"Class Bouquet (Stronger Together)" - Finished

Another 19"x25" colored pencil bouquet drawing is now complete for my "Stronger Together" series! There's just one more left to do ("Ability Bouquet").

If you're interested, you can check out the other completed bouquet drawings here:

• Race Bouquet (this post)
• Gender Bouquet (this post)
• Sexuality Bouquet (this post)
• Religion Bouquet (this post)

The fifth drawing is called "Class Bouquet" and it uses two-dozen flowers to symbolize the different social classes. America is made up of very poor people, very rich people, and everyone in between. It is important that we acknowledge all of these people - and help those that need assistance, remembering that we're all human and deserve equal respect.

Here is the finished drawing, which uses a general yellow-pink-white-green color scheme, with hints of orange, red, and purple.

I used a total of 26 colored pencils for this drawing (fewer than I've used for some of the others in this series!). Many of them were shades of green, red/pink, and neutrals (black, white, cream, and browns), though I also used a lot of the single yellow colored pencil for all those yellow flowers, as well as a few shades of blue, purple, and orange/peach.

Here are some details of the entire drawing:

This is not yet available for sale, but I will probably list it (and the others in this series) in my Etsy shop at the end of the year.

-

To read about capitalism and the disparity between the rich and the poor, please read this blog post. For some interesting things to consider about the intersectionality of class, visit this one.

To read about the idea behind this colored pencil drawing and an explanation for the symbolism of the specific flowers used, check out this post.

To see "the making of" photos of this drawing, please visit these:

• Preliminary sketches ("In Progress 1")
• Drawing and lightly coloring in the first 12 flowers ("In Progress 2")
• Drawing and lightly coloring in the last 12 flowers ("In Progress 3")
• Adding detail and dimension to the hibiscus, hollyhock, bells of Ireland, sunflowers, French honeysuckle, and dandelions ("In Progress 4")
• Adding detail and dimension to the lupine, blackthorn, cactus, myrtle, tansy, and marigold ("In Progress 5")
• Adding detail and dimension to the kingcup, peony, carnations, coronella dahlia, clematis, and orchids ("In Progress 6")
• Adding detail and dimension to the angrec, lettuce, thyme, trumpet flowers, edelweiss, and poppies ("In Progress 7")

"Class Bouquet (Stronger Together)" - In Progress 1

I have two 19x25 colored pencil drawings left in my "Stronger Together" series - Class and Ability.

For this Class bouquet, I wanted to make sure all classes were equally represented, from poverty/lower classes to middle class to upper class/wealth. As usual, I selected two dozen flowers to symbolize these different levels of class.

Here were my flower choices, and what they mean:

• Dandelion - overcoming hardship, resilience, healing from emotional/physical pain, emotional/spiritual intelligence, survival, long-lasting happiness and youthful joy, seeing wishes fulfilled

• Lettuce - never give up

• Thyme - courage, strength, thriftiness, activity, bravery, overcoming shyness

• Evergreen Clematis - poverty

• Cactus - endurance

• Kingcup - desire for riches

• Edelweiss - courage, devotion, adventure, sacrifice, difficulty

• Marigold - pain, grief, cruelty, jealousy, beauty and warmth of the rising sun, creativity, drive to succeed

• Tansy - hostile thoughts, health, longevity

• Yellow Carnation - disdain, rejection, disappointment

• Blackthorn - difficulty

• French Honeysuckle - rustic beauty

• Hibiscus - delicate beauty, fleeting fame, glory, femininity

• Hollyhock - ambition, abundance, fertility

• Sunflower - adoration, devotion, haughtiness, power, loyalty, strong bonds between friends, seeking positivity and strength, good luck, nourishing self and others

• Peony - bashfulness, shame, good marriage, good life, compassion, bringing honor to your family, wealth and riches, romantic love, beauty

• Lupine - happiness, inner strength to recover from trauma, new opportunities, positivity

• Myrtle - marriage, true love, good luck in marriage, chastity, marital fidelity, prosperity

• Bells of Ireland - luck

• Orchid - industry, enthusiasm, boldness, pride, luxury, wealth

• Angrec - royalty

• Coronella Dahlia - success, wealth, crown of riches

• Poppy - extravagance, slumber

• Trumpet Flower - fame

I planned on a color scheme of yellow, pink, white, orange, purple, and green, setting up the composition of the flowers within the bouquet so that the colors would be well mixed together.

I made a sketch of my plan on newsprint first.

Once my planning was complete, I was ready to start sketching the bouquet onto black paper. I'll have another post up in a couple days that shows the beginning stages of working on black.

Capitalism and the Growing Disparity Between the Rich and the Poor

Class and Ability are interesting categories to consider, because both are rather changeable, not necessarily staying static throughout our lives. Unless someone is very poor or very wealthy (in which case, their station may be less likely to change), nearly all of us experience at least minor fluctuations in social class as we grow up, get jobs, move, start families, retire, and age. 

The changes (a jump from lower-middle class to decidedly middle-class, for instance) may be subtle to others, but are often quite recognizable to us. Money is security, and it can change the way we behave and the risks we feel comfortable taking - which in turn might change the way others treat us, even if they don't know exactly how much money we have to our name. Money also offers opportunities (resources, education, networking) that open more doors for us - which can boost our self-esteem and sense of worth. In contrast, constantly worrying about having enough money can lead to heightened generalized anxiety and compromise our self-confidence. Such worries might prompt us to take on more than we can handle, stretching ourselves thin as we attempt to earn more - or perhaps disillusion and discourage us, wearing ourselves out before we even get out of bed in the morning and preventing us from work.

Most of those of us living in the middle class have probably, at some point in our lives, experienced both of these (though maybe not quite to such extremes). There might be a period of time when we have enough cash coming in, or relatively low expenses, or a combination of the two - and as a result, we not only earn enough to live off of, but enough to start saving a bit. Those who don't experience this in adulthood often experienced it as children - even when a family is poorer, it is usually the adults who make sacrifices and carry the brunt of the money anxiety; they do their best to ensure that their children are taken care of or kept in the dark from the extent of their poverty for as long as possible. During this period of our lives (whenever it may occur), we don't worry as much about the costs of goods and services, we feel safe and secure and provided for, and we believe in possibilities - that we can be anything when we grow up, that we can decide between many different options for how to spend our leisure time, and that various opportunities will be readily available to us.

But there are also times when the opposite is true. Often we experience these financial slumps when we leave home, go to college or start a trade, and try to provide for ourselves for the first time. Even if our parents are willing and able to assist us financially, we might try not to rely on them too much; we wish to assert our independence. Or it might happen with job fluctuations - whether caused by an economic repression or more personal decisions, such as going from a two-income family to a one-income family so that one parent can stay home to take care of young children. Or it might happen at the end of our careers, when we retire and lose the steady paycheck we'd grown used to for the last several decades. Sudden changes in health can also cause undo financial hardship - in addition to the cost of medical expenses, there might be a loss in the ability to work as many hours, or at all.

These types of changes to one's finances are common and expected - for many of us, they are a part of life.

But for the very wealthy or the very poor, the situation is often different. Even when someone from a wealthy family loses a job or changes careers, even when they grow their families, make poor investment decisions, or fall sick, and even when the country goes through an economic recession, they are relatively unaffected. They might occasionally worry more about money than they used to, but their worries are "what if" anxieties - what if, god forbid, their financial situation was worse? 

And for the very poor, there are limited opportunities to rise out of their poverty. How can they earn a college degree if they can't afford the tuition, and their family's credit is too low to get a decent loan? How can they pay off that loan, if they do get one, when it takes them twice as long to complete their degree (because they're working multiple jobs in the meantime), and the job pickings are slim once they do finally graduate? How can they even be accepted into college in the first place, if they can't afford the application fees, or the standardized exam fees to take the SAT or ACT, or if having to take exhausting minimum wage jobs in high school managed to help support their families (at least a little), but ruined their high school GPA in the process?

And how will they rise up in their careers, to a position with a higher salary, if they don't have that degree? Even jobs that don't require college often require internships or years of low-wage labor experience before higher positions open up - and it's hard to devote those years to earning lower wage if someone needs more money immediately. They can't volunteer to work extra hours and put in more face time at one job if they have to run off to work their second job instead; when someone is spread thin like that, it's hard to ever move up. They sacrifice the potential for more money in the future for enough money to live off of in the present; it's not a sacrifice they even have a choice over, but one that is essentially made for them, if they want to survive. No one can plan for the future when the present is already a struggle.

Worse yet, even if someone from a very poor family does manage to earn a college degree, pay off some debt, earn a good credit score, and/or land a secure job with a reasonable salary - the benefits are often short-lived. They may funnel their extra money into helping other family members or friends also rise out of poverty, driven by a sense of community and fixing problems they see in the present (instead of saving for their own future), because that's all they've ever done or witnessed others doing. Or they may finally get their heads above water - just to experience one of those "life happens" events that threaten to drown them again, like a chronic illness, a growing family, inheriting a family member's debt, or a sudden economic downturn that threatens the job security they've stumbled into.

The wealthy have extra income which they can invest - which leads to more income, which they can also invest. Meanwhile, the poor are constantly struggling just to make enough to provide basic necessities for their families - and any change in their life circumstances can make that struggle instantly worse. And so the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. To top it off, many middle-income level jobs are on the decline (according to NBC news), thanks to automation, outsourcing, and wage erosion. 

There is a growing disparity between the rich and the poor in the U.S. - to the point where the middle class may disappear altogether. 

According to ThinkProgress, the wealth disparity between upper and middle income Americans has hit a record high. Upper-income families are almost seven times wealthier than middle-income families, and seventy times wealthier than lower-income families. Americans that make up the top 0.1% now have more monetary worth than the entire bottom 90%. 

Investopedia further explains that in the U.S., 26% of Americans are classified as lower income, 59% as middle income, and 15% as upper income - while in other countries, the middle class is larger (with percents in the 70s-80s). Their data comes from a Pew research report, which concluded that this decline of the middle class and the accompanying rise in income inequality presents an adverse climate for economic growth.

In theory, there is an easy solution to this inequality. The rich could part with more of their money, bolstering those in poverty. Indeed, nearly every culture/religion around the world encourages such compassion - teaching that earthly riches are temporal and not the proper thing on which to hang our sense of worth, and cautioning against the love of money or failing to share our wealth with those who need it.

Here are just a sampling of such advice:

"For the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil." - 1 Timothy 6:10

"When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you." - Leviticus 23:22 

"The fool is his own enemy. Seeking wealth, he destroys himself. Seek rather the other shore." - Buddha 

"And know that your worldly goods...are but a trial and a temptation, and that with God there is tremendous reward." - Qu'ran, An-Anfal 8:28 

"Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions." - Luke 12:15 

"Money has never made man happy, nor will it. There is nothing in its nature to produce happiness. The more of it one has the more one wants." - Benjamin Franklin 

"No one can serve two masters...You cannot serve both God and Money." - Matthew 6:24 

"Seek not greater wealth, but simpler pleasure; not higher fortune, but deeper felicity." - Mahatma Gandhi  

"What's money? A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do." - Bob Dylan

"Receive wealth or prosperity without arrogance; and be ready to let it go." - Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor 

"To be wealthy and honored in an unjust society is a disgrace." - Confucius, The Analects 

"Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your fellow Israelites who are poor and needy in your land." - Deuteronomy 15:11 

"Hillel used to say, The more tzedakah [charity], the more shalom [peace]." - Pirkei Avot 2:8 

"Exult not in thy wealth, for, verily, God does not love those who exult in things!... Do good unto others as God has done good unto thee." - Qu'ran, Al-Qasas 28-76-77  

"The generous will themselves be blessed, for they share their food with the poor." - Proverbs 22:9 

"At the end of life we will not be judged by how many diplomas we have received, how much money we have made... We will be judged by 'I was hungry, and you have me something to eat, I was naked and you clothed me. I was homeless, and you took me in.'" - Mother Theresa (quoting the Bible, Matthew 25:35)

"A kind man who makes good use of wealth is rightly said to possess a great treasure; but the miser who hoards up his riches will have no profit." - Buddha 

"If a person closes his eyes to avoid giving charity, it is as if he committed idolatry." - Talmud, Ketuvot 68a 

"If the worldly goods which you have acquired, and the commerce whereof you fear a decline, and the dwellings in which you take pleasure - if all these are dearer to you than God... [know that] God does not grace iniquitous folk with His guidance." - Qu'ran, At-Tauba 9:24 

"The world tells us to seek success, power and money; God tells us to seek humility, service and love." - Pope Francis

"As the purse is emptied, the heart is filled." - Victor Hugo 

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." - Matthew 19:24 

But these are only words - and not words that our current government lives by.

The capitalist U.S. government allows but does not require those with access wealth to share it. It maintains that it is up to people whether or not they obey those cultural/religious teachings and do their part. On the surface, this doesn't seem so heartless (even if it is passing the buck a little - pun intended). But throughout history, the U.S. government has also actively offered alternatives to those cultural/religious teachings in such a way that it seems to actually encourage our current uneven distribution of wealth - and that is a problem.

In this country, we have what we call the American Dream, which suggests that America is a land of bountiful opportunities ripe for the picking. With so many chances for people to get ahead, make names for themselves, and provide for their families, the logic goes that it would take a really unmotivated or unskilled person not to find something available to them. Furthermore, the American Dream asserts that everyone has the same goals. We all want to earn a lot of money (even if it's at a job we hate), settle down, buy a house with a white picket fence, and start a family with 2.4 children (or whatever the going average is at any given time).

Of course, neither of those points is true - but the mythology remains an engrained part of our society. We're taught optimism by our parents and schoolteachers who tell us we can be anything we want to be when we grow up - and also impart their biases about what "good" professions are to pursue, or what goals we "should" be working toward. Many of these adults should have enough life experience under their belts to know that life isn't always fair, and those things are not always possible (or desired) - and yet they perpetuate this myth anyway, perhaps because they want desperately to believe that, for the next generation, it may yet be true. 

Then, when we reach adulthood (or adolescence - for a lot of this now starts in high school and even middle school), we start to feel the pressures of competition. We begin to recognize that there are opportunities - but they're limited, and only given to the worthiest (or luckiest). We compare ourselves to our peers and try to figure out how we measure up. We grow stressed and anxious when things don't work out how we were promised they would be. Social media only perpetuates this competition - never has it been so easy to compare where we are in our lives with where our peers are in theirs, on a global scale. 

Even if we've consciously decided not to prioritize the things the American Dream tells us to prioritize (money, marriage, children), we might feel inadequate when we look at other people who have "accomplished" these things. We might feel like we've fallen behind our peers, or feel like we have a lower worth as a person, simply because we aren't doing the sorts of things we "should" be doing.

Over the years, the government has encouraged this notion of the American Dream, suggesting that our choices and actions can "earn" us certain privileges. If we all work hard enough - and have enough luck to survive - we're sure to earn ourselves a better life. Anything is possible. The image of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, as if sheer determination and relentless hard work was sufficient to rise above poverty, is a prevalent one. This is certainly what many immigrants believed (and still believe), and why many of them wanted to come to America.

The problem (well, one of the problems) is that the American Dream doesn't live in a vacuum. It has to fight with another, somewhat conflicting American ideal - one that puts considerable weight on the family someone was born into and the unchangeable characteristics they were prescribed at birth.

Both of these ideas were built right into our Declaration of Independence, in a singular phrase: "All men are created equal." On the surface, this suggests that everything is equally possible for everyone - that this is a land of opportunity, prosperity, and promise. But what those words say on the surface and what they actually meant at the time is another matter. For one thing, "all men" did not include women; for another, it was commonly accepted that "men" meant only white, land-owning men. So, all men were created equal - but only if they were already born with some status to begin with.

The idea of Manifest Destiny famously asserted that wealth, land, and privilege were entitlements one earned by the simple virtue of being an American (or, at least, a white, male, heterosexual, cisgendered, able-bodied, hard-working American). Basically a giant game of calling shotgun or commenting "First!" on a YouTube video, Manifest Destiny made it legal for any citizen to claim land ownership just by showing up first and staking a claim. (Never mind that Native Americans were already using the land, or that altering the landscape might change the ecosystem in the area. Whatever a white, male citizen wanted, he could have. Everyone else be damned.)

Systems of slave labor - and inequalities of race and gender that continue into the present - further proved that the American Dream was really only available to a select few, at least initially. People of color were not given the right to vote, a hallmark of citizenship, until 1870; women were not granted suffrage until even later - 1920. (And those dates don't even count the Jim Crow laws and other methods that persist to this day which attempt to disenfranchise people on the basis on race, gender, sexuality, religion, ability and social class.) 

Eventually, laws were set forward to get rid of some of the legal discrimination that was happening - but very few laws were changed to give greater access to the same advantages that white men have had for centuries, and people who already had those privileges refused (and continue to refuse) to see the difference.

Today, it is expected that the prosperity and promise of American Dream is open to everyone, simply because many forms of discrimination are no longer legal. This simplified view neglects to see the weight of historical disadvantages, but it does come from a grain of truth. Everyone theoretically has equal access to opportunities now, and are often treated as equals - men and women, whites and people of color, heterosexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals/pansexuals. The same doors are open for everyone - and if that's the case, doesn't it follow that it would be the fault of the individual for not choosing to go through them?

I have a lot to say on the subject of choice - and already said it, in this previous post on religious discrimination. The main point is twofold:

1.) We don't all actually have the same access to choice. For example, a person living in poverty might seem to be presented with the same opportunity as a rich person, but the latter is given the key to unlock the door, while the former is presented with no key, extra security, and an unpickable lock.

And 2.) Even if we did all have access to the same opportunities, on an equal scale, not all people would (or should) make the same choices. Despite what the American dream says, we don't all want a job that makes a six-figure salary. Some of us prioritize finding a field that we love working in, or prioritize leisure and family time and strive for the sort of work-life balance that makes earning six-figures unlikely. These people don't deserve to live in poverty, unable to support their families, just because they prefer working as a writer or schoolteacher to working as a lawyer or anesthesiologist.  

Yet, many people in this country (and around the world) neglect to understand these points, or refuse to believe them. The practice of poverty-shaming is alive and well. Many people insist that all doors are openable to every person (even if they allow that some doors are harder to open for some), and that it is a poor person's fault for being poor. They made the wrong decisions, prioritized the wrong things, or didn't work hard enough.

And so, many people with wealth to spare do not heed the age-old advice of leaders, clerics, writers, moralists, and orators that we read above. They only marginally support the lower classes, or not at all.

They take the view of our capitalistic society, which promotes the individual over the community, and say, "What's in it for me to help others?" and "Why should I have to support someone else's lifestyle? What does anyone else's situation have to do with my situation?"

Or they take the beliefs we are fed that wealthy people are deserving of their wealth, and worked hard to earn it, and say, "It won't teach the lower classes the value of hard work if we just handout freebies" or "What makes them think they're entitled to things for free that I had to work hard to earn?"

Some wealthy individuals do indeed work hard - but poor people work hard, too, and if effort was all that was required, there would be less discrepancy in wealth. Those with wealth work hard and have privileges that support them financially, make their hard work go farther, and make their lives easier. This fact is too often glossed over - partly because no one with privilege wants to believe they have privilege, and partly because our government seems to support such views. Our government does not legally require the wealthy to share their wealth (through taxes and universal care programs), and in fact often caters to the ego of the wealthy, giving them ready-made excuses for not aiding those who need financial support.

People will not always do what's best for their communities - especially when they are brought up with conflicting views. We give lip service to "money is the root of all evil," but at the end of the day, we are taught to value ourselves and other people based on the amount of money they have, or earn, or spend. We may want to be compassionate - but we also want to have value and be valued. We want our hard work to be rewarded; we want to believe that hard work is always rewarded. We want to believe we are in charge of our own destinies, and that we've earned whatever success comes our way. 

Thinking these things doesn't make someone a bad person. We all have these thoughts. But the trick is to consider these thoughts rationally to determine if they are actually true - or at least "true enough" to let them influence our actions. Can two people put in an equal effort, yet achieve different results? Is it possible that we have only some control of our own destinies? Or that people with privilege have more control over their lives than people without privilege?

Putting effort into imagining ourselves in other people's situations is another good tactic. Maybe it is true that our hard work has always been rewarded, and things just seem to work out for us - but is that the case for everyone? How much more difficult would our lives be if we hadn't had access to a quality education and transportation, or grown up well-fed and with plenty of leisure time to play and explore our world as a child? How much more difficult would our lives be if we or someone in our families had a chronic illness that required a lot of money and time to care for? Consider what other people go through, and how their experiences might differ from your own.

Still, it's hard to do such exercises all the time, especially if someone doesn't regularly interact with people in more unfortunate circumstances. Is it really a good idea to continue to rely on humanity's compassion for others? Or would it be better if the government increased taxes on the wealthy to better support the lower classes? 

We have to do something. We've tried these experiments of "let the wealthy do what they think is best" and "humans will do what's right on their own even if they aren't obligated to do so" for a long time already, and it's obvious that they are not enough.

I'm clearly not alone in this train of thought. According (once again) to ThinkProgress, two-thirds of Americans are dissatisfied with the current unequal wealth distribution in this country, with roughly the same number believing the federal government should play a role in guiding the transition toward a more equitable society.

"Inequality has risen to the point that it seems to me worthwhile for the U.S. to seriously consider taking the risk of making our economy more rewarding for more of the people." - Economist Janet Yellen 

"Overcoming poverty... is an act of justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to dignity and a decent life." - Nelson Mandela  

"Capitalism does not permit an even flow of economic resources. With this system, a small privileged few are rich beyond conscience, and almost all others are doomed to be poor at some level. That's the way the system works. And since we know that the system will not change the rules, we are going to have to change the system." - Martin Luther King Jr.  

"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." - Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis 

Socialism requires higher taxes - but those taxes would be used to try to level the playing field, actually make something like the American Dream more possible for everyone who wants to pursue it, and compensate for historical discrimination. We all benefit from amenities like well-funded and maintained streets and bridges, mass transit systems, public schools, and libraries - but those amenities necessarily come with a price tag. Why couldn't we also benefit from universal health care, homeless shelters, food stamp programs, reproductive health education, parental leave, and other programs that other (more socialist) countries have already successfully implemented? It's certainly something to consider.

In the meantime, while we work toward bolstering the lower classes and making sure everyone has their basic necessities provided for, it would do for all of us to remember that we are more than our bank accounts. We don't deserve wealth or poverty because of who we are as a person, how hard we've worked, or our family heritage. But we do deserve respect and compassion just by virtue of being human. Let's all be kind and considerate to people of all social classes, instead of demonizing each other out of fear, jealousy, misunderstanding, or tradition.

Millennials Living at Home

Listening to the radio on the way to work recently, I heard the morning deejays bring up the topic of so-called "Millennials" (people born between about 1980-2000, depending on who you ask) still living in their parents' homes. The conversation was specifically about older Millennials (those who are between 25-35 years old), an age group which currently is living with their parents at a greater rate than any 25-35 year old group in history, since the U.S. census began collecting data in the late 1800s.

The conversation followed a pretty predictable pattern. The DJs, who themselves are probably just too old to be considered Millennials themselves, lamented the sorry state of such a world. They cited two reasons for the increased number - the economic downturn/increased student debt dilemma, and the fact that people are getting married later - but seemed to think that such reasons were 1) only "excuses," 2) temporary issues that would eventually fix themselves or cease to be problems/influences on young people's life decisions, and/or 3) not "good enough" to justify the "horror" of living at home. One DJ in particular started pulling the "Entitlement Generation" nonsense, citing his younger brother, who lived at home with his parents despite earning a six-figure salary. Clearly, financial problems were not a factor in all cases; you know those entitled Millennials - they never learned to grow up/they just want everyone else to take care of them/they're dependent and whiny and want the world handed to them on a silver platter.

Then - also predictably - came the calls from listeners. Millennial after Millennial who tried to explain their situation to the DJs: Outrageous student loans. Mental illness. Few job prospects. The DJs "sympathized" with them when they called - but their general thesis remained the same: it is a travesty to be living at home after age 25, even if someone has solid reasons for making such a choice. In a perfect world, everyone would go off to college at 18, "find themselves"/become self-confident/self-actualized, become immediately socially, emotionally, and financially independent, and never have to live at home again. They would move into their own place after graduating college, and start their "own" lives. They would be perfectly happy and well-adjusted, even far away from everyone else they've ever known.

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit.

First of all, Millennials are no more entitled than any other generation, and the trope of "this newest generation reaching adulthood is the worst one we've ever seen" is literally repeated every single time the previous generation spawns the next one. For that matter, "Millennials" and generational boundaries in general aren't actually a real thing. They're just societal stereotypes used for click-bait, created to sell books. People between the ages of 25-35 are about as similar to each other as they are to people of any other age group. It's like we're all individuals or something.

Second of all, everyone takes their own path. Some people are more independent and are probably ready to "live on their own" at fifteen; others take a lot longer to feel comfortable being alone, or never get there. Some people get along great with their families and want to stay near them; others may also get along great with their families but yearn for distance from their relatives and the town in which they grew up. Some people are lucky enough to be interested in a field that has lots of job openings and high salaries; others choose to study other subjects, pursue other degrees, or pursue no degrees at all.

One of these paths is not better than the other; they're just different.

To say that there is a "right" way to be living life is not only ridiculous, but insensitive/borderline shaming to the people who choose a different way. Some Millennials live at home because they can't pay rent yet for a place of their own; some because they rely on the social support of their families; and yet others for other reasons. Some probably don't have any reasons at all; having no particular reason to move out, they simply never did.

What's so wrong with that??

Why do we insist on shaming adults who "still" live at home? There is implicit and explicit judgment in that question: it asks, "What went wrong in your life/What did you do wrong, that you would be living in the house you grew up in?"

Why don't we instead ask, to the Millennials who do move out, "What went wrong in your life/What is wrong with you, that you can't get along with your parents, or that you feel entitled to self-confidence or independence or an entire apartment all to yourself? Isn't that wasteful?"

There is a stigma attached to relying on other people; in a different era or a different area of the world there could just as easily be a stigma attached to NOT relying on other people and thinking that one can live life alone. There is nothing inherently wrong with living with your family, no matter what age you are. There just happens to be a social stigma attached to it if you are of a certain age.

Humans are social creatures. It is not a bad thing to want to live with other people, to want to stay close to your family, to rely on others for help, or to stay around to help others.

I am a 27-year-old Millennial. I don't live in the house I grew up in. But if I didn't have my husband, I probably would. I did not graduate with a job. It took me years to find ways to make any sort of steady income; for a long time I relied on my husband's salary and contributed only sporadically to our finances - as is often the way for those of us devoted to creative fields. Without my husband, there is no way I could afford my own place, let alone the nice house my husband and I live in. I was lucky enough to find the person I wanted to marry while I was still in college. We got engaged before we graduated. We made plans to move in together and start our life together right after college - as many past generations did. If I had not been a statistical anomaly for my generation - getting engaged at 20 and married at 22 - I'd be in the same boat that many Millennials are.

My brother, who is 28, does still live at home with my parents. My 89-year-old grandmother also lives there with them. He struggled for a long time to pay off student loans while he worked night shifts at Kroger, stocking groceries, but finances were not the only reason he stayed behind. He is not very social and has a hard time forging connections with people, so it's nice that he has a built-in social support group in my parents and grandma. Furthermore, he helps out around the house. My dad is turning 62 this year and looking ahead to retirement. He has always had poor eyesight and has never had a driver's license; my grandma also decided to give up driving and sold her car when she moved in with my parents a couple years ago. If my brother weren't living in the house, my mom would be the only driver, and it would fall to her and only her to drive my dad to the bus stop every day so that he could go to work, or to drive my grandmothers (the one who lives with them and the one who lives 2 miles away in an independent senior living facility) to their doctor's appointments, or to drive to the grocery store, or to any other errands that needed doing. It's not like my parents are frustrated that he's still there and begging him to leave. Everyone has fallen into a rhythm, and no one is desperate to disturb it. Even if they're not thrilled, they seem content, or at least content enough. If none of them are upset about it, why does it matter? Why can't my brother just live there forever if that's what he and my parents all want/agree on?

I know so many Millennials who are living at home. They do so because they need to, because they want to, because it just makes sense. Often, these people are not in long term relationships and have no built in support system other than their families; if they didn't live at home they would be so much worse off. In some cases, their families would be worse off, too.

Some case examples:

1) A, now 27 years old, who lived at home and commuted to college for most of his undergraduate degree, because he felt more comfortable doing so than trying out the dorms or an apartment close to campus. As a senior, he finally moved out and shared an apartment with a roommate. For his Master's degree, he moved halfway across the country, prioritizing the prestige of the program he was in over his own comfort. He struggled to be so far from his family and people he knew, and had trouble feeling like he belonged. When he finally finished grad school, he moved back home, severely depressed. For the last few years, he has continued to live at home, fighting depression/anxiety and OCD. It is difficult for him to get a job because of the particular field he is looking in/the economy, but also because of his mental illness(es) that prevent him from feeling confident or capable of holding a full-time job.

2) A's younger brother, now 19, who recently graduated high school and decided not to go to college. He has a part-time minimum-wage type job in the service industry, and lives at home. He obviously cannot afford his own place on his current wages, but at least doesn't have student loans to worry about. He also has a history of anxiety issues, though as far as I know they've been under control for awhile. But he's close with/gets along with his parents and brother, and I'm sure likes still living at home with them.

3) B, now 27. She graduated college at 21 and got a great job in computer programming right out of college - her dream job. She also made pretty good money at it - or at least, it always seemed to me that she did, for a just-out-of-college gig. Still, she lived at home for a few years after graduating, commuting to work from her parent's house. They had two houses because they had moved a few years prior and were never able to sell their old house during the recession. She used her salary to help them pay for those two mortgages they were working on, rather than moving out and putting her money into rent for an apartment. She could've lived in the old house (it was just across town - only adding an extra 10 minutes or so to her commute to work) but she chose to live in the house her parents were living in. She got along great with her family and her brother; when her brother moved out to go to college/etc., and her parents finally sold the old house across town, she did finally move out and get her own apartment. I wonder how much of that is because she wanted to or how much was because she felt shamed/was teased at work for still living with her parents.

4) C, now 24. He has a history of epilepsy, and had several surgeries done. Sometime in college or soon thereafter, he had a mental breakdown with severe depression - to the point of hallucinations and an almost schizophrenic break with reality. He lives with his mother now because he literally can't take care of himself anymore, and is severely dependent on her to help him get through daily life amid the fog of his mental state and the medications he is taking. He is also a suicide risk. He will probably be living at home for the rest of his life - unless he is moved to a care facility, or his situation greatly/miraculously improves.

5) C's younger brother, 22. He just graduated college and is living at home with C while working a minimum wage job. He is studying for entrance into a program to become a police officer, and is in no financial place to move out at the moment - though perhaps he can also be of some help to his/C's mom, who is juggling a full-time job with taking care of C and their grandparents, who also live with them.

6) D, now 30. She has completed two degrees and is about to start working on her third - a PhD in History. She will be going to school for at least six more years. When she is at school, she lives on her own near campus, but whenever the school is on a break or she is in between degree programs, she moves back home. She is an only child and gets along well with her family. She likes spending time with them, helps them with a lot of chores around the house (her mom has chronic back pain), and has helped her dad get a new business off the ground.

7) E, now 36. She married a man from Columbia and they moved back in with her parents while her husband finished schooling, practiced his English, and took the necessary medical exams to be qualified to practice as a doctor in the U.S. Her parents helped take care of their two young children while she supported her husband and looked into jobs for herself. He applied for residencies all over the country - willing to accept wherever would take him. For a couple years, he found work as a doctor in Mexico and they both temporarily moved there with their son (their daughter wasn't born yet). When he next got an assignment far from her parents - first in New York, then in Puerto Rico - she decided to stay behind with her parents. Now that they had two children, it was just too difficult to keep moving around and adapt to a new city/state/country as a single mother while her husband put in long hours at work/school. Her children are now 8 and 6, and she is still living with her parents, and working as a middle school teacher. They made their long-distance relationship work for awhile, but are now divorced.

8) F, now 23. When F was in college, he was diagnosed with testicular cancer and temporarily stalled his college studies to move home for treatment. He has since returned to school, but did, for a time fall into the "Millennials Living At Home" category.

9) G, now 27. She was not married when she got pregnant at 21; because she was still living at home while she pursued job/school options, she simply continued living there while she was pregnant and after the baby was born. As a single mom, it was a huge help to her to have her parents around to help her care for her son while she was at work and battling a custody case with her son's father. The son is now 6, she has a new boyfriend, and they just last week moved out of her parents' house and into a new house with her boyfriend.

And these are just the people whose stories I know.

Sometimes we need help. Sometimes we want company. I don't think it's a Necessarily Bad Thing to live at home as long as it's something you and your parents are comfortable with and genuinely want to do. If you're there only because you feel like you have no other options, and want nothing but to leave as soon as you can - yeah, there can be some resentment there, which doesn't lend well to an ideal living environment. But it still might be the best solution, at least on a temporary basis. And for many Millennials, living at home is a relief, because there is that built-in support system they can't get anywhere else.

It is not the same living with roommates or friends, even if you know each other well. By definition you are trying to live your own lives and explore your options; living together is not seen as a permanent solution or even ideal solution, but a necessary/temporary one. When you fall sick or injured (physically, emotionally, mentally, financially), they are not obligated to help, nor often willing. They have their own jobs, their own relationships, their own lives they are also juggling, and even if they are willing to help with your problems, they may not be able to. Family, on the other hand, do help. Whether by obligation or choice or a little of both, they help. Part of that is because it is often easier (logistically) for them to do so - an employer would easily let someone come into work late to drive her son to chemotherapy treatments; not so much if you have to schlepp your roommate/friend to an appointment. The urgency just isn't there. There would undoubtedly be questions - why is your friend all alone? where is his family? Parents don't stop being parents when their children turn 18; they are, to some extent, expected to help their offspring when they come into trouble, no matter what age their offspring are.

When you get married, your spouse basically becomes an additional parent. You're agreeing to help each other in sickness and health: to drive each other to the hospital when one of you falls sick, to hold the brunt of financial obligations for a time if your partner is unable to contribute, to be there - physically, emotionally - if someone is going through a hard time and needs support overcoming/enduring depression or anxiety.

But if you aren't married or in a long-term relationship, who do you have to rely on in times of distress other than your family? Your parents, your siblings. This is your support system. And it is perfectly okay to rely on them, or go to them for help. There should not be so much stigma attached to asking for help. It is not a sign of admitting defeat. It is a sign of strength. It is not always easy. But sometimes it has to be done.

(Neither is the solution just to "get married," by the way. Not only is "finding someone" easier said than done; it's often impossible when you're already juggling low-paying jobs, financial stress, debt, and/or mental illness - not to mention an entire society of people getting married later in life to influence your decisions. Furthermore, to have someone to dump all your problems on is probably NOT a good reason to get married; the being-able-to-dump-your-problems-on-them comes at the cost of you also having to help them with their problems. And further furthermore, a lot of people don't actually want to get married - nor should they have to want to. Just because you are single, whether by choice or circumstance, does not mean your worth is diminished, that it's "your fault" for not having another support system, that you don't need support systems, or that you don't deserve them.)

One last point: It is often a relief to get help - but that does not mean that someone feels entitled to a stress-free existence and is living at home just to be taken care of. They're living at home so that they have a support system while they learn how to take care of themselves - unless it is a case (like person C, above), where they literally can't take care of themselves and do have to perpetually rely on other people. I don't know any Millennials who are living at home because they love Mom and Dad cooking them dinner and doing their laundry; even if their parents do cook them dinner and do their laundry, that is NOT the reason they are home.

And often their parents are cooking them dinner and doing their laundry in the first place because the Millennials are helping out with other chores around the house (much like how egalitarian spouses divvy up household chores so that everyone chips in for one area or another), or because the Millennials are struggling with too many other things. If you knew someone was going through a shitty time and that bringing them a dish of lasagna or a plate of cookies might make them feel better and a little less stressed - wouldn't you bring them a freaking lasagna? This is what we do for other people when we don't know what else to do. We bring recent widows food, we bring cancer patients (or those caring for cancer patients) food; we offer to run errands for them, etc. We don't know how to solve their cancer, or their anxiety, or their OCD, or their depression; we don't know how to find them a job or help them gain self-confidence. But we can help them with their everyday tasks at least, so we do.

You don't know what people are going through. Depression is often invisible; it doesn't look the same in everyone, and often doesn't look like the gloomy people in Zoloft commercials on TV. Growing up is hard; figuring out life post-graduation is hard; doing these things in a sucky economy with a pile of student debt is even harder. There is more than just financial stress going on here. According to the National Alliance on Mental Health, more than 25% of college students have a diagnosable mental illness and have been treated in the past year. And what about all the ones who haven't been treated? Or the ones who crumble after graduation?

So can we stop shaming people already?

We don't all live the same life trajectory, nor should we.

Studying Art in College

Art is one of those subjects that you really don't have to go to college to learn - because so much of it is just based on practice and doing some art experimentation every day, there's a lot you can do at home. And with the rising costs of college (at least here in the U.S.), it can start to seem a little futile to go spend all that money (and likely go into debt) to study something that will bring you little job prospects. (The term "starving artist" doesn't exist for nothing.)

Creative writing is another field like this. There's a big debate among contemporary literary writers about the importance of the MFA - some insist that a good MFA program is crucial to learning how to write good stories; others insist that it's not necessary.

I can certainly see both sides. I pursued a BFA in watercolor and graphic design at EMU, and can speak to the great experiences I had there that I wouldn't have gotten anywhere else. Of course, on the other hand, I'm currently writing a novel (without ever having pursued an MFA), and thus hope that I can find success with my writing without going through this step.

A lot of it depends, I think, on your financial situation. Given today's economic climate, I don't know if I'd recommend going into massive debt for either sort of degree. The financial pay out will likely not be worth it. On the other hand, if you have the resources to cover it (or most of it), there are definitely positive aspects to pursuing higher education in a field you love. The networking opportunities (if you take advantage of them) will likely be helpful, as well as opportunities for building up your CV.

My CV would be a lot shorter if I didn't have all my projects at EMU to showcase - from the yearly symposiums I talked about in recent posts to the senior art exhibitions EMU set up in its student and university galleries. Furthermore, because I wanted to graduate with "highest honors," I wrote a senior honors thesis - which has probably given me the most exposure of anything, due to its free availability online. I got to do that interview for the Montreal TV series "L'art Erotique" because the producers found and read my thesis online, and I have also been contacted by others (college students, fellow artists, fellow feminists, etc.) from around the world who have read it.

I was lucky enough to have scholarships to attend EMU, and to have family (my uncle in particular) kind enough to help pay for many of my remaining expenses, including room, board, textbooks, and art supplies. I did accumulate a small amount of debt - but it was small enough that I was able to pay it off soon after graduation (despite having no steady income). I realize this is not the case for everyone (which is why I am hesitant to say "Go to college! It's worth the cost!" without knowing others' specific situations). But I did give a lot of thought to my finances in choosing to attend EMU. I also got accepted into the University of Michigan - a school with a vastly greater reputation, but a higher tuition. It was difficult to turn that down - especially given that many of my high school friends were attending U of M. But U of M did not give me the amount of scholarships EMU was willing to (EMU gave me a full-tuition scholarship for four years), nor did they promise the same sorts of opportunities. At U of M, I would've been a small fish in a big pond. At Eastern, I was a big fish in a small pond. I was guaranteed opportunities to showcase my artwork at the symposiums every year. I chose EMU because I knew it would mean I could skate by with very little debt; if I had chosen U of M, that might've (probably would've been) a different picture.

I do have to say - one of the drawbacks of the amazing opportunities at EMU was that I got a little spoiled. So many things were offered to me without my having to put forth much effort to seek them that I had very little experience scouting opportunities after I graduated, and little confidence to try. College is a beautiful, protective bubble - which is great while you're there, because it gives you room to try new things, figure out what you really want to study, and begin to define who you are. But it's not so great after graduation, because then you're faced with a rude awakening when you enter the real world.

It was harder to stick with art once I didn't have assignments to complete, or quotas or deadlines to meet. I didn't have professors (or anyone else) expecting artistic output from me. It was also harder to find ideas, harder to find critique groups, and harder to find places to show my work or try to sell it. This is also true for writing. Though I didn't take advantage of many creative writing classes in college (I only took one), I'm sure if I'd prioritized it, there would have been greater opportunities to find in college than outside it. Critiques would be built into classes, and fellow writers would be easy to find and befriend. Outside that protective college bubble, none of that is the case anymore.

For awhile, I didn't really try to find places to show my art, or try to network much at all. I just didn't know what to do, or where to start. And so now there's this gap on my CV, between when I graduated in 2010 and when I started trying to put myself and my art out there more this past year. I wish I'd made more connections earlier, talking to local art councils or art galleries. But at least I'm doing it now.

Novel Update

I spent a lot of the end of last year working on editing the first book of the series of novels I've been writing. It's not always easy self-editing your own stuff, but I think I did a decent job, considering.

One thing I noticed as I was going through and doing this editing were several themes that started popping up. Some of them I sort of intended (or at least, noticed early on and played up a little), but others I did not notice until this recent bout of editing (though, again, I played those up a little as I went through and edited, since I did like them and wanted them to be more obvious). It's always nice to go back and read something you've written and realize there are interesting and profound nuggets of thought that crept in that you weren't totally conscious of at the time. To be honest, it makes me feel pretty damn proud of myself - like I'm doing something right and supposed to be a writer.

Other than editing the parts I do have written, I also have been working on some new sections to incorporate into the novel - sections that are basically straight up non-fiction, or at least non-fiction memoir essays (except that they are written as if my fictional main character wrote them). My manuscript already consisted of a contemporary story line, a dystopian future story (a novel that my main character is "writing" that sort of parallels her own life), and short sections of descriptions from the main character's dream journal - and now I'm also adding in sections of essays. I'm not trying to overly complicate things - I really do think it'll work, and add to the story. What these sections are are parts of the honors thesis the main character supposedly wrote at the end of her undergraduate program, and they give a lot of insight into how she interprets the world and what she's learned. Before, I had the character just sort of thinking about her thesis intermittently, as asides. Now I'm including parts of the "actual" thesis instead.

But to do that, I had to write the whole damn thesis - not just the parts the main character would consider for this first book. Because I had to know how the thesis would be organized so that I would know how the parts of her thesis relate to each other. And also, I'll use the thesis for all seven books that I have planned for this series, so I thought I might as well write the whole thing now so that I already have it ready to reference in the future.

The thesis is basically a list of philosophical conclusions/interpretations that the main character has written about some of her favorite Latin quotations. She looks mainly at ancient Romans, but also Catholicism, and even some Enlightenment-era philosophers (those who were still writing in Latin). But of course, I knew basically nothing about ancient Rome, or Latin - though I have been doing research into those topics for this story all along, since I know my main character would know all about Rome and Latin, and I'm trying to get her head to embody her beliefs and her voice. So I had to up my research and do a bunch more - all so I could write a "fake" thesis for my main character to reference.

It was a lot of extra work. I like to make extra work for myself. I do this kind of shit often. "Yeah, my story is good... but it would be EVEN BETTER if I added in this whole other idea/layer and made it more complicated! Or changed the point of view and entirely rewrote it!" "What if this is the only set of novels I write ever? I better make sure I put EVERY IDEA I'VE EVER HAD in it. Leave no philosophical stone unturned!" I don't know if that's just a me thing or a writer thing, but I do all this research and put all this thought into it and combine all these ideas - and then I get to the editing of said writing, and end up paring a lot of it down or not even using whole ideas, or scraping entire weeks of research. Writing, it turns out, is a lot more than just writing. There's a lot of behind the scenes stuff that no one else ever even sees. (At least, how I do it there is.)

So anyway. Now that I've finally (more or less) finished the fake thesis, I'm back to editing the book by adding the sections into it that need to be and giving it another read-through. I am hoping that soon I will be at a place where I am comfortable sending it out to literary agents again. Because I would really, really like to find an agent. I have all these ideas and outlines and drafts and plans, but I don't really know how to go about turning my plans into a reality.

My goal would be to have the entire series published as a series of seven books. Very J.K. Rowling of me. And then, when the series has TAKEN THE WORLD BY STORM and is beloved by everyone and I am rich, maybe also publishing some of all this supplemental stuff I've gathered, like the fake thesis I've written/am writing. (I'm sure I'll come back to it later and add in more stuff. Things are never quite "done" with me.)

I don't really expect that to happen, but it certainly would be nice if it did. ;)

The Most Wonderful Time of the Year: Christian Privilege at Christmastime

I love the holiday season. I love the songs, the decorations, the baking, the gift buying, the gift wrapping, the gift receiving, the family togetherness - all of it. I've always loved it. I was born on December 20 and was brought home from the hospital on Christmas Eve. My parents brought me inside in my car carrier and put me right underneath the Christmas tree in the living room - their little Christmas present. I don't remember that, of course, but I like to imagine that it was a formative experience because I was enthralled by the twinkling lights and the love in the room.

Growing up, my parents were always careful to separate my birthday from Christmas so that my birthday wouldn't be overshadowed by the mammoth holiday. I got a birthday party separate from any Christmas parties planned, I got separate birthday and Christmas gifts. It was like a week of celebration - my birthday merging with all the holiday parties at school and the holiday traditions with my family. I absolutely loved it. I liked to pretend everyone was hanging up lights to celebrate my birthday with me.

This is still my favorite time of year - made even more celebratory since meeting my husband. His birthday is coincidentally the same day as mine (though a year earlier). And his family is Jewish, so he grew up celebrating Hanukkah. So now we get to share traditions for Hanukkah and Christmas, and stretch the holiday season out even longer.

I never thought much about Christian privilege growing up (why would I? I was Christian), but since stepping away from Christian beliefs and meeting my husband, I've become keenly aware of it.

For example - he teaches at a public high school here in Michigan, and a couple years ago expressed his feelings about the office's holiday display. There was a menorah to represent Hanukkah, a kinara to represent Kwanzaa, and even some written notices about cultural traditions of other religions, including some words about Islam, posted with sensitivity toward the sizable Muslim population at the school. But the majority of the display was a nativity scene for Christmas - and it was precisely this part of the display that bothered my husband. Hanukkah is not a particularly important holiday to the Jewish religion, and the menorah is just a candle holder, which is not in itself a particularly religious symbol. In fact, there is no Hanukkah equivalent to the Christian manager display that has a comparable "level of religiousness." Christmas is widely celebrated in the U.S. among Christians and non-Christians alike, and has many symbols associated with it that are less religious - wreaths, Christmas trees, poinsettias, Santa Claus, reindeer. And yet, the school chose the most religious aspect of Christmas and paired it with the practically secular menorah, kinara, and flyers.

It could be argued that it's not Christianity's fault that Hanukkah has no symbol that is particularly religious (although, let's be honest - if Jews have ever "toned down" their religious symbols to make them more generic and acceptable looking, it was because of persecution and genocide and diaspora, and Christianity is to blame for most of the instances of Jewish persecution, genocide, and diaspora throughout history). But even if Christianity had no influence on Judaism and how Hanukkah is celebrated, the office administrators that put together the display could have chosen more secular Christmas symbols. Including a nativity scene complete with angels and a baby Jesus and a praying Mary and Joseph was a clear choice, and one they could have opted not to make in an effort of religious sensitivity.

True, this was a display in the office, not in the lobby or the front lawn of the school; it's main purpose was probably similar to a worker decorating his or her cubicle with the items of their religion. Such displays are permitted (and should be) within our Constitution. But the display was also facing out, rather than in, and was clearly meant to be seen and appreciated by anyone coming through the office - administrators, teachers, students, and parents. The flyers that were printed up included a suggestion that visitors should "tell us about your religious beliefs!" - presumably so that the office employees could update the display if it was found lacking, for the benefit of everyone. It was hard to tell whether it was just an office employee decorating her workspace, or a decoration for the school, and thus seemingly endorsed by it. The school lobby, by the way, has the words "In God We Trust" engraved on the wall in big letters - so it wouldn't be out of the realm of possibility that the school might sponsor a display of religion.

A lot of schools - and other public buildings - do just that. City halls and police stations have giant life-size nativity scenes on their lawns, same as churches. It is precisely these displays of church on buildings that function for the state that upsets my husband - because we are supposed to have a separation of church and state in this country, yet instead often seem to have a state-sponsored religion (Christianity).

So my husband expressed his concerns on Facebook (probably not the best place to do so, in retrospect), and the result was that a bunch of other teachers and students and administrators jumped down his throat. Some cited the amount of time the office employees spent trying to make a nice display that was open to everyone's holidays (as if effort and good intentions were sufficient excuse). The flyers in particular were lauded as proof that the secretaries were trying to be as inclusive as possible. And yet, it is the flyers that (to me) most point out the Christian privilege on display. The secretaries had a nativity scene ready to go (whether it was the schools or was brought in from one of their homes is not really the point) - and they placed this nativity scene literally right next to a sign pointing out the secretaries' ignorance of "other" religions. If Christianity were not America's default religion, the secretaries wouldn't have to ask what other religious traditions there were this time of year, because they would already know those other traditions instead. Growing up Christian in America means that you can be ignorant of other traditions - because your traditions are the ones catered to. It might seem nice and tolerant and inclusive to ask other people to contribute their own religious beliefs to your display, but it also puts the onus on them to come forward and explain them to you - and after you've pointed out that their religion is "other," is "unknown," which really puts them on the spot.

As the only Jewish teacher in the school, my husband is often asked questions by his students when they're taking a Humanities class and learning about religions or when they're reading a book about the Holocaust in an English class. Sure, it's nice of them to "think of him," but it also requires of him to represent an entire religion/ethnicity. Black people are similarly asked to speak "on behalf of" all black people, or women to speak "on behalf of" all women. Like all black people or all women or all Jews are the same, and have the same opinions. My husband isn't even religiously Jewish anymore (like me, he has stepped away from the belief system he grew up in), and yet Humanities students come to him to ask about Judaism.

(On a similar note, the one black teacher at his school is often asked for help with discipline issues for black students - whether or not she actually knows the students personally. It is assumed that because she is black and the troublemaking kid is black, she will know what to do with them. It's absurd.)

But back to the office holiday display - the amount of backlash my husband received for airing his grievances was enormous. Some of his colleagues stopped talking to him. He felt ostracized. Yeah, he probably could have gone about it better - like talking to the office secretaries instead of posting something on Facebook. But it's like none of them even listened to what he was trying to say. They didn't bother to consider his viewpoint because they felt so personally victimized. (Never mind that seeing a nativity scene in his workplace kind of made him feel personally victimized in the first place, which is why he took to Facebook to complain.)

It's like the outrage over Starbucks' red cups this year. There is no "war on Christmas," guys. The fact that some people ASSUMED their favorite coffee chain would have decorations on its cups for the religious season that they personally celebrate in fact proves just the opposite. It was perfectly within the realm of possibility that there would be Christmas imagery; it was something those people were expecting, because their religion is so ubiquitous that they have seen their Christmas imagery depicted on the paper products of this and other companies before. This year, for whatever reason, their religion was not specifically pandered to (or not pandered to enough - because, let's face it, red is still a Christmas color, and other winter holidays from other religions do not use red as their symbolic color). Next year, perhaps Christianity will be pandered to again (or more obviously). But the chances of a different religion being pandered to are basically nil. It's Christianity or secularism in this country, and often a mix of the two. It is never any other religion. And even if it were secularism all the time (as, I would argue, it should be, given the wording of our Constitution), that would still not mean that Christianity was being "warred" upon. It would just mean that it was not specifically allowed to tout its privilege, or maybe even that (gasp!) some of its privileges were being taken away.

For true equality to be reached, some groups are going to have to lose their privilege. Losing privilege is NOT discrimination, though - the two are completely different. Losing privilege is like expecting you'll win the lottery, but then you don't actually win after all, and so you do not receive the money you were counting on. Discrimination is like having money that is rightfully yours  taken away from you, because somebody else decided it shouldn't be rightfully yours, or that they deserved your money more than you do, or simply because they wanted to be a bully or demonstrate their power or strength or cunning and they didn't care who they might hurt in the process.

Yeah, losing privilege can suck; not winning money you expected to win, that you perhaps needed to win (to continue the lifestyle you were accustomed to) is a major bummer. But it's not a personal attack, it's just an inconvenience - and it's only considered an "inconvenience" because it's something you were accustomed to that you are no longer receiving, not because it is actually necessary or prudent or even good for you.

It's hard to see your own privilege; this is true for any privileged group. But make no mistake - Christians (especially those belonging to a mainstream Protestant denomination) do currently have privilege in this country. This post is getting long enough, so I'll include my List of Christian Privilege in tomorrow's blog post. It will be a fitting list to consider on Christmas Eve.

As for me and the holidays - I think I'll always love this time of year. It's just too engrained in me to give up, and if it's something that makes me happy, why should I give it up anyway? I enjoy the Christmas season more or less as I always have - with family, with friends. I bake cookies, I wrap presents, I put up a Christmas tree. But I have sloughed off many of the more religious parts of Christmas over the years since I've stepped away from my Christian beliefs, as I once sloughed off believing in Santa Claus, or waking my parents up at six in the morning to run downstairs and open gifts. I do still like the religious music, and sing along when I hear one I particularly love. But it's the sentiment I'm attached to, not the specific words, or the specific message.

Even when I was a devout Christian, I didn't go around rubbing Christmas in other people's faces, though. (At least, I tried not to.) I was encouraged by some at my church to make a point of saying "Merry Christmas" - especially if a store employee wished me "Happy Holidays" when I was checking out with my Christmas purchases - but I don't remember too many times when I actually did that. Probably mainly because very few store employees wished me a "Happy Holidays" - they all just said "Merry Christmas" anyway, and so I had nothing to complain about. I had friends who did not celebrate Christmas because they subscribed to a different religion; it was more second nature to tell people at school "Happy Holidays" - or even simply, "Enjoy break!" or "I'll see you NEXT YEAR!" when it was time for the two weeks off school.

There are ways to celebrate your own religion, your holidays, your traditions without making other people feel bad for not having the same traditions as you do. Don't assume other people are celebrating what you're celebrating. It's not hard if you actually try. The real reason some Christians act as though everyone is celebrating Christmas is because they think everyone should be. 

I imagine a particularly obtuse Christian might say: "But I do want others to feel bad for not being Christian, because I want them to become Christian! I want us all to belong in one big Christian group together because I want us all to hear the truth, and believe in Jesus and go to Heaven! It's a noble cause, my alienation and discrimination and exertion of Christian privilege! And it's not like religion is gender or race - you can choose what religion you subscribe to, you can choose what to believe in! Anyone can - and should become Christian. It's not like I'm saying that I'm better than non-Christians naturally or biologically or indefinitely. I want equality, I want everyone to have the same privileges I have! How is that a bad thing??"

To which I would reply: We have freedom of choice in this country. As long as it does not infringe on other people's pursuits of happiness, we have the freedom to our own pursuit of happiness. Let other people make their own choices and celebrate what they want to celebrate - their celebrations in no way involve you or infringe upon your own celebrations. Your celebrations, on the other hand, do often infringe on other people's celebrations, because your celebrations have the power, have the privilege in this country. Do you really want someone to become a Christian just to belong - or do you want them to come because they want to be there and came willingly, without coercion? And wouldn't it make "the choice" to be Christian, to believe in Jesus, less significant if literally everyone made the same choice? How much of a choice would it be if it were mandatory, or nearly so?

Get off your fucking high horse and recognize that other people believe just as ardently in the tenants of their religion as you do in yours. They believe they are right; you believe you are right - and there is literally NO WAY to prove which one of you (if either of you) are right - at least no way to prove that on this planet, in this life. Why can't you enjoy your time with your family, and enjoy your holiday celebrations in the privacy of your home (as Jews and Muslims and Hindus, etc. do with their holidays)? Isn't that what the holiday is about anyway - the family traditions? You do yours, and let other people do theirs. They've been doing just that for generations in this country; why don't you repay the favor and give them the same courtesy?