I thought I’d try Beeminder out. The website is all tools and configuration options, so I made a throwaway goal to play with the site. I’m not good about brushing my teeth before bed. This would make a convenient testing goal, I thought. This will totally be easy. Really.

Beeminder is all about goal-tracking. You set yourself a goal, anything measurable. Your first few goals are free – throwaway goals for you to play with the site. Later on you pledge real money, entering in your credit card number. But you aren’t charged at that point. You’re never charged until you fall off your goal.

The first part of the graph, where the yellow goal band is flat, is my free week, where I’m not racing anything and can build a head start. After that it rises are a rate of 5 per week. I thought, well I’ll get well ahead of the goal band and then have an easy time. But I didn’t get quite as far ahead as I’d expected. For the next two weeks I did worse than I expected. The goal crept up on me. Until now, and I’m back on the goal line, and kind of surprised with myself. I’m pretty confident it says something about human psychology or wobster psychology or something.

It’s rough being an atheist. If friends say to me, God loves you, they are “brave”. They are “standing up for their beliefs”. And when I respond that I can’t believe things without evidence, I’m “mean” and “disrespectful”. I can’t imagine suggesting to anyone that they skip church for a week and read secular literature with me – I’d instantly be accused of pushing my non-faith on others. But if I don’t want to read someone else’s 500-page holy book or attend their church, suddenly I’m the “closed-minded” one.

After a recent conversation with a religious friend, I was called a “fanatic”. I had given the reasons I personally did not believe in his holy book. I never tried to change his mind about his own holy book, never told him he shouldn’t believe it. He was the one who tried to change my mind, and also the one who started the conversation. Somehow I’m the fanatic.

I’m tired of it, tired of the double-standard. I wish people would treat my non-faith with the same respect they treat others’ faiths.

I very much hate to read the comments section of any article where a school has removed the ten commandments. I think it’s a great step forward for the school, but the comments sections are such revolting loads of ignorance. “What’s wrong with telling kids not to kill?” they ask. “Why can’t we teach kids morals?” So, once and for all, here is what’s wrong.

There is nothing wrong with don’t kill, don’t steal. Those are fine. Those are also irrelevant, distracting questions, cherry-picked to pretend it’s an issue of teaching good behavior. The most important things come first, and what comes first?

It is not clear which set is “canon” and in what order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments#Enumeration_of_the_Ten_Commandments), but the plurality of sources seems to be:
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honour thy father and thy mother.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
10. Thou shalt not covet.
(I’ve bolded the problematic ones.)

Any schoolchild knows that the ten commandments are a Christian thing. Any schoolchild knows they refer to the Christian god. And in schools, Truth itself is written on the classroom walls.

When I was in elementary school, I had a friend who was a practicing Hindu. One day when I was at her house, I picked up a little figurine of a Hindu god from her shelf. She was upset with me, and I realized that her gods meant a great deal to her.

You can’t tell a little Hindu schoolchild to hold the Christian god first (commandment 1). That is her religious freedom, and no one can tell her otherwise. You can’t tell her not to have graven images (commandment 2). Different religions worship differently. Some cultures use graven images of their gods, and their idols are important to them. The Christian god is not “the Lord thy God” to everyone. Sometimes parents have to work weekend jobs to support their children (commandment 4), and there is nothing wrong with that. Little kids have no idea what “adultery” is (commandment 7). Or for that matter, what “covet” means.

Schools are the very Halls of Truth, and schools teach things like reading and math. They don’t teach religion because that is up to the child and the family. The alphabet goes on school walls, as do multiplication tables and the water cycle, and perhaps the spelling words of the week. Those are what is true and correct. Kids should learn those things on the walls and remember them. If you put the Christian commandments on the walls, you are saying that they are true and correct things all kids should learn. At least four of them are not.

By all means put the rest of them on the wall if you want, but don’t associate them with Christianity or the Bible. Here’s a modified version (made to be clear to small kids) that anyone can use:
1. Be nice to each other. Don’t hurt people.
2. Don’t take things that aren’t yours.
3. Be honest. Don’t tell lies.
4. Don’t be jealous of your classmates’ things.
5. Respect your parents, classmates, and teachers.

Aren’t these better? These can be in schools, and I’d guess no one, atheist or otherwise, would have any problem with them.

P.S. Another common thing: “exposure to religions and cultures is good for kids.” This doesn’t apply unless you have a whole wall of things from lots of religions!

Recently, I’ve seen a few articles about women and families. About how women were told they could have children and careers, and excel in both. I’ve seen it presented that it’s impossible.

I agree that it’s impossible to be a fully involved in both parenting and career. You only have so many hours in a day. All the same, it feels like a sucky choice. Like I get two so-so options to choose from, and the option I really want is. . . nowhere?

So I was very angry to run into this comment on the internet.

This needs to be said more often. The mommy mafia wants you to believe that mothers can “have it all” and they create myths such as the so-called “pay gap”. Jones is absolutely correct- if you CHOOSE to have a child and don’t choose your career, you will fall behind in your career.  
 
Less work = less pay. Yet the mommies want us to believe this is a gap. Breeding is a choice, not an absolute. It’s time that we stop giving any credibility to people that try to make us believe they are entitled to something because of their choice.

So here’s how it works. You have two children, a son and a daughter. They both want to play soccer, and they both want to learn piano. You say to your son, ok, you can do both. You say to your daughter, no, you need to wash dishes, clean the house, do laundry, and make dinner, so you only have time for one hobby. Soccer or piano, pick one.

How unfair is that?

And if your little daughter tries anyways, she’ll fall behind your son in soccer, tired from her chores and without adequate time to practice. Then you say, well that proves it. Girls just can’t have both soccer and piano for hobbies. She chose to take piano, so it’s her fault she doesn’t have time to practice soccer.

How unfair is that?

We generally don’t expect our men to choose between careers and family. They can be fathers and executives, all at the same time. But that’s not because their children magically don’t need care; someone else is doing it for them. Increasingly in the modern world, someone whose time is valuable too.

The problem, as far as I can tell, is raising the child falls disproportionately on the women’s shoulders, even if she’s a high-powered executive. A hardworking father can usually take for granted that his wife will care for the children during the day. His career won’t suffer. Meanwhile, can a hard-working mother count on her husband having the kids all taken care of? Men and women alike would insult her, calling her a bad mother and questioning her morals. And so, by failing to support our mothers, by our ingrained assumption that childcare is women’s work, we handicap mothers in the working world.

My friends who are male, my father, my boyfriend, my coworkers, no one expects them to choose. They already get it all. Why should my choices be different?

I’ll try to have everything because I want the same choices as everyone else. But really, I have no choice at all. If I fail, I’ll become an internet moron’s data point while he argues why I’m just not suited for the professional world.

It’s a popular pairing, but I don’t think it’s a very good one. Why? All it’s based on is “oh look, he’s shy, and she’s shy, so shy ponies must go together.” Bullsh*t. They’ve got nothing in common. He’s strong and likes farming. She’s sweet and takes care of animals. They don’t like the same things, they don’t have the same hobbies, and they don’t even have shared experiences. It’s not like their whole personalities are quietness.

I hated how Twilight became a princess! For one thing, ponies can be heroes without being royalty. But the writers say being a princess is earned. Fine. So be it.

But she “earned” it by writing new magic. Ponies become princesses by writing new magic?? Starswirl the Bearded must’ve been a freaking GOD. (They didn’t even show what the spell did, besides spawn princesses.) But I’m really cross about it! How come magic ponies are so special? How come Rainbow Dash doesn’t become a princess for doing the sonic rainboom? She’s the only pony to have done it EVER. How come Fluttershy doesn’t get to be a princess for reforming Discord?

Because Twilight’s the main character. Fine. But at least they could’ve given a better excuse. “She’s the princess of harmony because she understands friendship so well” would’ve been fine with me. I don’t like when you have to be born a certain species with an innate talent in magic to become a princess.

And I didn’t like that weird baseball thing on her dress either!

http://youwillnotgotospacetoday.tumblr.com/

I came across this thing on the Internets today http://eschergirls.tumblr.com/image/37315523885.

Obvious things first. No, women’s bones do not stretch. They are not more pliable. This actually reminds me a lot of what Derpface Akin said, about women not getting pregnant from rape. Fabricating nonsense to support whatever they want to believe.

Now, the ideal presented is that women are respected homemakers who love what they do, love taking care of the household, and are deeply fulfilled by it. They cook, clean, support the family emotionally, and generally manage the household. In turn, the other members of the household are in awe of her. She is like a superheroine to them. Meanwhile, the men go outside and do professional things and run the legal system. They mutually recognize that both roles are important and mutually respect each other.

That’s not what happens in practice. The trouble is that when men run the legal system without women’s input, there is no protection for women. Instead of respecting them, the men control them and abuse them, because even though the homemaker’s role is important, there is no penalty for treating her poorly. The woman can’t leave because she has nowhere to go, nor protection from the legal system set up by men. Even though the man should treat her properly, it’s easier not to, easier to subjugate than to negotiate.

The result is things this sort of abuse http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1357654/Bibi-Aisha-Time-cover-girl-takes-New-York-subway.html.

An Afghan rape victim was sentenced to 12 years in prison for “adultery”. She was freed after more than two years in jail. In Afghanistan, women are not allowed to testify in court.

To those who would have women be respected homemakers, look around and see if the theory holds up in real life. Women are not protected unless they are professional, political equals. Legal standing is reliable! The good faith of individuals is not.

I’m not going to go into whether it should be legal or not. I generally hear of three exceptions when lawmakers try to limit abortion, and they are in cases of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is endangered.

There is one exception that is missing, and I think it’s the most crucial one of all. There is no proposed exception for when the fetus is nonviable.

This is the thing that tells me whether we’re dealing with a secular argument or a religious one. If you’re going to force a woman to carry out a pregnancy, that’s a lot of pain and trouble for the woman. It has to be of benefit to someone. And if the fetus is forming without a brain, it doesn’t benefit anyone to carry out the pregnancy: not the woman, not society, not the fetus. Best case is you end up with a dead fetus anyways, but in the meantime it’s caused the woman additional days/weeks of discomfort, and it’s cost taxpayers more to pay for the additional care. And in the worst case, well, this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/19/savita-halappanavar-death-pro-life-abortion.

Laws protect people. Don’t make living people suffer for nothing.

Over the years, I’ve either tried very hard or been conditioned very strictly not to think about certain things. I don’t sit here pondering how strange and unique is this feeling of consciousness. It’s better that way. But I can’t control my thoughts right as I’m waking up.

Once in a while, I wake up puzzled by my self-awareness. How can it be, and why am I living out the vanishingly-small chance of experiencing it? How can this possibly be me? Why, what is me or I or any of this, it doesn’t make sense!

It takes on whole new meaning to say “therefore I am”. I exist! And it’s so singular, this existing, that the force of existing and the possession of it crash down into a single moment: terror chasing the awe by a heartbeat. I don’t want to go back to the dust. I never want to give it back. I exist; this is my mind and my self and my entity, and I’m not giving it back!

And all in the same moment, I couldn’t think nor do anything. There is nothing else I’ve ever known that feels quite like existential crisis. Everything comes rushing up, and it’s a climax fiercer than orgasm! But a terrible one where I’d scream and scream if I could move at all. I don’t know how I’ll go on living in the shadow of death. All the thoughts, even the ones that are just impressions of emotions, frozen.

The heart of light, the silence.

It all passes in a handful of seconds. I jump out of bed, whispering “I don’t want to die” for no one to hear, I run down the hall, and the fear is gone, leaving just an impression of unease behind. I’m all too grateful that the moment is again locked away, to be unleashed no more than once in a few months.

The last time I remember it happening was a year ago, and then nearly two years before that. When I was seven, it would happen every night. I’ve lost that capacity to marvel at my existence on demand, but in exchange I can have many days at a time without visit from the fear. It is the most terrible thing I have felt in my lifetime. As long as death awaits, there can be no peace.