Seriously, Who Cares!

Satire on the Web, and why it’s so great.

Recently, I came across a website called “Seriously, So Blessed,” and I encourage people to visit and enjoy.

From the “About Me” portion of the site,
“Hi everybody!!! My name is Tiffany/Amber/Megan/Nicole and I am married to Jordan/Jason/Wes/Taylor, and we have non-stop fun all the time and are LOVING married life! We are super busy but we still love to make time for fun stuff and we just love being married and living our awesome lives. I LOVE crafts (especially Stampin' Up! and homemade jewelry) and he loves sports. I went to hair school/teach 2nd grade and we just moved so we could go to law/dental/business/medical school! It is way hard to be away from all our friends and family! But being in law/dental/business/medical school is really fun for me because there are tons of wive's clubs like bridge club, book club, walking club. Pretty awesome! Love you guys!! If you have anything you want me to blog about, puh-LEASE let me know at seriouslysoblessed@yahoo.com.”

That should tell you a little bit about what goes on there.

I should warn you it is a parody of blogging within the LDS world. I sent my dad the link, and he told me he could only read through a few before he couldn’t stand this girl any more. After I told him it wasn’t a real person, just a parody on what’s going on out there, the humor finally hit him.

Yet while this is a humorous site, and I am absolutely addicted to it, and can’t stop reading it (as well as the comments), it effectively shows what I view as a bad trend developing in our culture. It’s a trend of one-upsmanship, materialism, consumerism, and outlandishness. To quote one of the commenters, “K, I laughed my buns off.
This blog is too good to be true. Nice slap in the face, too. Thanks for reminding me to chill out and try not to up one on my perky friends. :)”

Is that last line too true? “Thanks for reminding me to chill out and not try to up one (isn’t it one up?) my perky friends.” I can cite blog after blog after blog (which I do visit, because it’s kind of funny, and because I need my humor in twisted ways), where it seems as if there’s this competition of one-upsmanship and “Keeping up with the Jones’.”

So here’s what I say. RELAX. I’m sure we’d all like to buy new cars while living off our student loans, and be able to see all the new first-run movies, go to the nicest restaurants, have new outfits all the time, and live up to the hype of a fairy-tale marriage. But realistically I think many of these wives who blog about these things are just overcompensating for the reality of being newlywed and married. I think that reality is one of sacrifice and humility, not outdoing your neighbors. I don't know, am I off here?

BYU-Idaho's Honor Code, or, Beating a Dead Horse

Many know about BYU-Idaho's honor code. It is strict, much moreso than our siblings at BYU-Provo. We aren't allowed to wear shorts, wear flip-flops, have facial hair, wear hats on campus, etc.

But I don't want to provide a full discourse on the Honor code. It's not beating a dead horse. It's beating it, burning it, beating the ashes, and then re-burning the ashes. Let's let the poor horse have some dignity and leave it alone!

I read the newspaper here on campus for 3 reasons.

1. I read the police blotter. Nothing better than reading about someone drilling a hole in a watermelon, pumping it full of fireworks, and exploding it in an apartment complex parking lot. I was privleged to be a part of that aftermath, and it made last summer very interesting.

2. I read the opinion pieces. While they leave much to be desired, they also leave themselves wide open to mockery. There's nothing more important going on in the world to develop an opinion on than the benefits of Super Walmart? Obviously the opinions are thoroughly sanitized for our protection (and the protection of the University), but getting people talking isn't always a bad idea. I could go on and on about it, but...

3. I read for the letters to the editor. I've debated on multiple occasions about writing a letter, but have never gotten aroudn to it. I really think that the letters to the editor and the opinion pieces tell who we are on campus.

So what's the point? In yesterday's edition of the paper, there was a letter to the editor about the honor code. It discussed how we have an honor code, how there was almost a double-standard (some teachers enforce it, some don't), and this quote.

We are all adults who (for the most part) have bee raised with a great Mormon background and but can neither dress ourselves nor apply the honor code.

As a convert, this is very troubling, and a topic which needs to be looked into. We all need to stop looking for shortcuts and just live the honor code.

I hope I'm not the only one who sees some flaws in this. Here's what I think...

Numero uno - LEAVE THE POOR HORSE ALONE! There will be people you encounter, people you meet, who don't follow those same standards that you have. Give it a rest.

Numero Dos (I'm trying to be more cultural because I saw someone from Saudi Arabia stumbled upon my blog...but I don't know...is it Arabic?) - There's more to life than the honor code. What about the opinions on a 14-week semester? Or the amount of construction on campus (Parking is another beaten dead horse). What about politics, or things that the politicians are saying? The possible expansion of BYU-Idaho as a university? Choose something interesting to talk about!

Numero Tres - There is no reason to bring up your religion in every single aspect of your life. Go to NYC and complain that the Naked Cowboy (who I desire greatly to meet) isn't following an honor code. Religion is brought up way to much around here. I don't think bringing religion up is a bad thing, but I think people around here get way too uptight about anything relating to their religion. Believe me, it's a privledge, but honestly? Seriously? Is that all you do is complain?

But then, there I am, the Monday morning quarterback, calling the shots as to how I think the University newspaper should be. If I did have my say, President Kim Clark would probably cringe every time I opened my mouth.

That's why I write here. I can get away with all that stuff

The Princeton of the Mountains, or, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of BYU-I Elitism

When I was younger, I remember Stanford being called the “Harvard of the West.” According to Wikipedia, that’s the name for the University of Michigan, but I think it applies more to Stanford. Stanford, since their inception, has been known for their academic quality and excellence, especially in relation to the Ivy League schools of the east.

With Kim Clark coming to BYU-Idaho, there has been much talk in the University about the quality of education that we are receiving, and the wonderful opportunity of having a former Harvard Business School dean as our school president.

Here’s for hoping I can start a new catch-phrase: As far as undergraduates go (especially those looking for business degrees), I submit that our university has become the Princeton of the Mountains. Nothing against Yale, or Cornell, or Harvard, or any of those other Ivy-Leaguers, but Princeton just has a nice ring to it.

But there’s one problem with making an assertion that we are the Princeton of the Mountains. In fact, asserting that we have a quality of education comparable to Princeton or the other Ivy-League schools brings out the good, the bad, and the ugly of elitism.

The Good

1.) Location – BYU-Idaho is located in Rexburg, which is at least 20 minutes away from civilization. Yes, we have a Wal-Mart, and a first-run movie theater, but we also have a lot lacking. Because of our location, it is difficult for the university to get noticed. Thus, with this elitism, people who would most likely not come to recruit are now coming.

2.) Quality of Education – I’ve stated many times before, but I would take a BYU-Idaho undergraduate degree in business rather than a BYU-Provo undergrad degree in business. I cannot say the same about other degrees, mostly because I have no experience in other areas. I am a minor in the communications department, but that’s almost as wide as the business department. Here’s some generalizations I can make:

a. Smaller class sizes – I would say the average class size is about 20 people

b. More emphasis on participation in class – I have been in more classes where participation was a part of your grade rather than lecture-based settings

c. 14-week semesters – I used to be able to skate along until midterms, then re-evalute to see where I stand and try to salvage my grades. This is not the case anymore. Midterms are 85% of what your final grade is. I haven’t seen that many people jump that much in grades. 14-weeks forces you to prepare every day and forces you to work

The Bad

1.) Students who don’t want to be Students – My father, to get himself through school, worked 40 hours a week and his last bit of school went on 3-4 hours of sleep per night, and still has lasting sleep effects from that situation. My mother, who was by no means a normal college student, took 21 credits ON A BLOCK, and went through her masters program with a 4.0 GPA, with 3 kids at home. Yet I see many people who don’t really work for their education (and mostly in a monetary sense). Mommy and daddy sent them here to straighten them out, or to get married, or…whatever. And don’t get me started on those people who work summer sales, and come back with $50,000, buy a new car, 42” flat screen, and blah blah blah. People need to act more like students around here.

2.) “We’re so much better than…” - This is something that I fall into some times talking about the business department, but it happens in a lot of areas here. If I had the opportunity to go to Princeton, Yale, Harvard, Browning, Cornell, even the University of Michigan over here, I would have a hard time deciding where to go. Just because we have a pretty conservative faculty who don’t really talk about politics and bring gospel-related themes into class doesn’t mean we are that much better than some of these spectacular universities

The Ugly

1.) The Lord’s University – There’s a joke around campus that “I’ve heard it said that BYU-Provo is the Church’s University where BYU-Idaho is the Lord’s University.” I don’t like this. I’ve never liked this. Yes, there is a dividing faction between us and Provo, but follow me on this: The temple is a place of learning – It (in my view) is considered a “higher” place, separated from the world, a deeper sense of learning – Learning can be called your “education.” Thus, the temple can be considered a place of “higher education,” where we are instructed from the Lord. Thus, is it too much of a stretch to consider the temple to be the “Lord’s University?” I know this may seem petty, but it adds to the presumptuous feeling that we are better not only from our Provo siblings, but from the rest of the academia realm

2.) All or nothing – because of this being a church-owned university, people forget sometimes that the administrators of the university (the dean, the VP’s etc) are paid, and their words aren’t gold. I respect President Clark. I think a lot of his insights are very valuable, and the time’s when he has come into our class, I’ve avidly taken notes. Yet people feel that his words are law. There really is no room for intelligent counter-discussion of things happening at the university. It really is an all or nothing attitude – “If you don’t like it, you can go elsewhere.” Seriously? That’s your answer? Let’s confront facts! If I am 90% satisfied with my education, my university experience, but 10% of my dissatisfaction comes through petty administrative things, let’s have an intelligent discussion instead of questioning my spirituality, church commitment, or banishing me to another university because of dissenting opinions.

I don’t know, am I off here? I really see this becoming a problem here at school, if it hasn't already become one .

The Pernicious Evils of LDS Romance Novels

Ashley and I just had a debate as to what the title should be, so to make her happy:

The current genre of LDS Romance novels that are directed towards women are a detriment to the LDS society.

(My name is Ashley Malone, and I approve of this sentence).

If there's one thing I've learned in my 9 months of marriage, it's that a happy marriage revolves around Ashley approving of my sentences.

I might ruffle some feathers, and I have nothing against her personally, but I hate Anita Stansfield's books. Such titles include "First Love and Forever," "First Love, Second Chances," "At Heaven's Door," and "Gables Against the Sky." It's not because I'm a guy, because honestly her books aren't written towards me. It's not because of the success she's had. More power to her. But it is because of her books.

Having a wife who is an English major, I not only get to hear about how bad my English is (either in writing or in speaking), but also what she (and her English colleagues) feel about authors, books, and many other things involving English.

For example, the Harry Potter books (which anyone will tell you got me through my first 2 years of college) are considered "commercial," and many just don't like them from a literary standpoint. August Wilson is probably one of the most understated and underrated play writes of the 20th Century. To nobody's surprise, Shakespeare is quoted in general just as much as the scriptures. And finally, they all have a strong dislike for Stansfield's books.

I must preface this by saying I personally have never read any of her books. I'm going off what I have heard others discuss, most notably Ashley, so there will be some bias in this. That being said, there are many reasons for these sentiments, but the most prominent concerns how she illuminates reality in LDS marriages and relationships for LDS women.

There is a fairy tale about LDS marriages (which post is sitting in my "Halfway completed" pile), the most dominating school of thought being "Happily Ever After Begins Today." Perhaps it's because I'm still a young married guy, but for some reason my reality buzzer keeps going off whenever I hear that. Anyone who has been married for over 6 months will tell you that the "Happily Ever After" takes work. Hard work. Lots of work. And in my opinion, that work is what makes the happiness.

However, Stansfield's books not only embrace the fairy tale, but embellish it to cater to women. How can a man live up to her unrealistic expectations of constantly expressing "mushy" feelings, noticing the subtle things that women crave (such as new haircuts), and always being the hopeless romantic in any situation? Just writing this and listening to Ashley describe some of the men in these novels makes me feel that I'm a schmuck who only cares about watching ESPN and doesn't express his feelings enough!

Now is there anything wrong with these traits in men? No, and I think that a man who loves his wife is trying to be that type of husband to her. But (and this is where I might receive my hate-mail) I compare her writing for LDS women to the writings of the trashy paperback romance novels found next to the Cosmopolitan magazine in the local Wal-Mart. In essence, her writings are literary pornography for the LDS women's mind.

That's strong, I understand. Anytime anyone throws around the "P" word we tense up, get uncomfortable, and look over our shoulder to see if anyone saw what we just read. And for good reason! Yet I'm comparing her writings to said P-word in a different sense.

As a man, whenever "P" comes up, the repercussions are brought up as well. Broken homes, divorce, and women feeling inferior to those on the internet are all after-effects of this pernicious evil. Yet what is Stansfield doing? I must bold this so my point gets made: She is giving women an opportunity to read and play out their relationship fantasies, and the women (in turn) develop unrealistic expectations as to what their husband should be like.

Men aren't bad. We try, and we try very very hard, to please our wives. I would love more than anything to be more open with Ashley about my "mushy" feelings, to notice those small things that I know she likes (such as if she painted her toes a different color), and to have an Australian accent. Because it's something that I'm not good at, I work on it. Almost every day. Yet I would feel like much less of a man if Ashley were reading those novels, and have an unrealistic expectation for me to live up to. I would feel as though I were never good enough for her because I was always being compared.

Isn't that what women feel when their husbands betray them and look at pornography? Though sex and relationship fantasies aren't exactly apples and apples, the comparison is more like red seedless grapes to purple seeded grapes: two different parts of the same family.

Luckily, Ashley dislikes Anita as much as I dislike meatloaf (and I REALLY dislike meatloaf!) I'm just glad to see that it's not just us who feel that what Anita is doing is detrimental to LDS society, but others as well.


P.S. I was just informed that there was a BYU-Idaho forum on how LDS Romance Novels were a hindrance to our society, and Stansfield was mentioned by name. I'll see if I can dig up some more information for you all.