So, Who Gets To Wear the Pants?

It’s no secret in the Mormon community what has recently been put in the spotlight as the issue of the moment: women wearing pants to church.  To most people outside of the LDS church, this question seems ridiculous and out of date, to say the least.  Inside the church, it gets more complicated than it really needs to be.  There is no doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints that says women must wear skirts to church.   The council that was given was for members to wear their “Sunday Best” to church on the Sabbath.  By doctrine alone, it is evident that there is nothing wrong with women choosing to wear pants to church if they feel that is the best they have.  There is no doctrine that says skirts are better than pants for women to wear.  Even with that being the case, why has it brought up such a tumultuous rift in the culture of the church?  There seems to be culturally implied reasons as to why women should not wear skirts to church.

I am a Mormon feminist.  There, I said it.  I have been saying that for quite some time now and am still waiting to be struck by lightning for it (but I won’t hold my breath).  I have done much research and do much reading on the topic of feminism and considering the fact I go to church every week and am an active member of the LDS church, I think about feminism in relation to the gospel virtually every single day because I view both subjects as important in my life.  It’s important to define what feminism is, since everyone appears to have different and incorrect definitions of the term.  Feminism is a very open ended topic and has much room for interpretation and different schools of thought within itself.  However, it can be boiled down to this: feminism holds the belief that women are equal to men and should be treated as such; if you believe women deserve equal rights, you are a feminist.  That’s it.  It’s a simplistic way of viewing the field of thought but that is what lies at its core.  It doesn't necessarily mean that you are a lesbian, liberal, man-hating, boner-killing, Satan-worshipping, God-hating butch woman (although there are feminists who fit that category, but that’s a story for another day).  It means you believe a woman should have the right to make their own choices using their own agency and have their own rights equal to that of everyone else in their society.

Jesus is a feminist. Did that just blow your mind?  I beg you to try and disagree with that.  There is no way the Saviour would ever condone the subjugation and oppression of women nor would he ever attempt to make any woman feel inferior to anyone for any reason.  He preached about love, charity, faith, equality, and tolerance, to name a few; He would not condone the kinds of ideology that support oppression of anyone and therefore, he is a feminist.  (Still waiting on that bolt of lightning…)

So now that we know what feminism really is and that women are in fact allowed to wear pants to church, what is all the fuss really about?  Many say it stems from unrighteous female pride and bitterness in the hearts of the women of the church who don’t truly understand the reasons for them not being permitted to hold an office of the priesthood.  If that’s the only conclusion you can come to as an observer of this issue, then you don’t really understand the issue.  Those who have prayed, pondered, researched, and received personal revelation about the church would know that the organization of the priesthood within the church is divinely appointed by the Lord and that just because men have the priesthood and women don’t, that in no way makes women second-class citizens.  There are countless scriptures and modern day revelations that state repeatedly that men and women are “equally yoked” and the priesthood is in no way to be used as a tool of subjugation and superiority but it is to be used for service.  I am no less of a member because I don’t have the priesthood; the office of the priesthood one holds does not increase their value as a human being.  Men and women have different responsibilities but neither is more important than the other.  This issue of what women can wear to church, and gender inequality in the church on a larger scale, can and will be discussed without reference to the priesthood because it is so much bigger than that. 

We have already established that there is no doctrinal reason that women can’t wear pants to church.  That reason is purely culturally constructed.  We live in a society that conditions us to believe that skirts are what women wear when they want to look nice and pants are for more casual occasions.  There is no real foundation in logic as to why this is true, it is only true in our culture because we have all decided to accept it as truth.  This concept of gender performativity (i.e. how men and women fashion themselves to look and act like “real men” and “real women”) is largely arbitrary and subjective.  We as a society have taken it to such great extents as to believe that what people wear is indicative of who they are as a person.  The Saviour would not want us judging people based solely on their physical appearance and he would never think of us as “less manly” or “less womanly” based on what we chose to wear.

So if what I choose to wear does not make me less of a person, then it can’t make me any more or less worthy of receiving the blessings of keeping the commandments of the gospel.  “Hmm… this whole idea of social constructs is really breaking down much of what I thought I knew”, said almost everyone when they hear about how cultures notions are constructed by the people who inhabit them.  So to understand our ways of operating, we need to look into our ways of thinking about how we operate.

A large portion of responses to this issue have been less kind, understanding, and compassionate than they should be considering we as members of the LDS church claim to worship God and his Son, Jesus Christ; if we claim to believe those things and we covenanted at baptism to take upon us the name of Christ, then the kind of responses experienced are really counter-productive.  It’d be helpful to look at why so many would respond in such a hostile, aggressive manner over something that, as stated previously, should 

not  technically be an issue.

The main way to maintain hegemonic control of any society or any group of people is through “othering”, which is making a distinction between the self and those who do things we do not want to associate with our self and are thus categorized as undesirable and inappropriate attributes to have.  The best way to get people to do what you want is to brand the opposite choice as something bad and vilify those who do not conform to how you feel they should be acting.  This is not a concept originating from or specific to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, this is how societies all over the world function to varying degrees.  The church as an entity would not condone this kind of action and hostility towards others, the gospel of Christ preaches about charity and love towards everyone despite whether you agree with their own personal choices or not and yet the people of the church cannot escape the societies in which they were raised.  People are social constructs of their environments and therefore because people grew up in a world where false ideologies run rampant and pervade every aspect of thinking, those people then bring that way of thinking into the church; even though those ideas are not inherent in the gospel of Christ, the members of the church still have those archaic and inaccurate ways of thinking. 

People tend to get upset when you tell them that why they think what they think is not really true.  This happens for a number of reasons.  People fear the unknown and most often prefer not to question things or dig too deeply for answers.  In order to combat that fear, they say that people who question the status quo in ways like wearing pants to church are being contentious, defiant, or they don’t really have faith in the same way or to the same extent as the people who don’t question.  That is also untrue; the scriptures and modern-day revelation tell us that we are to ask the Lord if the things we learn are true and we can receive answers.  We have never been encouraged to passively accept everything the General Authorities tell us, we need to come to our own conclusions.  By having conclusions that are different from someone else’s, people often find their faith and testimonies shaken when their reasons for why they think something don’t match up to those of their fellow members.  This begs the question of whether they really knew what they believed in the first place which is also a story for another day.  It is sufficient to say that vilifying others who choose to use their agency differently than we do is a common way of trying to maintain hegemonic control because it is much easier to control a group of people who don’t ask than ones who do.  Let me clarify here, the church encourages members to question and search out answers while our society enforces the opposite. 

Another response to this movement is one of neither support nor opposition; there are many who say that while there are valid points on gender inequality in the church, that this is not the way to go about discussing it.  To that I pose the question, where would you suggest this be brought up and how should it be done?  There are no perfect ways of navigating issues that are so subjective and personal but I can tell you one thing, responding with hate and anger and shaming of the other party is not how the Saviour would have done it. 

The most important thing to remember in this issue is the separation between church doctrine and church policy.  It is church policy that men wear white dress shirts to church but it’s not doctrine; my husband wore a grey and white checkered shirt with a waistcoat and suit pants last Sunday and let me tell you, he looked a lot better than some who showed up in oversized, un-ironed shirts and pants who looked sloppy and like they just rolled out of bed.  You tell me which one wore their “Sunday best”.  The same goes for women.  There are many new moms who show up in church with their hair pulled back in a sloppy ponytail, they are wearing a t shirt and a casual skirt and flip flops (which we have been asked not to wear to church) because they are worn out.  If I had a high quality, well-tailored pant suit (which I plan to have a few of one day) I would absolutely wear it to church and would look more put together than many other women who dress out of habit rather than purpose.  I am not judging the people who do go to church who match the above descriptions, I don't really care what you wear to be honest, it has no effect on my life whatsoever.  I am trying to shed light on the fact that you can’t just target one group of people when the same criticism can be extended to many. 

There are many other points on gender inequality that are based in the culture of the church and not in its doctrine.  Women who serve in presidencies of auxiliaries are most often called “Sister (insert last name here)” which is the same title they have even when they are not serving in higher callings, while the men in leadership positions are called “President (insert last name here)” instead of "Brother (insert last name here)" as they are when they are not serving in higher callings.  There is no reason why a sister cannot have the title of President if they are called to a presidency; it shows respect for the calling and the person asked to fill it just as it would for a man.  Women are also typically confined to the callings of the Primary organization to work with the children and then the other two auxiliaries designed for women, the Young Women’s organization and the Relief Society organization.  There are women who are called to be gospel doctrine teachers but the ratio of male to female teachers is heavily weighted to one side (guess which side I’m inferring).  There is no doctrinal reason why women cannot serve in any calling that is not directly related to the office of the priesthood.  The organization of the Relief Society was supposed to be a self-organized and self-governing body in charge of humanitarian aid and the welfare of fellow women in the ward that was to be run by women.  Nowadays, “Super Saturdays” where sisters do nothing but sit around and make pointless crafts and shoot the proverbial breeze all day was probably not what the prophet Joseph Smith had in mind for the organization.  Those days could be used for workshops on self-improvement, applicable life skills, and personal development, but instead they are about making things like wreaths and quilts which are 2 things I could not care any less about.  There is little autonomous authority left in the organization, as I see it, and it tends to ostracize more than include.  Case and point: the response to this issue being raised by fellow women was completely attacking the other side by sisters in the organization who should have been kinder and more understanding but instead participated in internalized misogyny (it's a useful term, look it up and remember it).

My intent with this piece was to clarify the situation of what it really means for women to wear pants to church. In essence, it means nothing; it should mean nothing, anyway.  Wearing pants has no impact on personal worthiness to participate in the blessings of the gospel.  There is gender inequality in the church that stems from social constructs and not from doctrine of the church.  Voicing concerns of this inequality through wearing pants does not make the women who participated any less of a woman nor does it diminish their standing within the church; it is in no way indicative of their own personal testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ, it is a separate concern that needs to be addressed.  Questioning how things are run is not a sign of weakness or aggression but is something we should all try to do more often; try to question more of what you think you know in order to find out more of what you didn’t know. Ya know?  Productive, righteous, positive change is where we all want to be going and maybe between all of us, we can get there.  

You Find Out Who Your Friends Are

So this one time I got married.....

WEIRD. I know.  Weird for me too but yet it's more awesome than it is weird.  Brett and I still look at each other and say "remember that time we got married?!" and laugh about it.  I never thought I'd be 21 and married but it's the best choice I've made so far.  2 weeks and still together, we've outlasted a lot of other marriages already.

The wedding day was great, extremely overrated but great.  Everything went smoothly and according to the relatively loose plan.  There wasn't much of a plan to go according to but still went well, sidefact I was freezing cold standing up there trying to listen to Bishop Erikson. Bleck.  Still had a smile on my face though.

After the evening reception, Brett and I drove to our basement suite in Calgary and on the way we were able to vent our feelings about whatever went on that day.  We were both really disappointed in the turnout in terms of people who decided we were important enough to them to come see and say hi and congratulate us because they are our friends.  It was hard to have sent out so many invitations to our personal friends, having gone out of our way to hand deliver many of them and have people confirm to our face that they would be there anbd then to have those same people not show up was really frustrating.  I'm not saying I wanted all of southern Alberta to show up but it would have been nice if the people who said they'd be there were there.  I can count on one hand the number of our personal friends who showed up to the Raymond reception.

We did have many families and relatives and such show up which was really nice of them to do so but in terms of our peers, it was disappointing.  I understand that there are a few receptions every weekend in southern Alberta but you need to think about it from the view of the people actually getting married who clearly thought about you when they gave you an invitation.  Yes our wedding was in Raymond which is about 25 minutes away from Lethbridge but really that is not that far; tons of people drive that on a daily basis so that is not an excuse.

I didn't expect everyone to drop everything and come to our reception.  I realize that everyone has their own lives (none of which are as important as mine but that is not the point I suppose) but when you tell me that you are going to be there then I don't think it is too bold of me to expect you to be there when you looked me in the eye and said you would attend. 

One of the really difficult things to take in is the fact that I had many people who I wished with all my heart could have been at the wedding but were unable to make it because of distance or because of legal regulations and the possibility of having to go to Guantanamo Bay for attempting to come to my wedding (which is a pretty sweet story if you think about it...) but for whatever reason, many people who are dear to both Brett and I were not able to make it regardless of what they tried so to have people who easily could have made it but yet did not come is really hurtful and inconsiderate.  If you received an invite from us, clearly you are important to us and we wanted you to be there but by not showing up you showed that we are not important enough for you.  Thanks kids.

The same can be applied with the reception we had in Kelowna.  I don't understand how people can tell me to my face that they are coming and then NOT come.  I have repeated that phrase many times in this post because I still can't wrap my head around it.  I mean, my dad was in a car accident the night before the wedding and showed up the next day with a cracked knee cap and a bruised tendon in his hand (the one he shakes other people's hand with by the way) and he was still there and didn't complain about it.  HE would have had a pass for not showing up unlike those who just chose to sit at home in their underwear eating cheetos and watching How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days or whatever you were wearing/eating/watching that night instead of coming and saying hi to your friends. 

In closing, I hope those of you who skipped out on my receptions feel like crap because we sure did when none of our friends showed up to support us.  And I guess the joke's on you because it was lovely even without you so there! *insert 5 year old sticking out tongue face here*.

Banff was beautiful, the hotel was really nice and had a great bathroom and had his and her sinks and a steam shower and all that jazz.  The weather couldn't've been better either.  We went on a few walks downtown and along the river and went out to dinner and it was really nice.  I'm glad we went somewhere we can revisit as often as time and money permits. 

We really appreciate all the well wishes, the gifts, the time and effort and everything else everyone contributed to help us and we are very grateful to everyone who helped put it together.  We are so happy together; it makes the 8 months of a long distance relationship worth every mile on the road, every hour in a vehicle, every lonely day worth it. 

Now that all the craziness is over and a different kind of craziness of life is about to begin, I will be able to write more posts for your favourite blog of all time! (I'm referring to this blog in case you were thinking of another one...)

Allison Jensen, over and out.
PS I am really good at signing my new name.

Educate Yourself

With the election coming up, I have decided to be a responsible citizen and read about all the party platforms and to genuinely consider the pros and cons of each.  I encourage everyone to do the same because it's our civil duty to learn about what is going on in the politics of our country.  People all over the world would literally kill to have to opportunity to vote so it's not something that can be taken lightly.

So in my due diligence, I went to the 3 main party website: www.conservative.ca, www.liberal.ca and www.ndp.ca in order to check out what all these old farts are talking about in terms of bettering my country in their respectful opinions.

The Conservative party page seemed to be a whole lot of hot air really.  A large ambiguous list of vague goals and ideals is found under their platform.  I found that most things on the list lacked direction and were simply statements of how to treat Canadians which are inarguable points considering most people can agree about freedom of speech and religion and worship and the like.  So already we are looking productive on the Tory front...

I feel Steven Harper has kinda fumbled the ball on this whole federal budget thing; I tried reading up on this topic but I got bored.  Before I quit reading I came to the conclusion that the general consensus is that Steve screwed the pooch on this one.  Having been found in contempt of parliament, he lacks my confidence as well as the confidence of the house apparently.  Failing to disclose a large portion of the allocated funds and poor allocation of the funds that were disclosed is pretty shady but I'm sure Harper will stand by his "I am not a crook" philosophy.  The point is: this whole fiasco has shaken my confidence and has caused me to look elsewhere for vote possibilities.

The NDP party's platform on their website was severely lacking and quite uninformative.  4 sets of 2 sentences is hardly a platform but apparently they find it sufficient to inform their followers.  Sounds a bit like blind faith to me.  Seems like they don't have a lot to stand on but are merely there as a back-up for the Liberals, like a little brother in a fight who actually wouldn't last 2 minutes in the first round on their own.  Or like a dog chasing a car, they wouldn't know what to do with it even if they caught it.

Ahhh the Liberals.  Their platform portion of their website was the only one that was at all comprehensive.  They had plenty of information, so much that it was divided into tabs and subsections!  Their IT staff must have really exercised their skills to set up those links.  But really, they were the only ones who seemed to have real ideas and a general direction in terms of goals and progression for Canada.  Who knows if they would actually DO something about those policies after being hypothetically elected but I guess that's the whole fun of this political gambling game. 

That's all well and good to know about what the party wants but that is only part of this whole political race.  The other part is about who will be the face of Canada.  Steve Harper is losing votes by the minute, every time someone reads an article about this whole budget blunder and seems to be a lot shadier than originally suspected, even for a politician. 

Jack Layton is the only candidate that I actually like as a person, he won my respect when he appeared on MuchMusic in his campaign for the last federal election while none of the other PM candidates bothered to show up so that proved to me that at least he acknowledges the young adult vote.  All the charm in the world is not going to bulk up your party with substance.

Throughout my research, I have found myself inclined to vote Liberal except for the fact that I cannot STAND Michael Ignatieff.  He seems like the greasiest, slimiest politician you could find and they chose to put him as the face.  He has a smug and arrogant look about him in every picture or commercial or interview I see him in.  I don't like his attitude and the air about him;  he seems to be doing this as a hobby and not because he genuinely cares about the Canadian public but is more so in it for self-interest.  He sounds to me like a pot stirrer with his whole coalition government threat which is an unheard of notion in the Canadian government.  Just because it is technically within the realm of possibility in parliament, does not mean you should do it.  It causes me to wonder about his motivations and to speculate about what other radical political movements he could possibly pursue if given the authority to do so.  If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's probably a duck; if it looks like a pedofile and talks like a politician, it's probably Michael Ignatieff.

I think one of the big reasons Barack Obama was voted into office was because he inspired people.  He made people care about politics again and he made them believe that they were significant.  Although he seems to be lacking in terms of fulfilling promises but what politician actually does what they say they will do?  That seems to be a concept too radical for even politics.  At least Obama showed people he had passion and showed the power of a shared vision. 

We need more people who are passionate and can inspire that passion in others, we need people who actually CARE and who make politics come alive.  Without this democracy, we would be nothing.  Too many people seem to be complacent about this whole process, both on the side of the voters and the side of the politicians.

So it boils down to this: who do you vote for when no one seems worth voting for?

The Story of a Girl

Once upon a time, I had no desire for any kind of serious relationship; I thought boyfriends and marriage were for squares (and they still are to some extent).

THEN I moved to Lethbridge and something was waiting for me that I did not take into account...

I met Brett playing volleyball with the YSA like they do every Tuesday and Thursday night.  I was "dating" someone else at the time (dating being an extremely loose term; a 5 day shelf life is hardly a relationship) but he was in Calgary for a bit.  Brett and some other people around and I would just joke on the sidelines and whatever and talk about who knows what.  Somehow we got talking about longboarding and how I love it but don't have a board and he said he has 2 and that I should go longboarding with him and his friend Steve the next day.  So we did.

Longboarding was super fun, I am not very good compared to Brett and Steve but it was fun and casual and we went back and played cards with Steve and his roommates.  (Yes I was the only girl and yes it was a little awkward).

So my pathetic excuse for a boyfriend comes back after a few days (after hardly talking to me at all) and he breaks up with me but still wants me to hang around that night and watch Nacho Libre (GREAT film by the way, I highly recommend it.).  So I did, feeling PAINFULLY awkward but Brett was there on the other side of the room and we would make jokes and laugh from all the way across the room because we are cool like that.

Not wanting to get a ride home with my now ex-lame-ass-boyfriend, I asked Brett for a ride home and talked with him a little about how I was feeling.  Over the next little while we would text and hang out and be cool and whatever and I would still complain about the douche who dumped me like a chump and Brett sent me a text that really caught me off-guard.  It talked about how I would always say I am tired of boys who are pansies and incapable of having competent relationships and he said "You always say you don't want somebody who is afraid. Well, I'm right here."

WOW. Wow. I did not expect that kind of honesty.  Especially considering I had noooo intention of having anything more than a friendship with him (and we were the bestest of friends), I did not have those kinds of feelings for him and I told him that and that I did not want a relationship. I just wanted to "do me" (shout out to Jersey Shore for the terminology) and have fun being single in a new city and stuff. 

So we continued to hang out, Brett and Dallas and I, and we decided to make a spur of the moment roadtrip to Kelowna to go to the beach and pick up the rest of my things from home.  My mom talked to me while the boys were outside/away from the conversation and said "....you do know Brett likes you right?" to which I replied "UGH! I know. I wish he would just....be...REGULAR and stop it." That's a direct quote.

So the next while passed, about 2 months, and we got closer and closer and it was as though we were dating without officially dating. I didn't want to date him because I didn't feel 100% invested in the romantic relationship and he deserved a girlfriend who was completely into it.  I told him I didn't see this relationship lasting or going anywhere (HA! joke's on me now...stupid Allison...) especially because he was moving to Edmonton for work so duh I'm not gonna sacrifice everything for a long distance relationship that I am not invested in.

Brett came down from Edmonton for Thanksgiving weekend and since I was not able to go home, I went with him to his family's Thanksgiving in Raymond and it was lovely.  When we got back to my house in Lethbridge and he was about to leave to go back to Edmonton, we were hugging and kissing goodbye (yes we kissed while we weren't dating. I'm probably going to hell, I know.) and he started to tear up and I was like what the heck is going on?  He said some really nice things about how badly he wanted a relationship with me and he was willing to do whatever it takes to make it work because he just wanted to be with me.  I told him I would think about it.

I was going up to Edmonton that following weekend with Alaya French, my homie (literally, I lived at her house), and I had decided I was going to tell him no but the more I convinced myself to say no, the more I felt I should say yes...

So I told him all my reservations and how I felt and was completely honest from the beginning and decided that he deserves for me to give it a real good try before writing him off.  I had told my roommate Kiera that I would genuinely give it my all until around Christmas and if I still felt it wasn't going anywhere then I would break up with him after that. 

So we started dating and things went great.  We went back to Kelowna for a fun roadtrip and things were great.  Brett drove down every weekend except the one right before the Kelowna trip.  I found myself missing him more and more and was surprised how much he was putting into this relationship; it made me feel really good.

December rolls around and I had the thought of "what if we were to get engaged?" and then proceeded to laugh at myself and shake off that ridiculous notion.  Then one day we were just chillin' on the couch in his parents' basement and talking about how I didn't want him to leave and he said "how would you feel if I never had to leave you again? Forever?" and I told him "I don't think I can answer that right now. That's not a fair question." and we proceeded to talk about it and I guess by the end of the conversation we had decided we were going to get married (though I'm not sure how we came to that decision haha...ha...).

It was really hard not telling people we were going to get married for the couple weeks before he actually proposed. I let it slip a few times to a few people because I am a terrible secret keeper :} oops.

The day of the proposal was December 11th (exactly 2 months after that fateful Thanksgiving day, about 4.5 months of being best friends).  On this day in history, I was in La Senza buying bras ( I know you wanted to know that) and Brett was out doing whatever (HE WAS GETTING THE RING! which I kind of knew but didn't really know. We had picked one out earlier so he knew which one to buy.)

We decided we were going to go talk to our old friend Jack Stone (he is 60+ years old and is Brett's best friend for real) and we stopped at Brett's friend Andrew's house who is Jack's son in law who happens to be Brett's best friend of 20 years, no big deal.  We tell him we are headed to Jack's and Andrew follows behind us. 

I sit in the kitchen with Jack's wife Janice and their daughter Candace who is Andrew's wife and we are just talking about whatever while Jack and Brett wander off which is typical of those two.  Jack asked Brett to help him set up lights in the backyard on their stone archway (HA. funny joke because it's out of bricks and their last name is Stone....haha....? Nevermind.) which I thought nothing of because they are best friends and always talk and chum it up and whatever.

So they come back in the house after a while and Jack says "Brett you should take Allison to go see the lights" and RIGHT then I knew it was going to happen so I am trying not to smile or shake out of anticipation and they give me a coat to wear because I didn't bring one because I wasn't planning on going outside to be proposed to.

So we trudge through snow literally up to my knees through the whole backyard because it's so convenient and warm out. Not. There is a single strand of red lights along the arch (it actually looks pretty lame) and we walk to the other side of the arch and there is a bin of chocolates from Jack and we eat one and I say "okay I'm freezing can we go back now?" because I love to unintentionally ruin the moment.  Brett walks me to the other side of the arch and the lights are bunched together in the form of a bouquet with cotton stuffed in it and the ring on top of it.

He took my hand and knelt down and asked me to marry him and I said yes!  And the rest is soon to be history :)

The more I thought about the idea of marrying him and the more I allowed myself to be able to just love him and get out of my own way, the better I felt and the stronger the feelings got and I feel it is the best choice of my life (which is interesting considering the other choices I have made over the course of my days haha).  but seriously, he is more than I ever could have asked for.  He is such a sweetheart and so cute and kind and patient.  He never worries and I worry enough for the both of us.  He is my best friend and my everything and I just love him and can't wait to be with him forever.



Okay I had to do at least ONE cheesy post so there you go.

That Don't Impress Me Much

The artwork at my school falls under one of 3 categories, all of which are not very good:

- abstract
- pornography
- abstract pornography

It seems like it's a game to see what new pieces of offensive artwork you are going to find on the 8th floor of the Fine Arts building while you are on your way to class.  This is the 3rd "exhibition" I guess we can call it of offensive and pornographic artwork displays that I have noticed this year, actually this semester it just started.  In reaction to the first display, many LDS students signed a petition to remove the artwork and relocate it to a private spot within the Fine Arts department, away from being in plain view of the entire student body.

You would think that would be the end of it.  False.  There has been 2 other displays since then that are equally as obsene as the first.  I am baffled as to why they continue to put up these pieces even after many responses of disgust were put forth from the student body.  There is nothing artistic about drawing penises and buttholes and taking pictures of people with large blowup penises and happy expressions on their faces. What a way to celebrate International Women's Day.  Really classy kids, really classy.

What in heaven's name do you hope to achieve by putting up displays like that?  You want attention? CLEARLY.  Clearly no one was thinking about what those pictures are actually saying about the people in them.  Contrary to the image of being liberal, non-conformist, stick-it-to-the-man badass, don't care what other people say hipsters, you actually look ridiculous.  What are you going to say when 30 years down the road, your kids see those pictures?  Can you show those pictures to your grandmother?  You think you are making such a big statement about society but really you are making a bigger statement about yourself that you have no class and no respect for yourself or for other people. 

If you want to express yourself through art and choose to do things like that, that is your choice but do not push that onto the unwilling public.  I do not pay through the nose to go to school to see a huge penis in my face as I am trying to get to class.  Take that offensive material somewhere else because nobody wants to see it.  GROW UP.  Drawing penises isn't funny anymore.

Ceci n'est pas un blog.

So this is supposed to be a "blog" of some sort.

Why did I start a blog? It seemed like a good idea at the time.  I feel I have some things to say that are worth listening to. Also I enjoy a good bandwagon ride every now and again.  I am a little upset that iamawesome.blogspot.com was taken by a little 15 year old girl from New Jersey. Rude.

I feel like this blog will at times be very profound and insightful and at other times be very sarcastic and irreverent. I mean irrelevant. I really have no vision for this blog other than one of occasionally saying something worthwhile to whomever decides they have nothing better to do than to read my awesome blog.  Sometimes there will be a specific purpose and topic for posts while other times posts will have nothing to do with anything.  The latter style of posts may or may not be more amusing, depending on who's reading it.  Example: this post.

Allison 101: Crash Course

- I am awesome.

The End.

Allison 102: A Little More In Depth (but not too deep. that's what she said.)

I like to think about bigger concepts and ideas and universal themes.  Even though in real life I tend to be very random and I like to be goofy and amusing, many people are surprised at the wealth of wisdom and knowledge and advice I have.  Contrary to the blonde hair stereotype, I am actually really smart.  I can't do math to save my life but I am good with words and language and eloquently expressing myself. If I could be paid to give my advice and my opinion, that would be my ideal job.  Actually I want to be paid to sing but that won't happen so I'm going to school because I enjoy inflicting pain on myself apparently.

So I suppose this blog will be a lot of my opinions about whatever I hear or see is going on and feel the need to comment.  I promise not to be lame.

Also I will come up with a catchphrase but I don't have one yet.