these migrants find a tough road in Europe (2024) "When the rescuers from Doctors Without Borders reach them, they find 162 people, 29 of them children, so tightly packed into the vessel that many can only stand. The overcrowded boat rocks precariously and if the crowd moves too fast toward the rescuers' dinghies, it could capsize."

6. Over 350 Rescued After Blizzard Hits Everest’s Eastern Slope (October 7) I saw some reports about this from other news sites, but since it's in China it's good to have an article about it from Sixth Tone.

7. How Birthday Party Lady Is Showing the World Boundaries in Marriage (October 8) "SIL sent a text at midnight the night before the party asking if it was still on. On the day of the party, no decorations had been bought, and husband got off work AFTER the party was supposed to start. But she held her ground."

8. The “Debate Me Bro” Grift: How Trolls Weaponized The Marketplace Of Ideas (September 17) "He was showing up armed with a string of logical fallacies, nonsense talking points, and gotcha questions specifically designed to enrage inexperienced college students so he could generate viral social media clips of himself 'owning the libs.'"

The difference between debating to "win", vs actually wanting to communicate and listen to people and learn from each other... I think this is really important, and it took me way too long to even realize the difference. (I'm thinking about my own experiences with apologetics.) When someone makes a point and you don't know how to respond to it, or asks you a question you don't know the answer to, do you try to come up with whatever "your side's" official answer would be? Or do you genuinely ask yourself what you believe about it and what your actual reasons are? To say your actual reasons can be embarrassing- and don't do it if you're in a discussion with someone who can't be trusted with that kind of honesty- but is a very necessary step to coming to a belief that makes sense.

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. Action item: Submit a comment on this proposed change that would affect overseas voters (and other US citizens who vote by mail). This proposed change would require voters to show documentary proof of US citizenship, such as a passport, in order to register to vote. It sounds like this means people would actually have to go *in person*, which is impossible for US citizens like me who live overseas. (Comment period is open until October 20.)

2. Treasury Department may issue $1 Trump coin for 250th anniversary of U.S. independence (October 6) Eww, what on earth?

3. Eventually You're Going to Have to Stand for Something (October 5) "When Klein scolds that "we have to live here with each other" he is making a statement about who it is he is getting ready to live with and who he is getting ready to live without, and most gallingly he is ignoring the fact that when it comes to supremacists all of us have been living with them already all along. Nobody is suggesting mass deportation of white supremacists, or the dissolution of straight marriages, or stripping away health care for conservatives."

4. Federal workers sue the Education Department over partisan shutdown emails (October 5) "'Without giving notice to their employees, let alone obtaining their consent, the Department of Education has replaced employees' out-of-office email messages with partisan language that blames 'Democrat Senators' for the shutdown,' the complaint said. 'Employees are now forced to involuntarily parrot the Trump Administration's talking points with emails sent out in their names.'"

And also about the shutdown: IRS walks back guidance promising back pay for furloughed workers (October 10) Excuse me, what?

Schumer slams GOP health care policies: ‘No f‑‑‑ing way’ (October 8) 

5. Higher Education Leaders Reject Trump Administration's "Compact for Academic Excellence" (October 5, via) 

6. Standing up to ICE in the suburbs, the People’s Patrol puts its faith in resistance (September 29) "Racing toward the industrial park on an expressway, Cavazos says the People’s Patrol includes 180 people, all volunteers. The center holds trainings for the work every other Friday."

7. Judge William Young's ruling against Rubio and Noem is a lesson for all in the Trump era (October 2) "Throughout his opinion, Young focused in on several actions of this administration — allowing Rubio’s horrifying statements to speak for themselves, confronting America with a matter-of-fact description of what ICE is and how America’s immigration system operates, and damning the administration’s use of masks in its immigration enforcement."

And this quote (via) from lawyers who know what's what:

Plaintiffs of course understand the hardship the government shutdown places on everyone, including the government's attorneys and their clients. For that reason, Plaintiffs offered to agree to the stay Defendants seek if Defendants in turn would agree to refrain from enforcing the TPS terminations challenged in this case. But Defendants refused. They apparently have the resources to detain and deport thousands of immigrants with no criminal history to dangerous countries, but would prefer not to expend the resources needed to defend the legality of such actions in court. 

Also from Law Dork: Supreme Court lets Noem end legal status for many Venezuelans in the U.S. (October 4) "Explaining the stay request before the Supreme Court over Chen’s September ruling, Jackson echoed that concern, 'What should happen to 300,000 human beings while our colleagues on the Ninth Circuit, and then perhaps we, do the job of judging?'"

Boundaries With Dentists

A dentist working on a child's mouth. Image source.

So recently I went to a dentist for teeth-cleaning and x-rays. It was a Chinese dentist office, the one my husband goes to. (We live in Shanghai, China.) Now, normally I don't go to Chinese hospitals; I go to international hospitals, international dentist offices, etc. (More on that in this post: On Immigration and Double Standards.) But anyway, this time I went to this Chinese dentist office.

So, while the dentist cleans your teeth, the dentist assistant holds that suction tube thing to suck the water out of your mouth. And, I don't know, seemed like this assistant wasn't doing a very good job, because I kept having water in my mouth and I had to either interrupt them and sit up and spit, or swallow it (and I'm laying there thinking "we're in China, don't drink the water").

(I asked my husband about it, and he said he had never had that problem at this dentist. So, I don't know. Maybe it's because I'm autistic. Or maybe it's because something about my posture or reactions wasn't compatible with the methods they use. Who knows.)

And there were a few other things they did, that made me feel like they weren't being careful enough... And at one point it got so bad that I actually put my hand over my mouth. Like a safeword. I said I had to take a minute before I would be ready to continue, and I asked the dentist how much longer the teeth-cleaning was going to take.

You know, speaking of safewords: There have been many times where I was at a dentist appointment, and the dentist says, "If you want me to stop at any time, just put your hand up." The safeword of dentistry. I always assumed this was because you shouldn't try to talk while they're sticking things in your mouth, because it will screw things up. I never really thought of it as ... like... my consent matters, and I have the right to stop if I feel uncomfortable. I only ever used the safeword when I had... like... a reason that other people would think was "good enough" like for example I just need to shift my posture in this chair real quick before we start, or something.

So anyway, here's what I want to say. So I'm at this dentist, and I had to put my hand over my mouth to make them stop because it was that bad, and I'm thinking about what to do. And, now I know about boundaries and consent- I used to not know about those things, but now I do. And I knew, I can choose to say no, get up, and walk out of here, and no one will stop me. As long as I pay the money for the appointment, they can't do anything to me. I can get up and walk out of here, and no one will force me to sit in this chair and endure whatever they're doing to my teeth.

Like knowing that it was a real choice. Knowing about consent.

In the past, I didn't know about boundaries and consent, and therefore I believed that I had to convince them- to get them to "let" me say no. I had to present a logical argument about why it's unreasonable that they expect me to just sit there and take it while they do things to my body. And if I can't make a good enough case, if I can't persuade them, I'm trapped. Because of that, I would get angry, and I would argue... But now I know that I don't have to persuade anyone. I can just say no, and get up and leave, and they can't do anything to me. Therefore I don't have to get mad at anyone, I don't have to accuse them of being unreasonable, none of that.

And it was because of that, knowing I had that freedom, that I was able to let them continue doing stuff to my teeth. And so we continued and were able to finish.

My husband and son were also there, and I wasn't sure if they were in the room when this happened, or if they were wandering around in the hallway. I worried... what if my son sees me covering my mouth and not letting the dentist do stuff? Am I setting a bad example for him? 

But then I thought, don't I want him to know that if he feels overwhelmed by something, he's allowed to take a break for a minute to calm down?

And so we get into the question of how to teach consent to kids. In particular, in a medical context.

I've seen people on the internet saying, "I told my kid 'your body belongs to you' and then the next day she wanted to wear her Halloween costume to preschool" as if that was an unexpected, unintended result, and I'm just like, what? So, you said to the kid "your body belongs to you" but you didn't really mean that, what you really meant was "don't let anyone sexually abuse you" and you believe it's a misinterpretation to think it meant "my body belongs to me, therefore I can wear my Halloween costume whenever I want." 

HOWWWW, I ask you, HOW is it a misinterpretation to think that "my body belongs to me" means "I can dress up as a dinosaur whenever I want"? Where is the error in logic? Ah, see, the error in logic is that adults all know that "your body belongs to you" is simply a euphemism intended for preventing sexual abuse, that's all it means. It has nothing to do with one's body actually belonging to oneself in non-sexual ways.

Like, what on earth?

How is a kid supposed to know "your body belongs to you" doesn't actually mean "your body belongs to you", it only means "don't let anyone sexually abuse you"???

People typically talk about consent like it's all about sexual things, but I don't see it that way. Consent should be about everything.

And we can't teach consent to kids the same way we teach adults, because children literally do not have the right to consent about things that happen to their body. Specifically, I sometimes override my son's consent if it's a health/safety issue. For example, holding him still while he gets a vaccine.

I don't want to physically force him- that's the last resort. I always talk to him first and explain why we have to do this or that medical procedure, why it will benefit him. I offer rewards that he can look forward to after it's finished. I give him choices like "do you want to sit on this chair or that chair when you get the vaccine?"

All of those things make him feel better, and make the experience better for all of us, but all of those things are still nonconsensual. If this wasn't about a child- if this was a situation with 2 adults, and Person A is saying they have to do things to Person B's body, and Person B doesn't want to, so Person A offers all sorts of ways to help Person B feel better about it, to convince them, and then acts like Person B is the one being unreasonable because look how kind Person A is being, offering so many options Person B can choose from as they submit to the thing they don't want to do. This is coercion. It's nonconsensual.

But the absolute truth of it is, children really don't/can't have the right to own their own bodies. There are things that are necessary, for the child's health and safety, that the child would never consent to. You do have to use nonconsensual methods.

And, my son is preschool age- he needs to have limitations on what choices he's allowed to make. He's not developmentally ready for the level of responsibility needed when you're just allowed to do whatever you want. Limitations are healthy for him at this age. It's good for him to be able to make some of his own choices- like what clothes he wants to wear- but there are other things where he just has to do it, he doesn't get a choice- like going to school. And as a child grows, gradually the range of choices they can handle also grows.

I think the important thing here is to put very obvious restrictions on what circumstances people can override the child's consent. Here are some I've thought of:

1. Only the parents can override the child's consent. To some extent, maybe other guardians (relative, teacher, babysitter) can too, when the parents are not present, but only in a "doing their best to act according to what the parents would have wanted" sort of way. Definitely DO NOT teach the child that all adults have the right to override their consent.
2. When you make the child do something they don't want, the child has a right to know the reason why. The child can always ask questions about what's going on, and you have to explain it to them.
3. This is a temporary situation. When the child becomes an adult, there will be NO MORE overriding their consent. Make sure the child very clearly understands this. And give them more freedom as they grow up, so that they're ready to handle that when they become an adult.

My thinking now is I need to teach him these 3 points, and make sure he understands them. And someday I'll teach him to be very suspicious of someone who's acting like they're offering him a choice but they're really not ("do you want to sit on this chair or that chair when you get the vaccine?").

He's just preschool-age, so I don't really know what I'm doing yet. I'm just thinking about myself as a child and how I never had any concept that my body belongs to me... instead all the adults said I was "good" and "brave" when I submitted to things I didn't want, and they acted like I was causing trouble when I wasn't able to force myself to endure whatever medical things I was supposed to.

And... like I said, the thing that gave me the confidence to let the dentist keep going was knowing that I had the freedom to just get up and walk out of there. My son doesn't have that- so he is stuck in the "I need to convince them that I have a 'good enough reason' to say no" territory. 

Yeah... being required to perform your discomfort in a way that will read as "real" to other people. This is hard to explain, but I'm autistic and I think other autistic people know what I'm talking about. Being in a sensory environment that you just CANNOT tolerate, but in order to be "allowed" to leave, you need to strategize about how to perform your emotions so that other people will believe you really are in pain. For example, you need to drop several hints that you're not feeling good, so that people can't counter with "but we've been here this whole time, and you've been fine! How can you suddenly have a problem?" I'm so glad that as an adult, I don't have to do that any more. I can just know my own needs, politely tell other people what my needs are, and if there are any practical issues that arise from my needing to leave, try to handle them in a responsible way. (Though, actually, as an adult there still could be situations where you're not free to make your own choices, for example, at your job- so sometimes you do need to do this dance to convince your boss that you have a "good enough reason" to refuse to do something.)

So, this is not ideal, but it has to be like this because he's a child. The best I can do is give him that freedom in situations where it's reasonable to do so, and also take it very seriously when he is telling me the reasons he doesn't want to do something. To really listen and understand those reasons, because I am judging if his reasons are "good enough" and that is a very serious responsibility.

That's the best I can do, I guess.

---

Related:

I Don't Want My Baby To Be "Brave"

Doctors (part 3 of Autism & Teaching Kids to Protect Themselves)

Tickling, Consent, and The Way It Works 

6 Ways Purity Culture Did NOT Teach Me About Consent 

On Gynecologists and Angry Turtles

"Well I don't know what to tell you..."

Gif of a woman saying "I don't know what to tell you." Image source.

So here's a cool little thing I happened to be daydreaming about: 

I was thinking about what if, someday, I am at a church, and I mention that I don't pray, and then some church person says "well you can't be a Christian if you don't pray." And my first reaction is kind of an astonished laugh, the kind of laugh you make when someone says something so ridiculous and unconnected to reality that you just don't have any idea how to respond to it, and then I would say "well I don't know what to tell you, then, because I *am* a Christian." 

I think it's a very good thing, a sign that I no longer have churchy PTSD or whatever you'd call it- because in the past, I have definitely fantasized about how to argue about these things, like what I could say to convince church people, what kind of evangelical jargon to wrap it in (ie, if I want to say the church is doing something harmful, call it "legalism" rather than try to make an argument that humans inherently deserve to have our needs cared for). And replaying conversations over and over in my head, and getting angry at the imaginary people accusing me of "falling away" and all that.

No, as I imagined this recently, I didn't get angry or argue with anyone. I just said "well I don't know what to tell you, because I am a Christian" and that was all I wanted to say.

(And if I really was going to say more, to give a reason why I don't pray, it would be this: I think it would be cruel and immoral if God chose who to help based on whether or not you prayed "correctly." I don't believe in a God like that. So that's what I would tell church people, if they wanted to know, but if they don't agree with me then I don't need to say anything else or argue.)

What's changed is I don't care if I can convince them or not. I don't need approval from church people. If they don't believe I'm a Christian, what do I care? They can just be wrong by themselves, while I continue to live my life.

I like to at least say 1 sentence to summarize what I think, just so that bystanders know that not everyone at the church agrees with everything- so we don't cause little ones to stumble by telling them that it's impossible to be a Christian and believe xyz. I want to be there, openly believing xyz, not arguing about it or giving a huge explanation of all the reasons why, but just being enough to put a crack in the belief that "all Christians" believe this or that.

(Well, when I say "I want to be there," I mean if I happened to be visiting a church with family members or something. I definitely wouldn't go to a church like that regularly.)

I believe in boundaries now. I believe in "they can't do anything to me." People might say I'm not a Christian, but it doesn't matter. There will always be people saying incorrect things. So what? It's not my problem.

Honestly, though, I'm oversimplifying it. If you had told me 10 years ago that I just needed to stop caring what church people thought about me, no, that would not have helped. They were my people. They were my best friends. You can't just suddenly stop caring. You can't just logic yourself into it with "why would you even want their acceptance, if you have to hide your true self to get it?" They were my people. So it took a long time- of course it took a long time- but yes, I'm happy to see I'm at a place where I don't feel I need to argue with random church people.

Obviously, though, if they don't believe I'm a Christian, then that's not going to be my church. Obviously, I'm not going to form deep relationships with people like that. Boundaries.

But yeah, if someone says I'm not a Christian, I'll shrug my shoulders and act like they just said something so very odd that it's not even worth a response. Because I don't need anything from them.

---

Related:

Boundaries and My Religion

Captain Marvel, Boundaries, and Why I Don't Go To Church

Accepting Myself (or, I'm Great, and It Doesn't Matter What God Thinks) 

Prayer Rates Don't Correlate With Actual Risk

"Moon Knight" and Boundaries With God

Layla, in her superhero outfit. Image source.

[content note: spoilers for the Marvel tv show "Moon Knight"]

Okay I want to talk about one part of episode 6 of "Moon Knight" (the final episode of season 1). After Marc/Steven is killed (don't worry, he gets better), Layla finds the stone statue of the Egyptian god Khonshu, and breaks it to release Khonshu. Khonshu had previously used Marc/Steven (this is one physical person with several personalities) as his "avatar", but he was no longer using him as an avatar due to being imprisoned in a stone statue. After Layla frees Khonshu, Khonshu says he needs an avatar, in order to fight against the Egyptian goddess Ammit. He wants to use Layla as his avatar. She says no.

She says no.

She says no! I love it!

(Actually the first thing she says is, "Are you joking?" I love it!)

Layla had seen how much Marc had suffered as Khonshu's avatar. (Being an "avatar" of an Egyptian god means you get superpowers from the god, but also they control your life to some extent. Some gods seem to be nicer about it than others.) She tells Khonshu, "Marc didn't trust you. I don't trust you." She says no.

Khonshu tells her he needs a human avatar to save the world or whatever, and she still says no. 

As an ex-evangelical, I feel like there's a lot you could say about "Moon Knight" and the evangelical Christian concept of having "a personal relationship with God." A bit of background about me: I had a "personal relationship with God" for a long time. I was so devoted, desperate, passionate, submissive... It was all about him, all the time, I was so obsessed. I woke up early every day to read the bible. I prayed on my knees in my dorm room. I "took captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ"- any wisp of a thought I had that could be sinful, I stamped it down and then threw myself on his mercy and repented of it. I sacrificed so much for him. Anything I wanted, anything I cared about, anything I had worked hard for, I knew I had to throw it away at a moment's notice if that's what God told me to do, and if I felt sad about it, well that was a sin.

That relationship... it was overwhelming, it was my entire life, and after I got out of it, I concluded that it had been abusive.

There were 2 big things that damaged my relationship with God, and led to my leaving it behind:

1. I found out that Christian leaders had lied to me about a lot of things- the biggest one being LGBTQ rights. I listened to queer people's stories, and found that actually, the "traditional" teaching about being queer- which is that it's wrong and you need to repress yourself, and if you pray hard enough then God will turn you straight- actually leads to depression and suicide. And accepting yourself leads to life. I discovered that queer people weren't evil and trying to destroy marriage or whatever. They're just normal people.

And more than that, I discovered that evangelicals had lied to me about so many different groups of people. They said non-Christians can't ever be happy because they have a "God-shaped hole" in their hearts- well, that's not true. They said atheists secretly know that God exists, but pretend they don't believe in him, because they want to sin. They said everyone who gets an abortion will regret it. They said everyone who has unmarried sex will regret it and never be able to have a good marriage. (It ROCKED MY WORLD the first time I happened across a blog post where someone wrote "I had premarital sex and I don't regret it." That's also why I published my own post after I got married- I’m Really Really REALLY Glad I Had Sex Before Marriage.) They said all other religions are about trying to earn your way to heaven, and that can never really satisfy people, but Christianity is different.

So much of evangelical Christian teaching is built on the idea that "these other groups of people are wrong about their own personal lives, and we know better." It was all stereotypes and strawmen- no one ever said "let's actually listen to people who are different from us, to find out what they think"- of course no one ever said that, and it never even occurred to me that that's what we should be doing. You can't give those false teachers a platform and actually listen to their voices- that could lead us astray! We need Christian leaders to act as translators to make sure the message gets packaged in a way that doesn't challenge our existing beliefs. 

We only "listened" so that we could tailor our evangelism sales pitches better.

Anyway, I found out about all this, and so I changed my beliefs. But God didn't change. I changed because I discovered new information- but what was God's excuse? He knew all this, all along, and he used me to preach bigotry against queer people.

I discovered my God was a monster, and I had to leave him, and it hurt because that was my whole self- my identity was in Christ.

2. I found out about systemic racism. Yes, it turns out, as a white American I have privilege that people of color don't have. (This was when I lived in the US- I'm in China now, and it's different.) Racism is a sin that's built into the structures of American society- and I prayed to God every day and God NEVER SAID ONE WORD TO ME ABOUT IT? WTF??? Police brutality, mass incarceration, underfunded schools, wage gap, wealth gap, redlining, maternal mortality, discrimination in various places in everyday life, etc etc etc... Our whole culture is full of the sin of racism, and I didn't even know about it??? 

God was extremely busy giving me rules about what romantic feelings I was or wasn't allowed to have, but he never told me that I benefit from centuries of white supremacy? WTF????

On paper I believed that God loved everyone of all races equally. All people of all races are equally made in the image of God. But my God sure didn't act like it.

For example: Christians pray for God to help them find a new job- but how could I pray for that, now that I had found out that candidates with "black-sounding" names are less likely to get called for job interviews? How could I believe that me getting a job was somehow caused by God, when in reality white privilege also played a role in it? Maybe God should focus less on helping me, and more on eliminating the racism that exists in the hiring process.

So, those 2 things are the main reasons my personal relationship with God ended.

It turns out, I wasn't simply in a relationship with "God" or even "the Christian God" or "Jesus." I was in a relationship with one specific version of God. One specific version of Jesus, the version preached in the white American evangelical church. I thought He was the only God- it was Him or nothing, Him or no God at all. That's not true. There are many versions of God to choose from. Even within Christianity, there are many different versions of Jesus.

And now I choose Them myself. I don't let any church or pastor choose my God for me and say that's my only option. I only choose a God that I can in good conscience follow.

(And of course, the reason I thought there was only 1 option for which God to believe in was because of evangelicals completely misrepresenting and lying about people who believe differently than them. [See above, point number 1 of why I ended my "personal relationship with God."] Of course I knew that some people "claimed to be Christians" but didn't believe all the same things we did. I was taught that those people were rebelling against "the clear teaching of Scripture" and didn't actually care about the bible or God or truth or right and wrong. They were "watering down the gospel" to make it "inoffensive." They were "capitulating to the culture" instead of "standing firm for God's truth." They "made God in their own image" whereas we followed the real God even when it cost us. Those people were fake Christians who were just trying to take the easy way out. I'm sure that's what the evangelicals are saying about me now.)

After that, I decided I will never have a "personal relationship with" a god again. I will never worship again. Yes, I believe in God, and I like to think I follow Jesus' teachings- but I do it on my own terms. I believe things because they make sense to me, because I can see the reasons why they are moral and right. No more of this "God is making me do something and I don't know why but I just have to trust and obey"- never again. I was taught that was the definition of "faith" and it was a very important part of being a Christian. No, I don't believe that any more. That's not "faith", that's "giving cover to authoritarian leaders who want to control everyone's lives and use God as an excuse."

I'm never going to have a "personal relationship" with a god again, because the power imbalance just makes it impossible for it to not be abusive. (For me personally. Maybe for other people, it works because they have a different understanding of what "personal relationship with God" means.) Imagine trying to make major life decisions, about getting married, moving to a different place, finding a new job, having kids- and there's Someone in your mind and in your heart who knows everything, every detail of every possible outcome, and They give you some indication of which option to choose. It means you have no choice anymore, because how can you go against a suggestion from an omniscient being?

(Or rather, in practice, it becomes a game of trying to figure out whether random happenings and weird thoughts that pop up in your head are "signs from God". [And guess what, if you get it wrong, it's YOUR FAULT! Probably you're so sinful that, even though on some level you knew what God was telling you to do, you selfishly chose what you wanted instead!] Rather than, you know, actually comparing the actual real-life facts you have about your options.)

I don't want Them here, in my head. I set a boundary, and I engage with Them on my own terms. I don't pray because it's too intimate; that's a boundary I have.

I love Them. I still do. Of course I do. And any God who can't accept this boundary is not worthy of being my God.

There was a period of time when I was going to a "small group" at an international church in Shanghai, and we were reading a book about "spiritual disciplines" and there was one chapter about how you should dedicate your whole life to God, 100%, don't hold back, and it went on and on and on about how it's so HARD but it's the RIGHT choice... And I didn't like it. I told these church people, it's NOT necessarily a good thing to devote your life to Jesus, if it's a bad version of Jesus. Make sure you really do the work beforehand to investigate whether that god is worthy of your devotion. Because I was devoted to a bad version of Jesus before, and it was bad.

SOOO ANYWAY. Moon Knight. Marc definitely had a "personal relationship with god" and it was toxic and he wanted to get out. (Arthur Harrow, the main villain from the show, had also been Khonshu's avatar before, and Harrow says it devastated and broke him too.) Layla knows all this, and so when Khonshu says he needs to use her as his avatar, she says NO.

Even when Khonshu tries to tell her she needs to do it because the world is at stake or whatever. She says no. Here's a lesson I wish I had learned a lot sooner: When someone tells you that you *have to* do something, that doesn't necessarily mean you *have to* do it. You should only do it if it benefits you. I'm thinking specifically of things like jobs and contracts and being told "you have to sign this"- well, just because someone says "you have to sign this" doesn't really mean you have to. First make sure you understand what it is you're agreeing to, and if there's any part that you're not okay with, you can say no. Obviously, if you say no, then that means the other party also doesn't have to hold up their end of the deal- but make sure you understand all of it before agreeing to anything. And sometimes they want you to sign something that doesn't benefit you- don't sign it. Even if they say "you have to."*

Layla is willing to work with Khonshu, but not willing to give herself to him as his avatar. Boundaries.

Later, the Egyptian gods resurrect Marc/Steven, and Marc/Steven negotiate with Khonshu before agreeing to be Khonshu's avatar again. I love it. (However, in the after-credits scene we find that Khonshu is still lying to Marc/Steven, so, uh, still didn't totally work out...) Also, Layla becomes the avatar for the goddess Taweret- see, she considered her options and found a god who would be better for her than Khonshu.

It also makes me think about Mary, the mother of Jesus, when she was visited by the angel and told that she would become pregnant and give birth to the Son of God. Could she have said no? Would she have been better off if she had said no? I kind of want to write a fanfic where God chose a different young woman, but when the angel goes to tell her, she turns him down, and Mary is the second choice. (Maybe God wanted to pick someone who didn't have a good understanding of boundaries, who didn't know she could say no.) (UPDATE: And here it is! Mary's Choice.)

(And don't get me started on Jonah.)

So this is my advice: Set boundaries with God. Don't do things just because "God said"; only do things that have good reasons to back them up. That requires using your own mind to evaluate the situation, rather than just "obeying" or "submitting to God." Because honestly, there's no such thing as simply "submitting to God"- you're submitting to a specific version of God, and you have to do the work first to make sure it's a god that is worth that.

---

Related:

Captain Marvel, Boundaries, and Why I Don't Go To Church 

They Prayed About It (a post about the #NashvilleStatement)

I Didn't Like the Ocean in "Moana" Because it was Too Much Like God

It Was Beautiful When Star-Lord Rejected the Gospel

If Thanos Tells You To Build An Ark, You Say No 

---

* Okay I want to elaborate about this career advice, since nobody ever explained it to me clearly. This is way off-topic so I'm just putting it here in a footnote at the end:

If there are things you have to sign to start a job, and you refuse to sign them, then that probably means you lose the job. So, in most cases, yes, you would sign everything they want you to sign. But there is a possibility that the documents they want you to sign would put you in a bad position, and actually you're better off without that job. So do be aware of that possibility, and read everything, just to make sure. Typically, though, it is normal that when you start a job, you have to sign a bunch of things- I don't think you need to be scared that they're trying to screw you over- typically these are all very normal: contract, non-compete agreement, confidentiality, those types of things. Definitely read them all and make sure you understand, though. And maybe it would also be useful to do research to get an understanding of what's "normal", so you know when something doesn't seem right. And then go ahead and sign them.

(Yes you will definitely have to sign things to start a job. Of course! And it benefits you to sign a contract; otherwise what guarantee do you have that the company will pay you? The contract obligates you to do things, and the company to do things. You need that. Just make sure that the things it obligates you to are reasonable.)

On the other hand, if you are leaving a job on bad terms, and they want you to sign something that seems a little shady, what benefit is there to you? If you don't sign it, what are they going to do to you, since you're leaving anyway? Only sign it if it benefits you. (I'm thinking of this example from Workplace Stack Exchange. The entire situation is a disaster, please don't take any of it as a model for normal behavior- but in particular, there was one part where the company wanted the developers to all sign something to say they are not the one who sabotaged the code, and a senior developer told them all not to sign it because there was no benefit to them. I very much recommend Workplace Stack Exchange- you can learn a lot about how the real world works and how to have boundaries and a realistic view of what's what.)

Please don't let "I am supposed to be a good kid and sign it because they said I have to sign it, and I should follow the rules" be a factor. Seriously, forget about that, that should not influence your decision at all. HR is just people, same as you; they're not some kind of objective authority figure who deserves your obedience. 

Of course, "if I don't sign it, they will be mad at me/ it will burn bridges, and that could cause problems for me in the future" could be a factor in your decision. Because of how it could affect you in the future. 

(If you're leaving a job on good terms, then yeah you'll likely sign everything they want you to sign. No need to make problems for them, if they haven't made problems for you. Be good to people.)

(And obviously if there are bigger moral issues like "this will harm innocent people," that would also be a factor in your decision. I'm not saying "be a caricature villain who says 'screw everyone else, I only look out for myself.'" I'm saying that there's nothing inherently good about following rules for the sake of following rules.)

This is all very different from being a student in school. I did what the teacher said because they're the authority figure and I'm a good kid- but then you shouldn't view HR that way. HR is completely different. And here's the piece I was missing: You do what the teacher says, because then the teacher will give you a good grade, which benefits you. See? So it is in your best interest to follow the teacher's rules in terms of requirements for your homework or whatever. It benefits you. But sometimes someone who is "in charge" might say you "have to" do something, but you shouldn't just believe that really means you "have to" do it. You evaluate what the results will be, and decide if it's a good idea or not. And don't let "I'm a good kid so I am supposed to do what they say" be a factor. AT ALL.

Obedience is not a virtue.

Just a little career advice from Perfect Number.

Blogaround

1. Afterlife: How Captain Cassidy Let Go of a False Belief [archive link] (posted January 22) [and follow-up posts here [archive link] and here [archive link]] Captain Cassidy wrote a few posts about no longer believing in any kind of "afterlife", and I wonder if she's right. One of my big things is "I believe in resurrection" but what she is saying makes sense.

2. The future of the middle class depends on student loan forgiveness (posted February 25) "It’s not about my loans, or your loans, or your lack thereof. It’s not about your personal stories or anyone else’s. It’s about restoring the path from education to financial stability and wealth building — and, this time, actually maintaining it, no matter who decides to start the journey."

3. Well, yes:

Software that sends your porn viewing history to an accountability partner is just such a fucked up concept and I don’t trust that anyone who endorses it understands healthy boundaries

— ready for spring already (@mxreese1701) March 20, 2021

4. Beloved children’s author Beverly Cleary dies at 104 (posted March 26)

5. Lil Nas X - MONTERO (Call Me By Your Name) (Official Video) (posted March 26) This is extremely satanic and gay. I love it. It's like I said about Katy Perry in 2015: "Make a video that's as satanic as possible, and it's okay! Nothing can separate us from the love of God."

Lil Nas X has this to say:

i spent my entire teenage years hating myself because of the shit y’all preached would happen to me because i was gay. so i hope u are mad, stay mad, feel the same anger you teach us to have towards ourselves.

— nope 🏹 (@LilNasX) March 27, 2021

He knows EXACTLY what he's doing. PREACH.

6. Good news- here in Shanghai, starting around March 29 there's been a big push for people to get the COVID vaccine. I saw a bunch of articles on social media (WeChat) about how to register, there was a flyer posted on the 1st floor of our apartment building, somebody came door-to-door with the flyers too, and HR at work sent an email. (There is a separate system for foreign passport holders to register, because the main system requires a Chinese ID number.) I have an appointment in a few weeks for the first dose! Woo I love vaccines!

They are saying everyone who is age 18 to 75 and healthy should get vaccinated. Right now everyone in that range can go ahead and make an appointment, it's not broken down into different risk categories or anything like in the US. (People who are higher risk because they come into contact with international travelers etc have already been vaccinated.)

7. Is China Really Ready for Black Stories? (posted March 29) "Black-themed films can succeed in China — as long as their Blackness remains in the background."

8. Sentenced to death, but innocent: These are stories of justice gone wrong. (posted February 18) "Bloodsworth bore little resemblance to the suspect in the police sketch. No physical evidence linked him to the crime. He had no prior criminal record."

An Update on Whether or Not "Marriage is Hard" Now That We Have a Child

A mommy, daddy, and baby, wearing shirts that say "Mommy", "Daddy", and "Baby", respectively. Image source.

Note: I actually wrote this a while ago, before COVID was a thing

--------------------

When I was growing up, I always heard Christians say "marriage is hard." So much talk about how "marriage is hard", how you have to work so much and sacrifice so much and put up with crap from your spouse, but oh it's SO WORTH IT.

Then in 2013 I started dating Hendrix, and we got married in 2017. In 2018 I blogged about the whole "Marriage Is Hard" idea, pointing out that it's harmful to teach kids that they should expect to be unhappy when they're married, because then how will they recognize when they're in a truly bad/abusive situation and need to get out? And I said this about my own marriage:

Well. I have been married 1 year, and my marriage is not "hard." It's good and fun and I often think about how happy I am that I decided to marry him, and how lucky we are. This isn't what I expected. I thought once our status changed from "engaged" to "married", it would stop being fun and start being hard.

Yes, we fight sometimes, and sometimes I'm angry with him and don't want to look at him or talk to him, but it only lasts 1 day at the most. And then one of us will apologize- usually if we're mad at each other, it's because one of us accidentally did something hurtful because we weren't thinking about how it would affect the other. We haven't really fought about anything where the problem went deeper than that- maybe once or twice? And I feel lucky, like wow we're so much more compatible than I expected. Lucky like we must be in the top 1% of happy marriages or something, because surely it isn't normal to feel so good about our marriage. It was supposed to be hard. Right? 
...
But I'm still in love with him. I wasn't expecting that- not when they literally used metaphors about death to describe married life. Am I the one who's not "normal" because I still feel so happy I married my husband? Or was it the "die to self" idea that's suspect?

Anyway, now that we have a baby, I would like to give a little update on whether or not "marriage is hard."

Basically, the first 3 months after Square Root was born was the hardest time our relationship has ever gone through. But even though we had problems during that time, I would not label those problems as "marriage is hard", but as "having a newborn baby is hard and is putting a lot of stress on our marriage." And now our relationship is back to being good.

Let me elaborate on the things that were hard:

• The transition from pregnancy to having a newborn: 
• During pregnancy, Hendrix did so much work to take care of me and make sure all my needs were met. Then when Square Root was born, Hendrix's focus moved to taking care of him. During the pregnancy, it was all about me, but once the baby was born, I felt like my husband didn't have time for me any more, because he was taking care of the baby.
• During pregnancy, I was 100% in charge of the baby. But after he was born, other people could take care of him without me. Other people (like my mother-in-law) were changing his clothes, giving him a bath, etc, without my input. I felt like he was being taken away from me and raised by other people. It was a big adjustment, figuring out what my role would be and what other people's role would be in taking care of him.
• And a lot of wild feelings caused by hormones.
• Taking care of a newborn baby is just hard. Getting used to having him sucking on my nipples all the time. Pain in my back and shoulders from having to sit up very straight and hold him in exactly the right place while breastfeeding (on that note, I very much recommend getting a breastfeeding pillow). He wants someone to hold him all the time, and he cries if we lay him down. Waking up a bunch of times in the night. And then he won't sleep in his bed- he just wants someone to hold him.
• My mother-in-law (Nainai) is living with us to help take care of the baby. There were a lot of things where she wanted to do it a certain way, and I wanted to do it a different way, and I felt like I couldn't tell her what I wanted because then she'd be unhappy and then Hendrix would be unhappy and act like I did something wrong.

Me, Hendrix, and Nainai were constantly doing a ton of work to take care of Square Root. Those first few weeks, Hendrix and I basically never had time to actually talk to each other about our relationship. We were so tired from taking care of the baby all the time, and Nainai was always there and we didn't have any time when it was just the two of us.

I would lay awake at night, breastfeeding Square Root, and worry that my husband didn't support me any more. Or I would lay awake at night because my boobs were huge and painful because Nainai insisted that the baby would sleep in her room and she would give him a bottle in the night, even though that's not what I wanted, and I would feel like I wasn't "allowed" to make decisions about how to raise him, and I would worry about the future.

All 3 of us- me, Hendrix, and Nainai- want to do what's best for the baby. We put him first. But Hendrix and I had different things we put second. For me, it was my right to be Square Root's mom and make decisions about taking care of him, and how to have boundaries with Nainai. For Hendrix, it was about trying to make sure both me and Nainai were happy.

And those two priorities often contradicted each other. When I was feeling bad about my "boundaries with Nainai" issue, Hendrix didn't support me emotionally because he didn't like how me asserting my boundaries was upsetting his mom. When Hendrix was feeling bad about his mom being unhappy, I didn't support him emotionally because I was focused on defending my own rights as the baby's mom.

We were never like this before. We always talked about our emotions, and cared about each other, and helped each other with our emotional needs. But after baby was born, we were both having a hard time adjusting to being parents and the fact that Hendrix's mom lives with us. And we didn't have any time to even talk to each other about it.

Here's what helped me:

• I remembered that Hendrix and I have been together for years, and our relationship has a good foundation of caring about each other, communicating, being honest about our feelings and needs, taking each other's emotional needs seriously and helping get those needs met, etc. Even though we weren't really doing those things right after Square Root was born, I reassured myself that it was just a temporary thing, and the true nature of our relationship is all that good stuff about love and healthy communication.
• I worked hard to find a few minutes here and there where we could talk to each other about serious things. And he did too. When we went to take the trash out. When we were in the taxi on the way to Square Root's doctor's appointments. We know how to say to each other "I need to talk to you about something," because our relationship does have that good foundation of communication.
• I went to a therapist and talked about my feelings about being a mom, and about how to have boundaries with Nainai and how to communicate with my husband. I worked on standing up for myself more, while also letting Nainai know I appreciate how much work she is doing for the baby.
• I took Square Root to the United States for a whole month, by myself. This wasn't because of conflicts with Hendrix or anything like that; it was because I had 4 months of maternity leave so we all figured it was a really good opportunity for me to spend more time with my family in the US. Turned out it was also a really good opportunity for me to be in charge of the baby the way I want to be, as his mom, and establish habits and routines, making it easier to have firm boundaries about that stuff when I got back to China.
• And Square Root became much easier to take care of. Around 4 months old, he started only waking up 1 time in the night, and after I fed him he would go right back to sleep. Also, he learned to use his hands to play with toys, which means he can sometimes lay on the floor and amuse himself; he doesn't need to have someone holding him constantly.

Now I feel that our relationship is good again, just like it used to be. We often tell each other "I love you" and "I appreciate how much work you are doing for baby." I often ask Hendrix how he's feeling. And he notices when I look sad and asks me what's wrong- he knows me well enough that he can tell when I look sad without me even saying anything. And all those cute little affectionate things we do, the inside jokes, the way we cuddle each other, all those things are back.

So... no, our marriage is not "hard." Having a newborn child (and my mother-in-law living with us) brought a lot of stress and conflict into our relationship for about 3 months, but that's a completely different thing than saying "marriage is hard."

Living with him, planning our lives together, raising our child together, seeing him every day, laughing and joking and sharing funny pokemon videos we found online- that's what marriage is for us, and it's wonderful and just so FUN. My husband is sweet and loving and cares about me in ways I never expected that men were capable of. I didn't know it would be like this. I expected marriage to be "hard."

--------------------

Related:
He Just Loves Me (a post about Sex, Pregnancy, and My "Wifely Duty") 

"Marriage Is Hard"

On HR and Being a Legal Immigrant (Don't Turn the Other Cheek)

Meme that says "Brace yourself: HR just sent out another email." Image source.

Recently at work, HR sent out an email about an annual tax form that everybody has to submit. I've done this in the past- there's an app, you just log in and your salary and tax information is already there, and you click "submit." It's quite easy.

So I tried to log in, but I couldn't. A week later, HR sent out a reminder about it, and I tried to log in again- 1 day before the deadline. Still no luck, so I emailed the HR manager, Jessica, to ask for help.

I got a reply from another HR employee, Anna, telling me that foreigners can't do it on the app, and I have to go in person to some tax office and bring my passport, work permit, etc. And as I said, the deadline is tomorrow.

Ugh, I was so mad! The way she just dumped this on me like it's no big deal, like oh guess what, because I'm an immigrant I have to do this whole complicated extra task, and she just leaves me to it and moves on with her life, while I try to figure out what the hell I'm supposed to do. Like it's totally fine for HR to just tell me, 1 day before the deadline, oh by the way here's the address for the tax office, have at it.

SOOOO MADDDDD.

Here's the way I see it:

Things that are my job:

• Be a software engineer

Things that are not my job:

• Understand all the legal implications of me, an immigrant, working as a software engineer in China

Nope, not my job. That's HR's job. And I've worked at several companies where I was the only international employee, so I've run into this kind of problem a lot. Something I have to do that's different than the Chinese employees, and HR doesn't have a freakin' clue. (A while back I wrote about the worst one.)

I believe in boundaries now, and that means, since I'm the one who will suffer if this bureaucratic stuff isn't done correctly, I have the right to push HR about it as much as I feel is necessary. If, for example, my residence permit doesn't get renewed on time, which of us is worried about getting deported- me, or Anna? See, even though it's Anna's job to do it, I'm the one who suffers massively if it doesn't get done right. So I no longer just "trust" that HR knows what they're doing and they're going to take care of it. No, I tell them "it's time to start the process of renewing my residence permit" and then Anna replies "we don't have to start yet, it only takes 2 weeks" and then I get angry as I remember all the past renewals where various bureaucracy problems came up and it definitely took MORE THAN 2 WEEKS- but I don't show her I'm angry; I need to be polite and calm and professional. But I don't accept her nonchalance about it, and I push her to get started on it now. And if she doesn't, then I bring my manager into it and tell him that the process of renewing my residence permit every year is very stressful for me so I want to get it done as early as possible.

I'm the one whose worst-case-scenario is getting kicked out of the country- even though it's HR's job to do this stuff. So I get to decide how seriously HR needs to take it. That's boundaries.

Anyway, I'm usually good at guessing which legal policies won't apply to me and then asking HR to clarify what I should do. (Even though it should be THEIR JOB to notify me, without me asking.) This tax thing caught me off guard, though, because in previous years I just used the app like everyone else and it worked. Apparently this year the system is different. 

So, as I said, I was SO MAD.

Going to the tax office isn't a big deal. I can do that. I can accept that I need to do that, as an immigrant, even though the Chinese employees don't. That's fine, I understand that for practical reasons, that's the way the world works. The reason I was mad, though, was because THIS IS NOT MY JOB. Figuring out how my specific situation as an immigrant should be handled is NOT MY JOB. That's HR's job. If they had told me 2 weeks earlier, that would have also been fine. But 1 day before the deadline, just mentioning it like it's no big deal, no, that's not okay. That's not fair to me. I deserve to be treated better.

And then I thought, you know, if I was still in a "personal relationship with God," I would have accepted it. "Submit", "turn the other cheek", "put others first" and don't stand up for yourself because that's "selfish." I would have just told HR "okay" and gone to the tax office. And then I would remember, and be mad about it again every time HR acted like it was no big deal to just put new requirements on me because I'm an immigrant. Get more and more mad about it every time, as the accumulated list of injustices against me that HR never even acknowledged grows longer and longer. Every time, remembering every single previous incident and how I was wronged and I just suffered it without standing up for myself.

I would have thought that's what a good Christian should do. And that I'm even more sinful for continuing to have feelings about things that happened years ago.

No, now I believe in boundaries and standing up for myself. Now I believe in "that's not my job" and "I deserve to be treated better than this." I didn't know about those things before. I used to just trust whatever HR said, and do whatever HR said.

So anyway, continuing on with my story. Anna came to my desk to ask me if I'd gotten her email, and I tried to take the polite approach of "I'm concerned about if I go there tomorrow and there are problems and I can't get it done" rather than the more blunt "this is your job, not mine." Anna said oh the tax office isn't that far away, you could go and come back in less than an hour, hey how about today you go there and confirm what materials they need you to bring, and then tomorrow you go again.

And I was like "... you want me to go twice?"

And I was like "how about YOU go today and confirm what materials I need to bring, and then I go tomorrow?"

And she said she can't go, she doesn't have time. And I said WELL YEAH I can't go, I don't have time.

(But, actually, I did have time. Or rather, by "I don't have time" I did NOT mean "there are extremely urgent things I need to do today and it's just not possible to rearrange my schedule", I meant "I am not willing to treat this as a higher priority than the other things I was planning to do today [because, even though those things aren't very urgent, this is NOT MY JOB]." So. That is also boundaries.)

So then I was more mad at Anna, and I said she should have told me about this 2 weeks ago.

So later I went to the HR director, Jessica's, office to talk to her. My manager, Han, happened to be there, so that was good. So I told them "I'm concerned about what if there are problems when I go tomorrow and I can't get it done" and we talked about it and they offered suggestions and help, and Jessica called Anna in and told her to call the tax place and get a better idea of what exactly I need to do. I really felt a lot better after this conversation, because Jessica and Han acknowledged that this really is a lot of trouble for me, and really I should have been told about it earlier (but that HR didn't know either because it's a new policy).

Then I was not mad any more, because I felt like they understood my situation and how it's not right to suddenly spring this task on me 1 day before the deadline. See, that's really all I wanted- for them to acknowledge that this is an inconvenience for me and try to help make it easier if they're able.

Anyway, the next day I went to the tax office and submitted the form, and it all went well. And when I got to work, Han asked me how it went. Very nice of him to ask and show he cared.

So, in the end it worked out.

And I'm left thinking about what if I didn't stand up for myself. What if I didn't go talk to Jessica and communicate (politely!) about how stressful it is for me to suddenly be told I have to do these things. I think about things that have happened over all the years I've worked in China- things that HR screwed up and left me to deal with, and I just did what they said and didn't stand up for myself and didn't escalate to their manager. And so I felt like nobody cared, and life just moved on without anyone acknowledging it, and so I'm still mad.

That's what happens when you "submit" and "turn the other cheek" and "trust God to meet your needs."

But instead I communicated about how I felt, and people listened and helped me, and I feel better now. The problem is resolved- and I don't mean the tax form thing, because I would have resolved that anyway. I mean the problem of HR suddenly dumping a new inconvenient task on me just because I'm an immigrant, and acting like it's fine to treat me that way.

--------------

Related:

This Is the Stuff That Happens to Us Immigrants 

"Seek First God's Kingdom" Doesn't Work If You Have Autism