Sometimes Spotify chooses podcasts to start playing automatically. And that's how I happened to listen to Candace Owens. I think Candace is a total fraud. You know, I was not a Charlie Kirk follower before he died. I'd seen some clips. I had heard of him. But just in the interest of not wanting to hear about more politics, I never followed him.
The night before he died, we had a discussion at family Sunday dinner. Monet said she did not like Charlie Kirk. She'd seen a highlight reel of all the little clips that make him look really bad. And I just said, I don't know much about him, but its always good to know the context of statements so we can know the actual intent. Because in todays world, both sides are making claims based on very limited clips. A few of my kids really liked him. Miles especially was sad we were leaving on our trip so he couldn't attend the UVU event.
We were at the Provo airport just a few miles away when his friend who was at the event texted that he'd been shot. I felt an immense sadness. We were heading to Disneyland and even then we were all just sad. Its hard to believe this kind of thing could happen in Utah. Its even more concerning that a local university was hosting and was involved. And the reactions were insane. Why are people so awful? How can you see someone lose their life like that and be happy? How can people who are defending murderers from capital punishment suddenly switch gears and celebrate the deaths of Charlie, Brian Thompson, etc?
To me this reaction only makes sense in a context of Marxism. Its okay to kill those they deem "oppressors" like Mangione did. But serial murderers are also incarcerated and oppressed people so they should have every right (like due process) extended to them. I don't know.
Anyway, I had dirty gardening gloves on when Spotify queued up Candace so she kept playing on my phone. And I just had to laugh at the idiocy. Apparently one of the ladies that works at the Orem police department as a records specialist was at the event. So that is very suspicious, because how was she not at work? She must be involved! Such logic, like people don't have time off or part time jobs. And this poor lady now has all these people who think she is involved? Not cool.
Anyway, another case that has me very, very sad and heavy is the recent Lindsay Clancy case.
I see things through my own lens of experience. And that includes having that terrible accident in high school where there were so many rumors and assumptions. I was not at fault. And yet, no matter what I said, somehow even my close friends didn't really even know the accurate version of what had happened. I had my lights on, I was not speeding, I did not make any kind of mistake while driving, I did everything I could to stop my car. There was inches of water on the road. It was a heavy downpour unfortunately. So the skid mark measurements taken later by the dad of the boy who died were likely not the same as they would have been on a dry road. They used that to theorize that I didn't even try to stop. Which is so sad and untrue for all of us that they thought that. I braked and swerved so hard I felt my car might flip. I knew it was impossible to miss that car because they were just too close. I was lucky to just have terrible whip lash that resulted in a bone spur on my cervical vertebrae (theoretically causing my hearing loss and Meniere's Disease).
So when I hear people theorize that Patrick Clancy killed his three kids and blamed his wife, or that Erika Kirk was somehow responsible for Charlie's murder, I just can't go there. I don't have the information that would be necessary to make those kinds of determinations. I did read a bit of the claims in the Clancy case. And its just baseless. The speculation results in piling on more pain onto grieving people. And really its just a shameless way for influencers to get clicks. Talk about deplorable morals.
People are literally scrutinizing every bit of emotion he shows or doesn't show. I would hate being in his position so much. The guy can't win.
There is a lot of competition out there for views and clicks. I don't know a lot about certain subjects, but when I see people misconstrue things that I *do* know a lot about, it teaches me to be wary of the same tactics used in other situations. For instance, as a member of the LDS faith, I know many people have so many wrong ideas about us. There are a lot of assumptions. And that causes me to be more cautious when similar leaps are made toward other faiths. I recognize the pattern, and am wary of it.
On a related note, I could spend my life defending Hannah of Ballerina Farm. Doesn't everyone see that Hannah is not a trad wife spokesperson? A trad wife/CEO/large business owner, those things are not really compatible. Hannah is not oppressed by her husband. In fact, I would bet my life that its Daniel who is the chill one in this relationship and Hannah is running the show around the farm. Ten million people are tuning in to see how Hannah makes dinner from scratch. I do not have any desire to make hamburger buns from scratch. Nor do I want to work as hard as Hannah. But I do think that its okay for people to live differently than I do and to love that life.
The idea that Mormon women are subject to their husbands is really ingrained and people see what they want to see. Even Hannah giving birth without pain meds is evidence that she's just an overworked, exhausted wife that can't make any decisions on her own but has to keep having babies (no pain meds allowed).
The truth is I don't even know if I'd like Hannah if I met her in real life. But she's not being forced into having more kids. That's pretty obvious. She came from a large, homeschooled family. Its not surprising she also wants a lot of kids. Way more than double the average, even in Utah.
What critics of the trad wives get right is there is a trade off with giving up a career to stay home and take care of kids. In a divorce situation, it absolutely can make a woman more vulnerable. Women often have spent a lot of their lives choosing jobs that will allow them to balance being a mom with their work. So there is this filtering effect that happens even as a young girl. And then taking time out of an advancing career does change your level of experience and pay if/when you re-enter the workforce. Sometimes women give up their advanced degrees to support their husbands goals. Nothing boils me more than when I see couples divorce and people act like the woman is "taking" the mans hard earned money.
Yes a man will be required to pay more child support and alimony to a woman who is not employed, for at least some time. This is how it should be. But I also hate the stories of the woman who would prefer to stay home but has worked hard because her husband was unwilling to work and now she has to pay HIM in the divorce. Or when you see a situation where the cheating man is quietly setting up his ideal divorce situation to keep his wife from getting her fair share.
Personally, I'm grateful for the support for the choices I have. When I wanted to have a baby at 22, that was a valid and celebrated option. I finished my bachelors degree when Elise was a toddler and Monet an infant, and I had a cheering section and family support. When I started doing real estate, my friends and family were again cheering me on. When I didn't want to work but to focus on my kids during a very busy time, everyone understood that. And now back to school and new career choice, and now even my kids are hyping me up. And I'm not unusual. I've seen this same pattern with my friends. There are different seasons of life. I'm right where I want to be. And I'm grateful for a husband who has supported me and takes on the ownership of provider and made it possible for me to pursue a new career that isn't just reasonable but something I'm passionate about.
.jpg)