Don't Weight/Size Shame

Is anyone other than me tired of all of this hoop-lah over plus size models versus “skinny bitches”?  I know I sure am.  It is so irritating to hear people go on and on about how plus size women have it so hard.  What about all of the skinny women; do you honestly think they have it easy?  How would you like to be referenced as a skinny bitch in most popular songs, or be hated by the majority of the female population because you were blessed with a high metabolism?  Don’t get me wrong, plus size women are not treated fairly either.  Plus size is synonymous with “fat” for most people – which is not a fair assumption.  Also, it is more difficult for bigger women to find attractive clothes in their size.  But take it from someone who has been small her entire life; they don’t make clothes that fit women who are stick skinny either.

 

I think that is where everyone gets confused.  Pre-baby, I was a size 0 or 1 and shopping was one of the hardest tasks I faced.  I am short with long legs; I have a butt and had a small waist – those combinations are not considered when jeans are made.  Now, I am a size 4 or 5 depending (I can still fit into some of my size 1s but not many) and I am still struggling.  I still have a butt (slightly bigger), a somewhat small waist, short with long legs and the introduction of some hips.  I am not plus size, but I am no longer a 0 either and yet, I still have issues shopping and finding clothes that fit my body.

What I am getting at here is that everyone has a hard time shopping.  Every woman has a hard time looking in the mirror and not seeing something she would change or fix. Every woman is in her most vulnerable state when she is in that dressing room trying on clothes.  It is the same for every woman.  Some women may have an easier time finding clothes that fit their body style and look good – at a decent price, but that doesn’t mean we should shame them because their experience is different from ours.  That’s what this all boils down to.  We, as women, have to stop this bickering amongst ourselves.  Quit calling someone a skinny bitch because she is smaller than you; and quit calling someone plus size (with a negative connotation) because she is bigger than you.  We have to realize that we all are different with a ton of different experiences and life situations.  That woman you are calling a skinny bitch may be struggling from a lifelong eating disorder; and that woman you are calling fat may be struggling with losing weight after having a baby.  All you are doing by judging is creating more hate and more judgmental attitudes to be created.  You have to be able to look at people without only seeing their size.  Someone’s weight is one attribute about that person – but it is not everything.  Judging and stereotyping someone because of their weight, however, can negatively affect someone and can cause lasting issues.  Whether someone is big or small, realize shaming a person because of their size (or grouping people together because of their sizes) only creates more issues.

When in doubt think of the golden rule: treat people the way you would want to be treated.  If you would not want someone commenting about your size, don’t comment about theirs.  If a person talking about your weight/size does not bother you, congratulations – you’re one in a million – but still keep your mouth shut! J

Financial Planner.... anyone?

Can someone get me a financial planner?  

After essential bills, food costs (going out to eat and just grocery shopping), daycare costs, gas and every once in a while buying something the family wants, our bank account is drained dry.  Oh yeah, and did I mention neither Tim nor I have our job benefits (sick days/PTO) yet either because we haven’t been on the job long enough.  Zoey just got over about a 2 week sickness and I think in total we spent at least $150 at the pharmacy, because in a household, not just one person can be sick.  I am currently buying two sets of diapers – one for daycare (where she spends 3 days a week) and one box for at home.  I try to save on groceries as much as possible, but couponing just has NOT been my strong suit.  I can't help but always find the coupons where you have to buy like 8 things before you get fifty cents, or I forget the important ones at home!  I tend to go without so our bank account will be fluffier, but for some reason, money just keeps oozing out.  

With gas prices going down, our gas bill is about $80 a week now (for two cars) which isn’t terrible when compared to closer to $100 a week a month ago.  We have cut back on some of our luxuries, like cable.  We haven’t had cable in 3 months, mainly because TWC is lame, but we have relied more on streaming and the internet – which we can ALWAYS afford.  We are conscious of how much we use our power (or at least I am) and make sure to turn off lights, shut the door when the heat/ac is on, and try and consolidate dish washing and clothes washing.  We have seen a smaller electric bill which is nice.  We have made a financial worksheet that breaks down our bills and we can see how much we are spending – but it only shows our bills not our random purchases (like buying 4 episodes of Season 7 of SOA because we don’t have cable or buying $20 worth of Burger King because we were too lazy to cook something).  We have tried cutting back on going out to eat and focusing on spending a little more money on groceries so we won't be tempted to eat out - but sometimes that just does not work.

Yet somehow, even with our cut backs, we aren't winning.  Honestly, I think we have a problem a lot of people do – especially poor people.  It’s called “when you got money, spend money.”  That is what we do, and I say we because WE have a JOINT bank account and I can’t make Tim take all of the heat.  He is a very compulsive buyer but I don’t put my foot down enough.  Unfortunately, he has no bank account threshold – what do I mean by that, you ask.  Well, to me, I don’t want my bank account to get down below a certain number, even after all of the bills are paid, because you never know what might happen.  However, Tim does not have a threshold.  He thinks as long as there is SOME money in the bank, there is some to spend.  Granted, I am not saying he is irresponsible with money, but I do think he could be more responsible – but hell, couldn't we all.  

We keep making these plans on how to be more fiscally responsible and conservative, but something keeps coming up.  We have family pictures next week – we have to buy a new outfit; hunting season is coming up – Tim needs a scope, a magazine, and camo; Christmas is coming up – we have toys we need to buy and cookies to bake.  It’s almost like you can’t win for losing.  Please tell me my family is not alone in this struggle.  I wouldn’t say we make a ton of money, but with both of us being full time employees, working outside of the home, and Tim having a second income on top of his one, I can’t help but wonder if we will ever have some financial relief?!  

smile.

 i was always told that laughter makes you healthier and that it is contagious.  i was always told to smile too; life could always be worse so appreciate what you have.  i used to be known to some of my friends (like in middle school) as smiley, because i always smiled, i always drew smiley faces.  smiling makes you happy, it puts you and others in a better mood.  but now, a small smile means so much more.  when i see little Zoey give me a huge smile, i can't help but smile.  her smiles make my heart melt, my eyes get teary, and my happiness grow by an uncountable amount.  she just has recently started smiling because she is playing or in a good mood (not just gas) and it is my new life goal to keep a smile on her face.  i don't ever want to see her frown, because i know how happy it makes me to see her smile.  

her baby smile and her little giggles are the best thing since sliced bread, and i don't know how anyone could not melt when they see them.  i never knew such a small little smile could make me feel the way hers does. :)

Zoey, my dear, i can't promise to keep a smile on your face, because eventually we will fuss and argue, i will have to punish you for being bad, i will have to say no to something you want, and you will be angry with me.  but for now, i will do everything i can to keep you smiling because i don't want you to be sad.  just keep smiling and giggling my precious little munchkin!

it's all new.

 hello everyone.  i am not a new blogger, but this is my first blog since being a momma.  in march i found out i was pregnant (completely unexpected) and i was already almost 5 months.  to say that i was kind of freaking out would be an understatement.  the second doctor appointment i found out i had an extremely short cervix, and could potentially go into labor at any moment, and was put into the hospital immediately to stay for 5 days.  i was then put on bed-rest, and had to stay that way for the rest of my pregnancy.  because of a heart condition i have had since birth, i was watched even closer.  but good news, the pregnancy went well, and i was induced on July 15th.  at 11:30pm that monday, my boyfriend, Tim, and i welcomed our wonderful baby girl, Zoey Michelle.  she was beautiful (still is) and perfectly healthy.  you could not imagine my relief.  since that little ball of joy made her appearance, my life has been one huge change.  we moved back to my hometown from Cary so that we could be closer to family and so that we could have free daycare ;), which is wayyy too expensive if i might add.  i have been working from home full time since she was 6weeks old, and tomorrow is my last day at the firm because they could not be flexible when it came to travel expectations.  but to be honest, i don't think i would change one thing.  we have a wonderful baby girl who makes me smile every time i look at her and we are close to family who cannot stay away from her!  life will for sure be different moving forward, and things will be tough, but knowing that i have a family who cares and a daughter who smiles no matter what and a boyfriend who fills my heart with love, i don't think life will be that bad/hard.  

so that is a little background about me.  i will be using this blog to talk about some of the things i have experienced since my wonderful daughter, and somethings that i now consider differently because of her.  this is all about seeing life through a new set of eyes.  i will try not to make this too much of a momma blog, but i will be talking about her and momma issues quite frequently! hope you all enjoy!

just saying....

so.......

i'm not sure if you all have been watching the conventions this week and last, but i have and i have a huge bone to pick with both conventions.  firstly, i must say to the republicans - if you do not have the evangelical, catholic vote, i don't know what is wrong. you all preach and preach and preach, but what you are forgetting is that not everyone worships god, not everyone believes god exists, and not everyone worships the same god(s). when you endorse one religion (christianity), you are in turn leaving other religions out - and that is just not the american way to do things. also, based on the constitution it REALLY isn't the american way to do things. it seems republicans have forgot about that whole separation of church and state. i don't think anything is wrong with being religious and having your own beliefs, but when they do start to infringe on mine, and other voters, that is when i have a problem. throughout the RNC, religious rhetoric was spoken of constantly, and it has been used in several debates and discussions this election cycle. i think we get it - the american voters understand that the republican party is christian, and the values of the party is based on christian values. we get it, so you can stop hammering the bible and god in our faces. and trust me, this is not a blog only hating on the republican party. i was so happy when i heard that 'god' was not mentioned once in the democratic platform i posted it all over social media networks. i thought finally, my party is standing up for those who aren't christian and keeping the church and state separated. but to no avail the democratic party could not take the heat. so yesterday during the convention they motioned to amend the platform and add 'god' (and jerusalem) back in there. but the funny thing is, it didnt sound like the delegates wanted it back in there - but that wasnt going to fly - this is america isnt it (a christian nation)? wrong. america is not a christian nation. america does have the highest number of religious followers of all the developed nations, but the joy of america is that MANY religions exist here. there is a percentage of christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, and nonbelievers. this nation was not founded on christian principles. many of the founding fathers were not religious and they believed that religions were to be kept separate from the government. and that thought even made it into the constitution. this country is a melting pot of people and religions. i dont want a christian making religious law anymore than i want an atheist making a nonreligious law. religion should be a private matter - not one that graces the law books and forms policy. both parties really disappoint me on this matter. the republicans truly need to lay off the religious rhetoric and stop alienating those who arent christians. and if the democrats want to preach that everyone can worship their own god, then take religion out of the platform or speak of it in a way that does not specifically mention god.

anyway. sorry for that rant. i will link the video from the dnc below.

thanks for reading everyone :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg (this is just a youtube video but if you are interested in the actual article, i think i read the story on CNN)

pro-choice vs anti-choice

At a time when abortion and rape is being discussed heavily on TV news stations, you would think someone would say something of some substance.  The best comment I have heard is “rape is rape.”  Yes, rape is rape.  Rape is rape whether it is ‘forcible’ or whether it occurs when the woman, OR MAN, is under some sort of sedative or date rape drug.  Rape is rape.  It marks the victim, and that victim will NEVER forget the traumatic experience of being violated in such a way.  But what happens when you add a child into that equation?  Sen. Akin and whoever else wants to say that pregnancy cannot occur from rape can pick up a book or go and speak to rape survivors and find out very quickly it can happen.  Just because every rape does not result in pregnancy does not mean it doesn’t happen.  So for a woman who was not only raped but did get pregnant, how is she supposed to be okay with bringing that man’s child into this world?  How in the world do you think she could look at that child daily?  Not only that, but is she to be a single mother – and how is she supposed to be able to request child support if she does not know who the attacker was?  Well, let me help all of you out there – keep abortion legal for rape and incest victims.  Why are you going to punish the victim by making them carry a child to term that they don’t want, that they cannot fully take care of, and that they cannot even look in the face?  If a woman feels that an abortion is the best thing to do in this situation, who is Senator Todd Akin to tell her she is wrong?  Along the same lines, who is anyone to tell a woman that an abortion is not the right thing to do? 

I heard a comment the other day that frankly pissed me off.  There was a man on some news station that said something along the line about “pro-abortionist” and that they were going to start chanting about it again, or something.  But the word stuck out to me like a sore thumb.  First off, I would say that I don’t know anyone who would consider themselves pro-abortion.  Granted, I think science’s development of safer abortions and the ability to have them is a great thing – but I would never say I was pro-abortion.  (And if that is the name ‘pro-choicers’ are going to be called then “pro-life” no longer exists; you will be known as ‘anti-choice.’  Because that is what this debate is about.)  The argument around abortion should be about having the choice to take the fetus out of your body before the pregnancy term is over.  No woman is going to have an abortion without all of the information, and no legitimate doctor will perform one without giving all of the necessary information.  The religious argument surrounding abortion should not even be discussed at a public level – that is a private decision.  If you think that having an abortion is murder, don’t have one.  Don’t tell me that I cannot make my own decision to have an abortion and don’t tell me I’m going to be religiously punished for it.  The religious debate needs to be taken out of abortion and the political scene altogether.  The right to an abortion has everything to do with choice, and any person who says that a woman cannot have an abortion is taking away her right to choose what she wants to do with something that is in her body.

Long story short, abortion is about choice.  It is about a decision a woman makes that has to do with her body.  The decision is made after consultations with her doctor and typically her boyfriend/husband/family/friends.  The last time I checked, a woman does not consult the government or her state senator to get an abortion – she asks those who would be affected by the decision.  So, Todd Akin and the rest of the GOP who thinks it is okay to speak so ignorantly about rape and abortion need to stop thinking that they can control women and their ability to make decisions for themselves.  Women are capable of putting together facts and statistics and considering their life to make a smart decision regarding abortion.  Abortion should not even be written into the law books – it should be about a decision made between a woman and her doctor – the federal government should have NO jurisdiction in a private hospital room.

I’m done.

non-religious voters: speak up or get ready for theocracy.

Calling all non-religious voters…Where are all the non-religious voters?  At a time when religion seems to be the driving factor in almost every single social issue, you would think someone speaking on behalf of the non-religious would speak up.  But they aren’t.  Not saying that the non-religious are quiet, they aren’t, but they don’t spout about their lack of religion.  What do I mean?  How many people arguing for pro-choice have on their poster “I’m an atheist, I support choice!”  You show me the sign, I will change my mind.  However, how often do you see the sign “God doesn’t support killing, be pro-life!”  The same goes for the issue of gay marriage, stem cell research, and not surprisingly the separation of church and state.  It seems that people who hold certain stances on issues because of a religious reason ONLY have it because of religion – yet, you see more often than not non-religious voters/people hold stances based on many different reasons.  (Granted I am over-simplifying a very complex topic, these observations are still relevant).  To someone who enjoys studying religion and does not practice any faith, it is striking to see how much religion currently influences the decisions and thoughts of everyday people and politicians/lawmakers; yet for some reason the lack of religion is rarely spoken of.

In all the data and polls I have ever saw, those identifying as non-religious make up about 14 to 16 percent of the population, but according to a recent Gallup poll, the non-religious make up about 30 percent of the registered voters (Gallup 7/2012).  Please contain your astonishment, because I was just as shocked that the number was that high; also forewarning the number may be that high because it might be exclusively looking at white voters – the report was unclear.  This measure of religion is based on the importance of religion in their daily lives and also religious attendance (Gallup 7/2012).  Gallup also linked the lack of religion with a few other demographics.  Accordingly, those who are non-religious tend to be younger, unmarried, and vote more prevalently for Obama (Gallup 7/2012).  (Please take a look at the data obtained in argument for what Gallup is proposing.)  I would even go as far to make the claim that geography has just as much of a pull on the effects of a voter’s religion or lack thereof.  I don’t think it is any big surprise to see a religious divide between the south and the northeast – that is pretty much common sense.  Those in the south, particularly in the ‘Bible Belt’, tend to vote more conservatively and Republican, but you could even argue that the area is more rural, traditional, and just plain older.  In states where there are more cities and that are more urban, you are much more likely to see young, college students, unmarried, and more liberal voters – that is just how it goes. 

HuffingtonPost looked at the most and least religious cities in May of this year and not surprisingly Salt Lake City, Utah was the most religious at an astounding 74 percent (surprised, I’m not?) (HuffingtonPost 5/2012).  To be honest, I thought Salt Lake City would be relatively higher than just a measly 74 percent, but whateves.  The cities were kind of all over the map, but some of the higher percentages were from the south, particularly in the ‘Bible Belt’.  Portland, Oregon was the least religious that Huffington mentioned, at 31,591 religious adherents to every 100,000 people (Huffington Post 5/2012).  And just to tie the two points together, according to the CNN election map, not surprisingly Romney has Utah, and Oregon seems to be voting Obama.  Also, minus North Carolina (who isn’t firmly Romney, but leaning) and Florida (toss up like always), the south is supporting Romney.  The northeast, with an exception for New Hampshire (which is a toss up ) is for the  most part supporting Obama (CNN).  So, I do think that geographical location should be a demographic variable used when looking at religion and voting for a specific party as well, because these non-religious voters are attracted to certain areas for a reason.  But, just as Gallup states at the end of this release, this religion divide is not new unique to Obama, but is typically visible where the non-religious vote does tend to sway more with the Democratic candidate (Gallup 7/2012).

Okay, so now we know where all of you non-religious voters are hiding, why are you, as a resource, not being tapped in to?  Why are there no programs set up to improve your life?  There are no private schools to encourage non-religious thinkers.  No well-known lobbyists vying for non-religious institutions or laws.  But you know what, that is testament (ironic word I know) to what non-religious believers stand for – or at least I think so.  Myself, being non-religious, believe that everyone should have an open opportunity not based on their religion.  A politician should not be judged based on their religion but their qualifications for the job at hand; their experience, their knowledge of other cultures, their defense knowledge – not their ability to say a good prayer or go to church every Sunday.  Accordingly, a child should not get a different education or one that does not display all of the facts and theories just because of some religious rhetoric.  Also, religion should not be the basis of the laws that go on the books in this country.  Even though according to Reuters, a poll showed last year around November, “that two-thirds of Americans  believe that it is important for a presidential candidate to have strong religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are different than their own” (Reuters).  However, you see the numbers sway a bit when you ask about a Muslim candidate or a Mormon candidate – solely based on their religion.  But here is the question, are people just confused about religion – I mean it seems that way to me.  They want a religious president and yet, in this country, we are constitutionally contracted to not produce religious laws.  But in reality, religion drives almost every single conservative argument, but the liberal argument rarely mentions religion – speaking social issues. 

I think it is about time for the non-religious voters to get just as much media hype as the religious ones.  I want to see some good, non-religious candidates that can run on issues without bringing up the stupid religion arguments.  Face it, not all of us believe that a god created us, not all of us believe that it is a ‘sin’ for same-sex marriage, some of us want to learn about all theories of creation not just the bible version, not all of us believe it is a ‘sin’ to use birth control and contraceptives, and for christ sake, not all of us believe that America is god’s country.  We are all Americans, and that is something we should unite over – we should not be divided by the one thing that differentiates us all from one another, religion.  Non-religious voters want jobs and a booming economy just like those who are religious, so stop shouting your morals and shoving useless bible quotes down our throats, we don’t care.  Politicians who have their religion taped to their forehead and cannot make a statement without quoting the bible is more than likely not going to get a non-religious voters vote.  Keep in mind, granted this news article is a little dated, but the non-religious percentage in the U.S. is growing, and already surpasses some of the most well-known religions and is quickly approaching Catholicism (USA Today).  I think it is about time to realize that the least recognized minority is quickly growing, and yet no politician is seemingly evolving to meet their needs.  It is time to stop ignoring the non-religious and bantering towards the radical religious right.  This is America where religion is supposed to be something we do behind closed doors not printed in the law-books, so how about we take the step and get it out of our decision making process before this country is turned into a theocracy.  

Gallup. 7/2012. http://pollingmatters.gallup.com/2012/07/religiosity-remains-huge-predictor-of.html

Huffington Post. 5/2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/most-and-least-religious-cities_n_1522644.html

CNN. Politics. 2012 Electoral Map. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battleground

Reuters. 11/2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/08/us-usa-campaign-religion-survey-idUSTRE7A748N20111108

USA Today. 9/2009. http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-09-22-no-religion_N.htm