Dear friend, 

I'll give you ONE GUESS. 

For the sake of reading, here it is: 

This being human is a guest house.
Every morning a new arrival.

A joy, a depression, a meanness,
some momentary awareness comes
as an unexpected visitor.

Welcome and entertain them all!
Even if they are a crowd of sorrows,
who violently sweep your house
empty of its furniture,
still, treat each guest honorably.
He may be clearing you out
for some new delight.

The dark thought, the shame, the malice.
meet them at the door laughing and invite them in.

Be grateful for whatever comes.
because each has been sent
as a guide from beyond.

- Rumi

Besides The Guesthouse I actually also really like It Couldn't Be Done by Edgar Albert Guest (lol? Guest? what's going on here?) The get-to-it-ness of this poem is inspiring to me and has oft provided me the motivation needed to prove myself wrong. I love the idea of defying expectations, pushing the limits of possibility, and showing yourself what you are capable of. 

Oh My Name here,

Just be a dear,

And when you ask

The highest tier,

Don't ask so hard,

For it's my fear

Comparing those

I most revere.

I guess then you'll

Just have to hear

My favorite few

That I hold dear.

I hope that you

Will lend your ear

As I give you

Mes meilleurs vers.

Shel Silverstein

I just found it online, which is my favorite thing! Also Hug'O'War is there! Allow me to share that one, too:

Bill Watterson

Others

“I have wept in the night
At my shortness of sight
That to somebody’s needs made me blind,
But I never have yet
Felt a twinge of regret
For being a little too kind.”

― C.R. Gibson

The Eternal Everyday

― Edmund Vance Cooke

(source, with minor changes in the second verse) 
note: my personal favorite reading of this poem starts at minute 41 of Marion D Hank's speech "The Road to Tarshish"

The Touch of the Master's Hand

Twas battered and scarred, and the auctioneer thought it scarcely worth his while 
To waste much time on the old violin, but held it up with a smile; 
"What am I bidden, good folks," he cried,"Who'll start the bidding for me?" 
"A dollar, a dollar"; then two!" "Only two? Two dollars, and who'll make it three? 
Three dollars, once; three dollars twice; going for three.." But no, 
From the room, far back, a gray-haired man came forward and picked up the bow; 
Then, wiping the dust from the old violin, and tightening the loose strings, 
He played a melody pure and sweet as caroling angel sings.

The music ceased, and the auctioneer, with a voice that was quiet and low,
Said; "What am I bid for the old violin?" And he held it up with the bow.
A thousand dollars, and who'll make it two? Two thousand! And who'll make it three? 
Three thousand, once, three thousand, twice, and going and gone," said he. 
The people cheered, but some of them cried, "We do not quite understand 
What changed its worth." Swift came the reply: "The touch of a master's hand."

And many a man with life out of tune, and battered and scarred with sin,
Is auctioned cheap to the thoughtless crowd, much like the old violin, 
A "mess of pottage," a glass of wine; a game - and he travels on. 
"He is going" once, and "going twice, He's going and almost gone." 
But the Master Comes, and the foolish crowd never can quite understand 
The worth of a soul and the change that's wrought by the touch of the Master's hand.

― Myra Brooks Welch

And so you see,

My treasured friend,

They're all so great,

I don't pretend

To have just one

I'd recommend.

-Inklings

Dear nameless,

Recently I've been on a Carol Lynn Pearson kick. This is my favorite poem of hers:

Position

If “A” looks up to “B”
Then by nature of the physical universe
“B” must look down on “A”
Rather like two birds
Positioned
One on a tree
And one on the ground.

Or so thought Marjorie
Who had always wanted to marry
A man she could look up to
But wondered where that
Would place her
If she did.

Imagine her astonishment
When she met Michael and found
That together they stood
Physics on its head.

You could never
Draw this on paper
For it defies design

But year after year
They lived a strange
Arrangement
That by all known laws
Could not occur:

She looked up to him
And he looked up to her.

-guppy of doom

Dear you,

This is just one of my favorites:

The Higher Pantheon, Lord Alfred Tennyson

Dear You,

"Invictus," by William Ernest Henley, is my all time favorite poem.

You have been given a direct order to rock the [freak] out.

 

Rock out like you'll never have to open up a textbook again.

 

Rock out like you get paid to disturb the peace.

 

Rock out like the plane is going down and there are 120 people onboard and 121 parachutes.

 

Rock out like the streets and the books are all on fire and the flames can only be extinguished by doing the electric slide.

 

Rock out like it's Saturday afternoon and Monday is a national holiday.

 

Rock out like somebody's got a barrel pointed to your temple saying Rock out like your life depended on it fool!

because it does.

 

Rock out like you are the international Skee-ball champion of the entire universe.

 

Rock out like you just escaped an evil orphanage to join a Russian circus.

 

Rock out like the walls won't fall but [dang it] you're gonna die trying to make them.

 

Rock out like the stereo's volume knob only has the figure 8 of infinity on it instead of merely numbers.

 

Rock out like it's raining outside and you got a girl to run through it with.

 

Rock out like you were playing football in the mud and your washing machine ain't broken.

 

Rock out like the mangoes are in season.

 

Rock out like the record player won't skip.

 

Rock out like this was the last weekend,

like these were the last words,

like you don't ever want to forget how.

 

Dear person,

A poem by John Clarke.

There was an old man with a beard,
A funny old man with a beard
He had a big beard
A great big old beard
That amusing old man with a beard.

-Sheebs

Dear Here,

My sister will laugh when she reads this because this is really just one of my dad's favorite poems, but as I was looking through my running list of poems I like, this is the one that is resonating most with me right now.

"Pied Beauty"
by Gerard Manley Hopkins

Glory be to God for dappled things—
  For skies of couple-colour as a brinded cow;
      For rose-moles all in stipple upon trout that swim;
Fresh-firecoal chestnut-falls; finches’ wings;
  Landscape plotted and pieced—fold, fallow, and plough;
      And all trades, their gear and tackle and trim.

All things counter, original, spare, strange;
  Whatever is fickle, freckled (who knows how?)
      With swift, slow; sweet, sour; adazzle, dim;
He fathers-forth whose beauty is past change:
                                    Praise Him.

And since no one has put any Emily Dickinson yet, here's one of my favorites of hers:

There is no frigate like a book
To take us lands away,
Nor any coursers like a page
Of prancing poetry.
This traverse may the poorest take
Without oppress of toll;
How frugal is the chariot
That bears a human soul!

Sincerely,

Cerulean

Dear Question-Asker,

I really love Emily Dickinson's poem # 314 ("Hope" is the thing with feathers).

What's Happening!

How many toes does a fish have?
And how many wings on a cow?
I wonder, yup
I wonder!

-Tacky the Penguin

Dear you,

From what I understand there is no official, across-the-board approach. I think the Mission President can advise an LGBTQ missionary to be or act a certain way, but ultimately the missionary gets to decide. I agree that it should be fine to be open with who they are. I think as long as they don't preach against the doctrine of the Church or act contrary to the doctrine of the Church, then they would be fine just like every other missionary in the world.

-Sunday Night Banter

Dear Somewhat,

I think it depends on your mission president. Personally, I was lucky enough to have a mission president who was very welcoming of gay missionaries. During zone conferences would say things about how statistically several of us were LGBTQ+, and how that was fine and he and the Lord both loved us no matter what our orientation was, and that we should always be loving and welcoming of everyone. I know that some missionaries specifically told him about being gay, and as far as I'm aware he never told them to hide that fact from anyone (although most didn't exactly advertise it, because there's no guarantee that their companions would be understanding). He was also aware that there were almost definitely some closeted missionaries, and would go out of his way to tell the entire mission that he loved us regardless of our orientation and whether or not we felt comfortable sharing it with him. Based on what I've heard about some other mission presidents, though, I don't think everyone is like that, so it seems like it's just up to the mission president what their policy is. Hopefully as the Church becomes more aware of the diversity within its membership it will come up with a universal policy to help protect its gay missionaries and make sure that mission presidents are loving and accepting.

Also, for what it's worth I definitely know some people with tattoos who went on missions and weren't told to keep their tats covered up at all times. One of my friends has a very visible tattoo on her wrist, as well as another on her back, and she never had to do anything to hide her wrist tattoo, and was very open about both her tattoos with her companions and investigators.

-Alta

Dear you,

I searched through the missionary handbook and there isn't any mention of it. I don't know of any missionaries on my mission who were openly LGBTQ+ (although it's highly likely there were LGBTQ+ missionaries), so I don't have personal experience with it. Obviously the same missionary standards about appropriate conduct such as not flirting with or dating anyone etc. would still apply though.

My thoughts are that I think LGBTQ+ missionaries who are open about their orientation could potentially be a huge blessing to investigators, members and other missionaries on their mission. On the other hand, I'm guessing it would be hard and there would be members and missionaries who wouldn't respect them and treat them like they should be treated. I personally would love it if we had more openly LGBTQ+ missionaries and would encourage them to go on missions, but I'm not sure how it would be handled by others.

If any readers have relevant experiences please submit a correction. Hope this helps!

Peace,

Tipperary

Dear Tom,

While I will readily admit that I don't have the experience that the full writers do, I would like to offer some commentary that hasn't been offered yet. Unlike the majority of the writers who responded to your previous questions, I do understand the male perspective, and I think a response from that perspective ought to be provided.

I don't have as much context as I'd like to have--I obviously wasn't a writer at the time the original question was posted, and I was still being spoonfed Board functionality when its follow-up Board Question #92521 came into the inbox. With that said, an age-old proverb says that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, so having thus furnished my masculine credentials, I'll dive in and see if we can work something out of your question. I'm going to approach this topic presuming that you're asking in good faith, and I hope you'll reciprocate with my response.

The question: What specifically is said or done which demonstrates objectification?

Let's go all the way back to the beginning and take a look at Board Question #91428 for our model. Since this seems to be the comment which prompted the most ire and led to this chain of related questions, I'd like to go through it a piece at a time and examine the attitudes at play.

"So I’ve noticed the recent question about changing modesty standards. I was actually going to ask if it seems like BYU is getting more lax on what people where at certain athletic events. The female track athletes don’t seem to be as modest this year as years before...I noticed after the Rex lee run there were some women around afterwards that had nothing but a sports bra on top."

Right here at the outset, I have a concern. What's considered modest track wear? In what way is the track wear from the current year less modest? I ask this not to sound flippant, but because we need to know what it is that defines immodesty in the first place. The questioner (hereafter designated by his 'nym "Not Tom") doesn't say, which means it's difficult to get a helpful idea of what his idea of modesty is.

We don't really conceptualize modesty this way in the church often, but I would suggest that modesty is very much a contextual thing. What may be modest in one situation can be totally inappropriate in another. I would wholeheartedly agree that wearing only a sports bra would be wildly inappropriate at a work meeting, a stake fireside, or a formal dinner, but most everyone I know who runs dresses lightly because it's what's most comfortable and practical. During the blistering hot summers on my mission in the southern United States, missionaries often joked that it must be a legal requirement for state residents to remove their shirts before going outside. There's nothing wrong with adjusting your dress to fit the climate. So long as nobody is violating laws surrounding public indecency and exposure, I see no reason why a woman wearing a sports bra shouldn't be considered identically to a man running topless: someone who is dressing comfortably for exercise in the heat should be avoiding as many extra layers as is practical. So, while Not Tom makes no explicit assertions about modesty, the underlying assumption here seems to be that anything less than a shirt, or another top covering the bra, is inherently immodest. That isn't something I agree with. 

"...It just seems that we’re becoming less and less destinct [sic]. Like do you think it’s immodest for a woman to run without a shirt? Like I think it’s crazy when in years past you might hear someone say the cheerleaders are immodest. But Don’t you think it sends a certain message when a woman doesn’t have a shirt on?"

As I said above, modesty is contextual. So no, I don't believe it's inherently immodest for a woman to run without a shirt on. I do think it would be immodest for a woman to run totally topless, but that's not the question being asked. I don't think running in a sports bra sends a particular message other than the woman in question has enough sense to dress comfortably for the heat. Again Not Tom's assumption here seems to be that women are dressing immodestly if they're not wearing a top of some kind, with no apparent regard to other factors playing into their choice of dress. The equivocation in that assumption is clear in the two different questions being asked as though they're actually one and the same: first we're asked whether it's immodest for a woman to run without a shirt. Then, in support of that question, we're asked, are women not sending a certain message by being shirtless? Indeed, how could one suggest that this sort of thing isn't immodest?

The best answer is something more like "Well, the message being sent really depends on the situation, so your second question doesn't actually follow from your first," but this option doesn't even seem to be in view in the original question, which is a little concerning. Instead, modesty is a binary decision, simply equivalent with shirtlessness. This may be an easy framework of modesty, but it's not a sufficient one, for reasons we're about to get into. But before we move on to the end of the question, let's get a working definition of modesty so we're on the same page.

Latter-day Saint philosopher Blake Ostler has an absolutely incredible article on the nature of relationships with God and others in which he discusses, among other things, what it means to be in a proper relationship with others as people (as "Thous," to use his terminology) rather than mere objects (or "Its"). The entire article is well worth reading, but I'll reproduce the section which seems most relevant to our discussion of objectification and modesty:

"To speak to a Thou in a proper relationship is not to use one's vocal cords but to stand before existence and to relate to it in a certain way; to take an ethical stance in relation to persons. To treat a person as an object is to treat it as an It, to regard the object, even if it be a He or a She, as if it were a mere thing. We stand apart from an object in order to coldly scrutinize and exploit it: to observe, measure, categorize, and manipulate it - to bend it to our advantage. In an I-It relationship there is no genuine reciprocity. The relation is that of manipulator to an instrument, of mechanic to engine, or computer scientist to computer. To treat a person as an It implicitly results in our being treated as mere objects. Thus, for me to speak to a person as a mere object also objectifies me as an object, a thing rather than a person in relationship. If I treat a person as a mere object of pleasure, to be appropriated for my purposes and to deny any independent purpose to that person, then both of us have lost our intrinsic value as Thou in a relationship. The relation is one of a person observing a pornographic picture of a person. Both the observer and the observed are mere objects in such a relation. It is the relation of a biological organism controlled by its hormones to a mere body."

Good stuff. Keep it in mind; we'll come back to it as we treat the last part of the question.

"If you’re a woman reading this I don’t think you understand what it’s like to be a guy seeing a not fully dressed woman. It’s getting tougher and tougher being a guy in our society weather [sic] it’s being on social media, or at the beach, or just out and about in public." 

This is where the original question goes from misguided in its unconscious assumptions to rather patronizing. This is also where those assumptions are most clear.

It is true that women don't and can't have precisely the same experience that men do. At risk of stating the obvious, though, experiencing feelings of attraction and romantic or sexual desire is not exclusive to men. Not Tom's assertion may be well-intentioned, but it's both reductive and flatly wrong. As guppy of doom astutely pointed out in her original response to this statement, "...I don't know what it's like for men to see a woman in a sports bra. But I know how I feel when I see tan, fit men running in nothing but shorts down the road. I've gotten really good at...appreciating his physique, recognizing the attraction, and moving on. I intentionally look away and don't let my thoughts wander...Society (especially Mormon society) seems to have a view that women don't have a sex drive. But we do. It feels limiting and almost dehumanizing to say that women don't have this fundamental human aspect that is crucial for the continuation of our species." 

I'm not a woman, but I'm willing to bet the sexual experience is not so distinct between the sexes that our shared moments of "appreciating [the] physique, recognizing the attraction, and moving on" are foreign concepts. I know what experiencing sexual attraction feels like, even though I've never had the slightest attraction towards the tan, fit men I see at the apartment pool every weekend. I'm not the least bit interested in other men, but having been attracted to women, I can at least reasonably try to approximate what a girl is feeling when she describes a man as attractive.

Further, Not Tom goes on to link this experience of seeing "a not fully dressed woman" with the difficulty of being male in today's society, which continues the same underlying assumption that women are exempt from the difficulty of sexual temptation and that this is primarily or even exclusively a male problem. I know this is a common way to look at it, and I know discourse on modesty in the church has conditioned many of us to do exactly this, but it's still a wrongheaded and harmful assumption. At best, it perpetuates inaccurate stereotypes of women (especially Latter-day Saint women) as demure, sexless creatures, who presumably feel nothing at the sight of not fully dressed men. At worst, it actively denies the notion that women have any kind of sexual needs or sexual agency at all, and isolates and shames those women who do struggle with sexual sin. I point this out not to accuse Not Tom of deliberately doing all or even any of those things, but in response to the current question of "what is said or done which demonstrates objectification?" I would point to statements like these as examples. Suggesting that sexual impropriety is a male problem, something too arcane or masculine to be understood by women, belittles the breadth of the female experience. Back to guppy of doom again, who by virtue of her femaleness probably makes this point better than I: "It feels limiting and almost dehumanizing to say that women don't have this fundamental human aspect that is crucial for the continuation of our species." 

I know some female friends who have been in Young Women's/Relief Society lessons where the intended lesson on pornography or sexual purity was simply ignored, because it's so taken for granted that "good girls" don't even have the desire to sexually misbehave that it's not even taken seriously. How would you feel to be told by a friend or authority figure that your struggle is one that your sex as a whole should never even be experiencing? Awful is no word for it. It's inexcusable. Not Tom hasn't said or done those specific things in the original question and I'm not suggesting that he has, but the same fundamental attitude is reflected in the kinds of questions that he is asking.

Now, with all this said, let's go back to the main point of the statement. It's hard to be a man in society today and be surrounded by women who don't always live up to Latter-day Saint standards of modesty. I'm a man. I'm sympathetic to the idea. I get it. But this line of thinking is still fatally flawed. Let me tell you a story.

Years ago, I was reading through posts from Fight the New Drug on Facebook, and they shared an image of a couple proudly wearing their Porn Kills Love t-shirts, as they often do. I noticed in the comments one man who was quite apart from the usual flood of positivity in the comments. He was instead grumbling that even Fight the New Drug, of all places, didn't have better sense than to post suggestive if not actually pornographic advertising, and he was prepared to stop supporting the organization over their blatant and tragic hypocrisy. After much confused pressing from fellow readers, it became clear that he was disgruntled because the woman in the photo was wearing form-fitting yoga pants, and he blamed Fight the New Drug for failing to recognize that posting such photos was essentially providing their own lighter and softer form of pornography as far as he was concerned.

Does that seem a little absurd to you? I certainly thought this man's complaint was a little ridiculous. Unfortunate for that man, and sad, yes--but quite frankly, a little absurd. In my view, there was nothing remotely objectionable about the photo at all. Yet here this man was, insisting that a Facebook page dedicated to opposing pornography was actually aiding and abetting his own addiction to the same because of the thoughts that entered his mind. 

Frollo is, while tragically mistaken, not entirely wrong. It is true, after all, that he cannot entirely control which thoughts and feelings enter into his mind as a result of Esmeralda's infamous performances as a dancer. None of us is in a position to precisely control our every thought, feeling, and inclination. However, where he ultimately falls is in his defeatist insistence that he must therefore be utterly powerless against his feelings--even going so far as to conclude that God Himself must in some way be responsible for them and thus it is useless for him to reject them. This is fundamentally in conflict with the teachings of the restored gospel, which enthrone agency as the single most important gift of God to man. Short of psychological or physiological damage to the point of addiction or disability, we are never deprived of our agency, no matter what stimuli we're presented with.

I hear you now. "Stop rambling, 9S! What in blazes does this have to do with objectification?" Remember what Ostler said a few paragraphs up? To give up one's agency--to shift responsibility to the attractive woman wearing a low-cut top, or a sports bra, or a skimpy bikini--is to reduce oneself to an object to be acted upon, and in so doing, to also objectify the woman on the other end of the relation. Both of you are denied intrinsic value in that relation. Ask yourself this: are you an intrinsically valuable son (or daughter) of God, striving to have virtuous thoughts in spite of the unfortunately objectionable clothing or behavior you might see from other intrinsically valuable sons or daughters of God? Or are you a mere biological organism, enslaved by your hormonal responses to the bodies or the clothing of other biological organisms? Setting aside the question of sports bras, even when others are dressed entirely modestly, we will still be presented with thoughts that tempt us. The same yoga pants I didn't even notice were comparable to pornography for another man. A pretty sister missionary whom my mission companions thought was unremarkable was enough to occupy my thoughts for hours if I wasn't careful. These are all instances of objectification. Some are more mild than others, and many times the cause is a natural part of our being human, but in every case the responsibility to recognize the behavior and turn away from it begins with us, not the other person. That is precisely what the scriptures mean when they admonish us to put off the natural man.

In conclusion, and to come all the way back to your question, Tom, I think a few things can profitably said about objectification:

It doesn't always happen consciously. Often, we're merely acting out the patterns that we've been conditioned to, as when we suggest that women are responsible for men's thoughts. Most people accept this statement uncritically and with the best of intentions, without realizing that it's actually harmful to both men and women. It suggests that men are helpless objects to be acted upon, and that women are valued by the influence they exert on men rather than their own intrinsic value as daughters of God.

It doesn't mean we're bad people. All of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all of us encounter the temptation to objectify another person, whether we're like Frollo refusing to take responsibility for our lustful thoughts or we're simply manipulating people to gain a financial, social, or emotional advantage. The key is recognizing where we've gone wrong and working to remedy it.

It doesn't have to be exclusively sexual in nature. Although it's most commonly discussed in connection with sexuality, objectification is really about agency and personhood, not about clothing or feelings of attraction. When we deny that we have the power to respond to our situations, or limit the experiences or understanding of others in their situations, we're falling into the trap of defining them by what they are (or are not) and looking past their intrinsic value as a Thou rather than an It.

I hope something in this is genuinely helpful to you. I wish you the best.

Genuinely,

9S

Hey,

Are you okay?

And I ain’t tryin to mess with your self expression but I’ve learned a lesson that stressin’ and obsessin’ ’bout somebody else is no fun.

-T. Swift

*** TW: rape, assault, harassment, etc. ***

Dear Tom,

Sometimes, it is impossible to know the thoughts and intentions of a person. Therefore, we can't 100% know if someone is objectifying another person in their heart of hearts. And it may be true that I ought to give more people the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions about their opinions based on a short submission. I think I shall try to be kinder when responding and give more thought to the answers I give. 

That being said, I believe that part of why we do make assumptions about who's objectifying who is that it follows patterns in behavior. Generally, someone who respects another person isn't going to rape/assault/harass/abuse/murder them. In society, we see clear patterns of who is doing that. Men rape/assault/harass/abuse/murder women at much higher rates than the other way around (not to say that women don't do those horrible things to men, because they do.) When there are actions taken based on a feeling, it's easier to feel confident in our assumption that a person is objectifying another. You know, by their fruits ye shall know them. To me, that constitutes enough to count as proof of objectification. Additionally, many times people will say things that indicate that perhaps they are objectifying others. That may include any number of statements, most often reflecting only on the appearance of someone, what they'd do to them, or demeaning them in some other sort of sub-human way. Regardless, if you've been objectified... you can feel it. And it feels gross and belittling and honestly kind of crushing. 

Being concerned about the modesty of women doesn't necessarily mean that you're objectifying them, true. However, I do think that when a person decides that it's their responsibility as a man (or a woman, for that matter) to "keep women [or, in general, other people] in check" in regards to modesty, they aren't respecting their agency or personhood very much either, especially considering we don't get to force our personal standards on anyone else. It certainly isn't as severe as thinking of them sexually, and surely isn't as horrible as acting on those feelings, but we often conflate objectification and obsession with other's modesty because in some way caring more about what someone is wearing than who they are as a person does objectify them. Particularly if the perceived immodesty is within reasonable bounds of acceptable. Doing so places the judging party in a position above the judged party and makes the latter barely a worthwhile person at all, reducing them simply to the clothes they're wearing that don't fit your personal expectations and standards. 

And perhaps we are a bit guilty of doing the same thing: reducing a reader who submits a short question to only this one (perhaps misled) opinion that they hold, and not allowing them the complexity of personhood. To anyone who has felt that way from what I have written, I apologize. That isn't is the intent of my responses. We often make judgements based on the few words that ARE said, though often other's real feelings are unsaid and therefore cannot be judged because we don't have proof of intention, so it's best not to assume or attack someone based on improvable assumptions, since you may come to regret it later and have to apologize. 

What should be noted, though, is that while it may not always be the nicest thing to do, sometimes assuming someone is objectifying you or another person is what keeps us (especially women) safe. There may be a person following you on the street or in a car or eyeing you at an event or bar or wherever else, and it can make you feel very uneasy and scared. In conversation and relationship, it's generally advisable to be kind and assume the best about people. But I think that if someone is creeping you out, you don't need proof. You need to stay safe. Those patterns of criminal action toward women are real, and they affect the lives of millions. And perhaps that's just a bit ingrained in us. We feel the need to stand up for ourselves and keep ourselves "safe" not from a physical attack, but from a mental/emotional one. When we respond with quick remarks based on the assumption of objectification, we're trying to educate, to explain how we feel on a regular basis and the statistical foundation for our fears. I think it's a bit unsurprising that we DO assume... though we often do so without valid proof, particularly considering that we're anonymous writers that are on the Internet, and the people who may be objectifying women are not putting anyone in danger. We just want to put a stop to even the potential of that kind of thinking as fast as possible, even in cases where it is rash or misguided or even rude to do so. I think if the people who ask these types of questions experienced the same things as some of us have as female writers, it would make a lot more sense. Granted, we certainly should still not to place judgments on readers beyond the question that they are asking. Sometimes we use the Board more as a place to air our opinions than as a place to answer questions, and I think we could do a better job than that. 

In any case, that's what I have to say about that. Apologies to any I have offended, and I commit to do better and try to take more time and consideration before making a judgment call in my answers. 

Cheers, 

Guesthouse

Dear Tom,

Bruh. Through trial and error and a lot of offended women, even I have eventually had to learn that telling women to cover up all the time is more a reflection of me than of them. Women have bodies, which I personally am grateful for, but if I think that I just can't have clean thoughts because a woman is wearing running shorts and a tank top to our tennis date, the only thing that needs to change is my thoughts, not her clothes. If a guy is obsessing over what a woman is wearing, even if it's just to tell her to change clothes, he's probably thinking a little too much about her cleavage and not enough about the fact that she's a full and complete human being.

-Provo Bros

Dear readers,

You can't, unfortunately, read all the emails our dearest Tom has sent us. So I'll leave him with this:

-guppy of doom

Dear Super Mom,

Cerulean's answer has a list of the bathrooms, but I wanted to include a few tips about bathrooms:

1. My great-uncle taught me that because of the way that plumbing is designed, it is easiest to place stack bathrooms so that the sewage line can be a straight line. Because of this, you will likely find bathrooms in the same place on different floors. Note that sometimes they alternate floors, but are still in the same place, like in the JFSB. This is super helpful if you want to find a less frequently-used bathroom. Just find the bathroom and find a less frequently-used floor of the building. For the most part, you can also assume that the other bathrooms are designed the same.

2. If you want to check if a bathroom has a changing station but there's someone in there, you can pretend that you're fixing your hair or makeup or something. If you need to get past the nice receptionist lady to see the bathroom inside their office, simply ask if you can wash your hands using their bathroom. If you do it with a smile, they won't think you're a total weirdo, or they will at least not show it.

-Inklings, whose hands are now very clean (at least physically)

Dear Pushing A. Stroller,

Here is a list with all the bathrooms from the Women's Services map categorized as female, male, or family. For the most part, all the men’s restrooms are specifically indicated as men’s restrooms on the map, but there are a few exceptions. I’ve marked these exceptions with one asterisk.

Two asterisks indicate a restroom not included on the map. However, even with a few added restrooms, I can’t promise that these are all the restrooms on campus with a changing station. We (Inklings and I) used these maps to check whether the restrooms listed on the map were men's or women's and then did some field work to check the ones that we couldn’t do with the maps. Along the way, we just happened to find some extras.

Also, TLRB 251 is listed on the map as a men's restroom with a changing station, but it does not have a changing station.

And, without further ado, here you are!

Female
ASB B135
BNSN W132
BYUB 1013C
CONF 2291A
CTB 222
ESC S203
HBLL 1010
HBLL 2010
HBLL 4602
HFAC E319 (The map says B319, but I don’t think that exists. I think they meant E319 because it does exist and has a changing table.)
JFSB 1079
JFSB 1121
JFSB B027
JFSB B173
JKB 1019A
JKB 3021
JKB 4091D
JRCB 2nd Floor Library
JRCB 330
JSB 127
LSB 2103
LSB 3102
LSB 4115
LSB 5118
MC 3210
MC 3410
MLBM 2004
MLBM 2022
MOA Main Floor
MSRB 111 (It is not marked as MSRB 111 anywhere, but this is the mother’s lounge attached to MSRB 107.)
RB 114
RB Locker Room
SFH 2
SHC 1056
TMCB 1101
TMCB 248
TNRB W106
TNRB W206
TNRB W306
TNRB W406
WSC 1183
WSC 2080
WSC 2624
WSC 3212

Male
CB 201
CONF 2271A
JRCB 266
JRCB 332
MLBM 2008**
MLBM 2020**
MOA Main Floor
SHC 1054
TLRB 146*
TMCB 1105*
TMCB 272**

Family
Cannon Center Family Restroom
EB 212
EB 347
HBLL Family Study Area
HCEB 222**
HCEB 120A**
HCEB 218A**
HCEB 318A**
HCEB 418A**
HRCN 130
KMBL 1121
KMBL 1131
KMBL 224 (The map says 2226, but I’m pretty sure there’s no 22nd floor, so I think they meant this bathroom on the second floor. It’s pretty new.)

Hope this helps! Good luck!

Sincerely,

Cerulean

P.S. If you are unfamiliar with any of these building acronyms, just type it into the search bar at map.byu.edu!

Dear friend, 

Back in ye olde days of my youth, I used to just take tampons and liners from my mom and she would just stock up for the both of us. I wouldn't even have to talk to her about it or anything. I only was a bit bashful about it for the first year or two, and then once all of my friends were on the same track, it became really normalized because we would commiserate and such... so I didn't see any need to be embarrassed about any part of my menstrual cycle. That being said, sometimes I'm just generally anxious and not in the mood to interact with people, so if I need products at that time I just go through the self-checkout line if I need to. 

I actually disagree with Goldie Rose a bit. Pebble doesn't have any sisters or particularly close women in his life beyond his mom, but he is super chill, understanding, and kind about my periods. He can always tell when it's coming, doesn't act weird if I talk about it, and makes extra effort to be patient with and sweet to me if I'm being hormonal or have really bad cramps. I don't think its a natural guy thing to be weirded out by periods. It's socialized into them (AND EVEN GIRLS!) to be uncomfortable because of the way people are educated about it and are taught to talk about it. I mean, they do not teach you hardly ANYTHING in school, and I'm sure that ambiguity and confusion greatly contributes to people being uncomfortable about menstrual cycles. In any case, I think it's a bit immature to be embarrassed by bodily functions. The human body is a beautiful, incredible machine, and we shouldn't resent or be grossed out by our own (or other's) bodies for doing their jobs correctly - no matter who you are. 

Cheers, 

Guesthouse

Dear you,

I definitely used to feel that way. One roommate changed all that for me though - she had a "Menstruating Human" shirt and wore it during her period. She told me how guys would comment on it and tell her how awesome it was. That helped me realize how silly I was being for feeling so self-conscious about something half the human race experiences once a month. Since then I've definitely become more confident about talking about my period/buying pads and tampons.

I agree with Guesthouse about how it's socialized into us to treat menstruation as a taboo topic. In many cultures menstruating women are viewed as unclean, and even in some cultures today women have to leave their community for the duration of their period. Part of me wonders if this is due to how women are viewed in those societies, or how blood is viewed. Seeing as blood coming from any other part of the body other than the vagina isn't punishable by spending days alone, I think it's the former. There's been some interesting and entertaining ideas on how society would view menstruation if men had periods (just google "if men had periods"). I think my favorite is by Gloria Steinem, who writes,

Young boys would talk about it as the envied beginning of manhood. Gifts, religious ceremonies, family dinners, and stag parties would mark the day. 
To prevent monthly work loss among the powerful, Congress would fund a National Institute of Dysmenorrhea. Doctors would research little about heart attacks, from which men would be hormonally protected, but everything about cramps.
Sanitary supplies would be federally funded and free. Of course, some men would still pay for the prestige of such commercial brands as Paul Newman Tampons, Muhammad Ali's Rope-a-Dope Pads, John Wayne Maxi Pads, and Joe Namath Jock Shields- "For Those Light Bachelor Days."

Who knows, maybe I'll make a "Menstruating Human" shirt and try to normalize the female body in society?

-guppy of doom

Dear MNH,

I used to be way more self conscious about buying tampons, but now as a 25 year old I couldn't care less. But that's also because I use the self checkout wherever I go. I was more embarrassed when I was younger and had just started my period. I inherited my embarrassment because my Mom only wanted to go to a female cashier when she was buying tampons or pads. I promise not to do that with my future children so they don't feel ashamed or embarrassed about a natural body function.

When it comes to guys and periods, I think it depends if they have sisters or not. The guys who have sisters don't really care about periods as much since they grew up with it. If their sisters are vocal about it, they have to deal with the PMSing and all that jazz. If guys had all brothers or the sisters were more private, then they are more likely weirded out of it being part of a normal conversation. (I'm so TMI with Carl, but he has an older sister and he's always been open of me talking about periods since the very beginning.)

-Goldie Rose

Dear person,

Every woman who buys tampons from male cashiers helps to wear out the menstruation taboo. Because of this question, my new goal is to buy tampons only from male cashiers. You are inspirational! 

-Sheebs

Dear You,

I pretty much always use the self checkout because I don’t like waiting in lines, but I don’t care what the cashier knows about my menstrual cycle. Literally half the population experiences periods, and the other half directly benefits from them (like, they exist, which means their mothers must have had a somewhat healthy reproductive system for at least some period of time), so what's the big deal? 

I used to be very awkward about it, though. Even though I have two other sisters, periods were never talked about in my house and I had a lot of internalized shame about them. I would walk to the grocery store to buy my own pads when I was 13-14 rather than have to go through the shame of asking my mom to buy me more. Because this was in the days before self checkout lines were common, I had to get over the embarrassment of having random male cashiers check out my pads pretty quickly, because for some reason that was preferable to asking my mom to buy me more. I also used to be sort of embarrassed about buying pads instead of tampons, because I had it in my head that "real women" use tampons, but my periods are almost always too light for tampons to even be comfortable to use (pulling out a dry tampon is the worst), so I've since realized that people should just do whatever works for them.

If anyone ever gives you grief about buying pads/tampons/menstrual cups, just tell them that you could not use them at all, and instead bleed through your pants and onto their chairs/couches. They'll probably be fine with your tampons after that.

-Alta

Dear nameless,

Yep, definitely felt that way before. But then I went to a session of the 2018 BYU Women's Studies "Bodies of Women" conference called "Pride or Shame? Menstruation and Women’s Embodied Self" by Joan Chrisler (based on her research here and here), and I decided I didn't care anymore. It takes a bit⁠—like I still feel uncomfy when I linger forever in the aisle trying to choose which tampons to get⁠—but I've definitely come a long way!

Sincerely,

Cerulean

P.S. Sheebs, I am officially adopting the same goal as you.

Dear you,

I don't feel as though I'm self-conscious about having a period, but I don't like to advertise it either. Somehow I worry that someone's going to see me with a tampon/pad and think "I know what's going on in her reproductive system" and that would make me really uncomfortable. I'm sure part of that stems from a stigma, as my family was not open about these things, and I inherited a belief in keeping things private. Probably another part of it is my desire to not draw undue attention to myself, especially parts of myself like the uterus.

Love,

Luciana

Dear Question-Asker,

I definitely grew up feeling weird about my period even though I had three sisters. We just never talked about it, like at all. I have a distinct memory of one of my brothers refusing to carry in a bag from the store that had tampons and pads in it. Obviously that's not great, but he grew out of it.

Honestly, things changed once I was the only kid left at home. When your dad is 1) outnumbered and 2) doesn't really care, it was easier for my mom and I to discuss. And then my sister started using a menstrual cup and recommending it to everyone, and so I started using one as well. Let me tell you, few things have made me have to confront my period like starting to use a menstrual cup. Nowadays I'm much more comfortable discussing periods and will recommend/explain menstrual cups to literally anyone who is interested. (You can keep them in so long! They hold so much! My period no longer wakes me up in the middle of the night in sheer terror!)

Anyway, this is all to say that I rarely have to buy pads anymore, but when I do, I no longer feel weird about it.

-Quixotic Kid

Dear you,

This may sound conceited, but I really don't intend it to be that way: I give myself hope in the world. I'm certainly not as bad as what I hear on the news, and so I think if I can be a little better each day, then the world will be a tiny bit better as well.

I also find hope through Jesus Christ because I think He makes that much of a difference.

-Sunday Night Banter

Dear friend, 

• My relationship with Pebble
• Videos of kittens and bunnies
• Reading research in the social sciences and knowing we've come a long way and have a lot of tools to change the world
• Witnessing small acts of service that other people do for each other
• Giving and receiving compliments
• Soul Pancake Videos
• Jason Mraz Music videos like this one
• AMAZING PROFESSORS! 
• Beautiful and intelligent peers in my program. There are so many spectacular people that I meet that are making great efforts to make our community a better place. 
• Rain & showers, for a chance to start again
• The fact that Jonny, Chris, Guy, and Will have all been spotted outside the Bakery Studio in London, and that Coldplay recently hired a new "Cultural Consultant" so obviously SOMETHING is a-brewin'. 
• The Jacques Torres Chocolate Chip Cookie recipe
• Watching shows like Queer Eye
• Productive, deep, interesting conversations
• My Grampa
• The fact that my cacti are still alive despite my incompetence
• Morgan Harper Nichols quotes

Life is good. 

Cheers, 

Guesthouse

Dear you,

My girlfriend, advances in engineering, football, Taylor Swift's new album Lover. Not necessarily in that order.

Peace,

Tipperary

Dear Aziraphale,

• Mountains
• Poetry
• Music
• Cloudy days scattered with rain
• Meditating

~Anathema

Dear Mx. Here,

What gives me hope? This tweet right here.

It just absolutely warms my heart.

Sincerely,

Cerulean

Dear You,

• My students, when they're not busy taking away my hope by doing weird and dumb stuff, actually give me a lot of hope. The vast majority of them are so empathetic of other people's suffering, aware that not everyone is like them and that's okay, and call out problems like racism and homophobia when they see them. If that's what most 13 year olds are like, the future is in good hands.
• The fact that most people I talk to are decent people who believe in human rights.
• Queer Eye
• The abundance of metal straws, which means people are actually trying to take care of the environment!
• People like Greta Thurnberg who are raising awareness about global warming and doing what they can to combat it.
• More specifically, this picture from Facebook of Greta Thurnberg meeting Jane Goodall, and realizing that amazing women across generations are coming together to try to help the planet.
  
• Seeing people do small and big acts of service without asking for recognition, just to be a good person.

-Alta

You,

Real connection. Interactions with individuals that just shine with humanity. Time in nature. Rocks. Could be big rocks, or little ones with neat texture. In any case, I would say it's usually something noticeably and undeniably real. 

Babalugats

Dear "",

Despite my ever-present interpersonal cynicism and pessimism, when it comes to the world at large, I'm serenely confident that in the end--whatever that last day looks like--everything is going to be all right. I trust very deeply in the justice of God and in my sense that, in the poetic words of Eliza Snow, all of us are merely strangers in this difficult, painful, dreary world--wanderers from a more exalted sphere. Sooner or later, all of us will see that exalted sphere again. Everything we experience here is but a fleeting, transient, ephemeral thing, meant to directly prepare us for something far greater and more lasting.

With that said, the suffering and pain we all encounter here ought to call us to act, not to sit on our theological laurels waiting for God to do the work. We are, after all, meant to be His hands. So, in the meantime, I find hope in the innate goodness and altruism of the vast majority of people, even--perhaps especially--those with whom I have deep and profound religious or political differences. I find hope, too, in the beauty created by human endeavors in mankind's search for happiness and purpose, whether it's a myth of a hero rising against evil, the religious devotion of a Gregorian chant, or the reflectiveness of an ancient Japanese waka. The media of storytelling have changed, but always the motifs remain the same. In the end, all of these endeavors are to one degree or another reflective of our ultimate reality--earthly yearnings for the heavenly pattern--which, though we now glimpse it only intermittently through a glass darkly, will one day be made clear to us.

There's a lot of good out there in the world, if we're willing to look for (and contribute to) it. Is there wickedness, pain, and suffering? Undeniably. But in the end, these things too shall pass.

When everything seems to be going wrong and the frustrations and vicissitudes of life threaten to overwhelm me, I find a lot of hope in Revelation 21:4:

And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.

Genuinely,

9S

Dear Goldie Rose, 

A spatula. They're simple but incredibly versatile. 

Cheers,

Guesthouse

Dear Interesting Choice,

I would be a blender. I’m energetic, I like to bring things together, and sometimes I explode and make a huge mess. I'm basically already a blender.

Peace,

Tipperary

Dear Goldie,

I'd be a pizza pan because (A) I love pizza, and (B) although I may be superfluous, I'm delightful to have around anyway.

-Alta

Goldie,

A teapot. Occasionally loud, but essentially introverted. 

Babalugats

Dear a la pucha,

I'd be a quesadilla maker. Vaguely useful under certain conditions, largely defenseless, often found coated in cheese grease on the floor of the Goodwill clearance aisle.

--Quesardilla Feroz

Goldie,

According to this quiz, I am a fork. Here's what it says: "You are a fork! You are ambitious, proactive, and always get the job done! Forthcoming by nature but not maliciously so, people look to you for leadership, a role you often take by default. You take pride in your work, and it shows! You are direct and punctual, and have a low tolerance for wishy-washy, indecisive people. The maker didn't give you a four pronged head of awesomeness to be a slacker, now did he/she/it!"

I think I'll decline to offer any commentary on the truthfulness of this statement, but there you go—I'm a fork.

Sincerely,

Cerulean

Dear GR,

A strainer. I'm usually good at letting go of negative thoughts and emotions and focusing on the positive. Also people's names drop out of my mind just as quickly as water runs through a strainer. (It's a real problem.)

-guppy of doom

Dear Judith,

You may consider me "old school", but I still don't like the word feminist. I prefer to be seen as a humanist. Yes, I came up with that term, and I'm certain someone else has used it before me. I worry that the feminist movement will move the pendulum a little too far. I would rather take a humanist approach to ensure that everyone is loved, respected, and has rights and protections.

Yes, I understand that I am a little different in this regard to my fellow writers, but that isn't new. 

-Sunday Night Banter

Dear Jude,

The short answer is "That depends."

I've learned recently that I'm really not a fan of labels. I briefly touched on this in Board Question #92363 while discussing my political leanings, and I have problems with the label "feminist," too. Because I'm so pragmatically inclined, I don't like words that obfuscate or require a lot of clarification, and in my experience, what feminism means to different people is so wildly varied that it's essentially a useless label (much like the word "cult" is a virtually meaningless pejorative in religious discussions). If I talk to someone and they say, "I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!" I can reasonably infer a few useful generalities about their beliefs and practices from what I know about Church members (which is quite a lot, in this case, since I am one myself). Not so with feminism. To talk to a self-identified feminist is to immediately require further clarification, largely because there's no one central creed or catechism to which I can refer. To describe myself as a feminist likewise requires me to clarify, since I have no idea what Board readers or fellow writers assume that to mean, and they may end up attributing beliefs to me that I don't agree with at all. Now of course you can lay groundwork ahead of time--but compared to a label like "Latter-day Saint" or even "Mormon," "feminist" is too ambiguous for my taste. Especially in a question stripped of context like this one.

For example, most if not all of my liberal feminist friends growing up accepted axiomatically that elective abortion was part and parcel of real feminism. If you didn't support it, you didn't support women, and you didn't really care about feminist causes no matter how much you said you did. But I've also read commentary from conservative feminists who maintain that the only real standard of feminism is a fervent commitment to the equality of the sexes, and such tertiary issues as abortion have nothing to do with one's commitment to the cause. Then there are radical feminists, who go much further than either group in both arguing about the burdens women face and castigating those who disagree as weak-willed, duped, or misguided.

Which of these groups constitutes "real" feminism? Everyone is free to argue for their favored definition, but so far as I can tell, there's no universally agreed-upon reference point. (It's not unlike the incessant insistence from mainstream Christian churches that we are not under the Christian umbrella, despite the fact that from our perspective we couldn't possibly be more Christian if we tried.)

So really it depends on your definition. If by feminism you have in mind the basic equality of men and women, then yes, I'd qualify as a feminist--although I imagine most people likely would; it's not a terribly high bar to clear in the developed world. If your criteria for "real" feminism includes as its axioms such things as uncritical acceptance of reproductive freedom, or pornography as feminist empowerment, then no, I'd pretty clearly fail the test. I suppose you could say I'm one of those people who shies away from the word because of the fringe voices and unfortunate associations, but for me, association is everything, and labels are just a collection of associations. So far as I'm concerned, my actions, thoughts, and beliefs should precede and inform any labels someone wants to attach to me, which is why I'm responding to a simple question like this one with another patented 9S essay (9Ssay?). That seems preferable to accepting a label beforehand and allowing it to color someone else's perceptions of me.

Genuinely,

9S

Dear Judy,

I feel like my previous Board answers probably make it quite obvious that yes, I consider myself a feminist. Ardently. 

It might be a bit strange for me to delve into the world of investigating social inequality and not come out a feminist (though this is not unheard of. Some people draw some very different conclusions from the things I, too, have learned.) 

We ought to note, of course, that what 9S has to say is perfectly valid and should be considered in this discussion. Sometimes, people take a label and run with it to the point that they actively work against their own original purpose. I do not agree with the feminists who claim that because men have dominated women for so long, it is time to band together and take revenge and squash them all down like the bloodsucking parasites they are, establishing a matriarchal society. That's not inherently better. That version of 'feminism' taints the word and the message with violence and hate when it is meant to be about goodness and strength and passion and intelligence. True, without the righteous anger behind the movement, we wouldn't get anywhere. But certainly, seeking to raise yourself and your group by destroying others is what got us into our societal conundrums in the first place, right? In any case, I'm very disappointed that the word feminist has been polluted such that people don't always comfortably feel they can immediately claim it. Because they should. Everyone should.

Here's a quote from one of my textbooks: 

"Feminists have always been subject to accusations of disliking men. But as you should begin to see, feminism is not about positioning men against women in some kind of epic battle for power, though that might make for an interesting video game. As feminism has evolved over time, questions about how to involve men and how feminism matters for men have become increasingly important... a comprehensive understanding of gender must examine both men and women." (Ryle, Questioning Gender, 3rd Ed.) 

While we're thinking about that, please watch Emma Watson's He for She Speech and Michael Kimmel's TEDtalk on Why Gender Equality Is Good For Everyone.

Did you click the video links?

I'll give you some time. Seriously. Watch them.  

Of course, maybe we're all wrong. According to Pat Robertson, "The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." 

Silly Pat, we gave up witchcraft ages ago when your lot burned us at the stake for using umbrellas and being falsely shown to weigh as much as a duck. Also, just because women don't love you doesn't mean they're lesbians. It's completely understandable why you want to blame other people for you problems. I mean, let's face it, YOU'RE the fool that's destroying capitalism with the very callous, greedy principles it was founded on (turns out exploitation isn't as sustainable as you'd hope!) Also, men make up 80%+ of the family annihilators annually, and while it is true that women initiate 69% of divorces, it can be due to a large number of factors, particularly substance abuse, infidelity, and domestic violence. How's THAT for facts and logic?

We need feminism in the world because all women know the rules about not walking alone. Because women don't apply for jobs unless they feel 100% qualified, while men apply if they feel they meet 60% of the qualifications - we don't have faith in ourselves. Because women who ask for raises are just less likely to get them.  Because we don't have family leave policies.  Because the Pink Tax is real. Because controlling for external factors, the wage gap DOES still exist. Because this year's Forbes' "100 Most Innovative Leaders" list included only one woman. Because FREAKIN' LIZZO. Because our social history has led to this world where toxic masculinity exists, and men cannot be seen as effeminate without being looked down on - as if feminine qualities are bad. Because gender is largely socially constructed. Because a newborn baby shouldn't have so much of their life determined for them by the arbitrary color of their blankets... and why are we forcing gender norms on an infant??? Because there's still work to do, because the world is meant to have men and women on equal ground, contributing their own strengths.

Like a girl, 

Guesthouse

Dear Judith,

I'm 100% a feminist, and I think it's a GREAT word. To say that you support the cause of women but won't call yourself a feminist because you also support men is to ignore the fact that women are the ones who have been systematically put down over centuries in most cultures around the world. Men don't need extra support to get them equal rights; they've had more than equal rights all along. Women are the ones who have been marginalized and ignored and treated terribly for hundreds of years.

-Alta

Dear person,

Yes. And it saddens me that the word "feminist" is still controversial.

-Sheebs, off to brew potions and cast spells

Dear Judy,

Heck to the yes! I've come to realize that there are ways in which our current society treats women unfairly, and I'd like to see those change. I think feminism is important because people need to be aware about the issues facing women. Many people assume because women can vote now that there's nothing to fix and there is. The more I've learned about these issues (health issues, sexual assault, corporate and academic hierarchies that favor men, and the lack of decent flipping pockets, etc.) the more I've realized how important and relevant feminism is.

While part of my motivation for feminism is empathy, most of my motivation is honestly selfish. I believe that women are just as hard working, intelligent, bold, strong, and creative as men. And when I look at the realms of buisiness, government, science, engineering, etc. and I don't see a lot of women I fear that we are missing out on the talents and contributions of women. We need to create an environment that helps women make these contributions instead of pushing them away. For example, I think there would be a lot more women in the engineering program if the guys in the engineering program were less sexist, or at the least less obnoxious.

Anyways, go feminism! Feminism will benefit the entire world--men and women--so I'm all for it.

Peace,

Tipperary

Dear Dr. Butler,

Yes! Because I think being willing to use the word reduces the stigma around it.

Sincerely,

Cerulean

Dear Judith,

Yup! I think men and women are equal and should be free to pursue their dreams without societal hinderances. Men and women shouldn't feel constrained to fit one certain standard. You go working men/women and stay-at-home dads/moms!

-guppy of doom

Dear Jude,

Most definitely. I believe that woman and men are equal and that social systems should be rectified/put into place to treat them as such. 

~Anathema

Dear Judith,

My definition of feminism is a belief that all genders are fundamentally equal, and that no one should be forced into specific societal roles based on gender. I consider being a feminist the same as being a decent human being, and I like to think I fall into that category.

Love,

Luciana

Dear Judith,

I am absolutely a feminist and I am completely comfortable using that word. Women deserve equal treatment and equal opportunity to control their own lives. Guesthouse pretty much said everything else I would have said on the issue.

-Quixotic Kid

Dear Asul,

One of the things that made it easy for us to decorate is to figure out a color scheme we both liked for each room. That way we knew while we were shopping for decor what would fit in that room. Our family room colors are navy blue and bright green. Carl's aunt made us a blue and green shawl for our wedding and we display it on our couch. We added blue and green pillows (one of them is a sequiny mermaid pillow that changes color!!)

Other things that make it feel like home is pictures of yourself and family. We have some big family photos framed on the wall of when we got married. We have the Oakland Temple in the middle since that's where we got sealed. On another wall, we have some of our favorite engagements and formals that showcase our personality. (You can get big wall frames 50% off at Hobby Lobby every other week. -Former Hobby Lobby employee.)

Decorating should show people who you are as a person. It should also make you happy to be in the room! (That sequin pillow that was $10 at Walmart most definitely makes me happy.) We have a door mat that says, "Yay! Friends!" It shows that we're friendly and hope you come as a stranger but leave as a friend. 

Another thing to make the apartment more you is to display things that you've done, accomplished, or created. You can follow a Bob Ross tutorial on YouTube, go to Color Me Mine, or Google any other easy crafts you think sound fun. We have some crafts pending. But since Carl is a Marine we have an American flag, Marine flag, and a Marine sword displayed and I feel pretty rad looking at them.

Good luck!

-Goldie Rose

Asul,

lagom

Lagom is a Swedish word (and lifestyle) meaning just the right amount. Not too much, not too little. Balance. It's the understanding that there is a tipping point at which additions actually diminish the outcome. If you like that, next time we will work on the Japanese unagi. 

I remember once reading a fashion tip from Heidi Klum (I couldn't find it, sorry). But she said to get your outfit together for the day, accessorize boldly, and then take one accessory off. I try to decorate similarly. Most of the time, we don't need as much as we want to add.

So I would say have fun with it, but then put something away for later. 

Babalugats

Dear Azul,

Get matching furniture. I'm not saying that all your furniture has to look exactly the same, but at least get stuff in the same general color scheme, and in cohesive styles that will look good next to each other. It instantly makes your house look worse if your furniture looks like all of it was bought at DI in different decades.

-Alta

Minamahal kong ate na asul,

Salamat po sa tanong. For me, I like to put up art on the walls. I am not perfect at it, but when I find a painting I like at a garage sale (or DI) or online at a good price, I get it and try to put it up. I like having my own pictures on the walls and what I like instead of just seeing the walls. I've also taped up things like The Family: A Proclamation to the World and a picture of my favorite temple. I want my home to be a place where I get excited to be back. In a general sense, I would suggest that you put things in plain view and at eye level that make you feel at home and that remind you of good things.

Ingat po kayo lagi 'te :)

Inklings

Dear Asul Ateh, 

I've been building an Interior Design inspiration board on Pinterest for many years now (hit up my email and I'll tell you my account if you want to follow) and have taken classes because at one point or another I actually wanted to be an interior designer. Whenever I have opportunities to decorate, I start by harvesting ideas from that Pinterest Board. Most of my taste is a modern - rustic blend with lots of neutrals and earth tones, with an appreciation for contrast and dark colors (I could go on about how dumb I think having white walls, white cabinets, ceilings, furniture, etc. is, but that's for another time.)

With inspiration in mind and considering the shape, color, and purpose of a room, I move to furniture. I'm not really at a point to be buying couches and bedframes or dressers quite yet, so I just work with what's available. I either loosely draw or simply envision the layout of the furniture. The organization and flow of a room are very important and should reflect how the space is meant to be used. The layout of furniture and usage of storage pieces are how you make a room functional. That being said, mixing things up and moving them around is also really fun and I like to shake things up every once in a while. It's good for my brain. 

And of course, we all know the phrase "form follows function." So, once the layout and inspiration are worked out, I move on to the fun part of actually decorating. Mostly, I think decor should also be functional. I'm a huge fan of cute baskets, handmade ceramic bowls and plates, etc. to hold keys, paper, and mail. Then I go to the hygge items like blankets and pillows and lighting and books (I LOVE FINDING COLOR THEMED BOOKS) and that sort of thing. The things that make your space feel like your space. 

Generally, minimal decor is better (I'm totally going to look more into this lagom thing Babalugats is talking about) but I do believe you should have things that show your personality and make you happy. I love some simple floral arrangements, framed photos (might I recommend printing out black and white versions of your fave family and friend pictures? It's a great way to make it a bit more classy but still incorporate the things you love!), and wisely selected odds and ends (seems like ceramic birds are my thing). 

And never forget your candles and scents to complete the deal.

Cheers, 

Guesthouse

Dear faculty member,

Some options for you are figuring out a way to get to The Ryde busses, which are free with a BYU ID. Here is a map of the bus stations, and it doesn't look like it connects to the BYU Frontrunner station, but it does go to the roundabout next to the Wilkinson center and to the parking lot in front of the MOA.

The other possibility would be to take the Frontrunner down to Provo and then use a ride-share app like Uber or Lyft for the rest of the way to BYU. It looks like it would cost around $10 to get from the Frontrunner station to the loop that is directly in front of the Wilk. I hope you can find something that works for you. It's awesome to have committed faculty members like you.

Best of luck,

Inklings

Zorro sin ahorro,

If you're at BYU, next week there's a LinkedIn photo booth on Monday where they're going to be talking free pictures for LinkedIn profiles, so I would imagine that you could sneak in there (Even though it's technically at the stem fair, who cares?). Here is the advertisement that I found for it:

Also, there was an office under the ASB that I got passport photos taken for pretty cheap, so you could try to find that office, and they probably would be willing to do it for you or point you in the right direction. Their office is C-40 ASB and here is their website. There, it says the following:

Passport and visa pictures can be taken at the Travel Office in C-40 ASB. There is no charge for BYU employees or BYU students and immediate family.

Other than that, you might be able to find someone in the photography department that could help you out. You can also try going to the Career Services office in the Wilk right next to the information desk. They can probably help you figure that sort of thing out and they sometimes have events where they'll do photos for LinkedIn like they did here, but it looks like it's during winter semester. Either way, they're probably a good resource to ask.

Best of luck!

Inklings