Quodlibets

What are we doing?

If you want to watch a heart-rending film, check out "Tying the Knot".  It's both life-affirming and desperately sad, all at once, which is just about the best way to descibe same-sex marriage, I think.  It's life-affirming to know that so many people love each other so much that they're willing to commit their lives to one another, and it's desperately sad that they're not allowed to, in the eyes the law.

I've talked about it before, and I'll talk about it again, but when I watch films such as this, I can't help but talk about it.  I can't help but want to cry and rip my hair out; I can't help but want to stand up and scream.  Arguments against same-sex marriage make no sense to me, but that's not news, since I don't believe in a Christian God, or the Bible.  I don't believe tradition is enough of a precedent (for if it were, women would be the property of men upon marriage, interracial marriage would be outlawed, etc etc.) for keeping marriage the way it is.  I don't believe that tradition=right.  And I certainly don't understand how we can categorically deny full humanity to a person, just because of what consenting adult they fall in love with.

And it blows my mind that so many people want to institutionalize their prejudice and hatred with some sort of Constitutional amendment saying that anybody who loves someone of the same sex is wrong, and isn't allowed, legally, to do so.  You can frame the debate any way you want--economics, tradition, Bible, blah blah blah--but this too, like so many issues, boils down to fear and hatred.  Only this issue is harder to understand than most, because this issue concerns two people, and whether or not they are allowed to love one another.

But I'm preaching to the choir.  I'm saying this to people who most likely agree with me.  So mostly, I'm just saying it to get it out of my head.  To have my rant.

I am not a commodity; I am not my weight

There is a fast and furious discussion going on around the internets about this concept of "false advertising" in reference to women's bodies.  To fully understand what I am about to say, you must go read this post, and at least some of the links in it.  It's an incredibly interesting discussion, and I wanted to sleep on the issue before I spewed forth my venom.  I also want to say that almost without exception, it seems every woman in this discussion is a mother, or is actively pursuing motherhood.  That is the impression I get from all the reading I've done.  As you know, I am not a mother, nor do I have any desire to be one.  But I don't think, in the end, that fact is all that important.  I'm just pointing it out in the interests of disclosure.

First of all, the phrase "false advertising" as it relates to human beings makes me want to puke.  I hate the thought of myself as some sort of product that I have to "sell" to people.  I especially hate the idea that I am a product that S "bought", because it puts me in the position of a slave, in the position of something owned, and I find that repugnant.  Ultimately, it puts S in a position of power over me.  It gives him the absolute right to have a say in every single thing I do, from the clothes I buy and wear, to the music I listen to, right down to the color I paint my toenails.  Now, I feel confident that S wouldn't be such a micro-manager of his assets--I'm pretty sure he'd let me have toenail autonomy.  But damn, it's sick to be thinking this way!  The issue of control and power in relationships is very important, and to me, it's important that I know that we are equal, in every way.  We can't be equal if I see myself as something I "marketed" to him, something that he "bought."

Secondly, I cannot bear people who stop loving someone because they change how they look.  If there is anything more certain in life, I'm not sure what it is--people change.  We wrinkle, we gray, and yes, we gain weight.  Our bodies slow down; it's the natural way.  If S expected me to look 25 until I died, well, I'd worry about him.  And then I'd break-up with him.  Post-haste.  I like to think that he accepted our relationship on the understanding that I'm not static.  Not in any way, but certainly not in looks. 

Let's look at an example.  Hair.  When he met me, my hair was short.  Like, short short.  Not even an inch long short.  His hair?  Long.  Down his back, pony-tailed every day.  Now?  My hair is long, down to my shoulders.  Longer than it's been in years.  His?  Short.  As short as mine was when he met me.  And in the intervening years, I've had bright red streaks, no color, various lengths, blond highlights and my current red/blond streaks.  Do I care how he feels about my hair?  Not really.  I hope that all he cares about is if I keep it clean.  If he's going to break up with me because I color my hair, I don't want him.  Sure, it's a bonus if S likes my hair as much as I do, but I'm not letting anyone dictate how I can and can't wear my hair.  Point blank.

And I really feel this way about every single appearance issue we can talk about (short of the issue of hygeine, which is a completely different issue; I don't consider weight a hygeine issue--cleanliness is a hygeine issue).  If he doesn't love me no matter what I look like, then he doesn't love me.  And he's amazing on that count.  He never cared what I weighed, and he doesn't care now.  He didn't understand when I started WW, because he thought I was beautiful.  He thinks I'm beautiful now, and he never, ever mentions any sort of difference.  And damn it, that's how I want it.  I want to know that my worth to him has NOTHING to do with how I look, and everything to do with who I am.  His worth to me can't even possibly be measured in appearance, so I don't think he can measure mine that way. 

I'm not sure what else to say about this, except that all the issues that come up in the discussion after this relate to how, as a society, we've become obsessed with fat.  And I hate it.  I obviously struggle with it, and I hate reading stories of women who think it's okay to condemn themselves (and others) for carrying a few extra pounds.  For being a 6 instead of a 4, a 16 instead of a 14, and so on.  It seems to me that instead of being unhealthily obsessed with this, and thinking our partners have a right to be obsessed with our weight, we just need to be, to just exist.  It's a struggle, there's no doubt about it.  And I can't imagine how much worse it would be for me if I had a partner that said hurtful things about my weight.  I can't imagine staying with a person who did say hurtful things about my weight, first of all.  But I especially can't imagine the struggle for self-esteem; I struggle enough, and S is perfect about this sort of thing.  It is, I think, the height of cruelness for any partner to add to the hurt and struggle by saying something, no matter how helpful or positive they think they're being.  I sincerely can't imagine what would compel someone to do such a thing.  It only ever hurts. 

So I guess, long story short, the answer to the question is:  No.  No, you don't have a responsibility to look a certain way for your partner.  You don't have to live up to some non-existant promise that you'd always look the way you do now.  You don't have to lose or gain weight at the pleasure of your partner, and you don't have cut your hair or shave your legs or wear make-up or not for him/her.  All you have to do is be the person you are, and hope that the two of you love each other enough to weather the changes each of you will go through.  Superficial and otherwise.

Dinner Experiments (or the lack of them)

You may have noticed that any discussion of new recipes has ceased here.  The truth is, S and I have been busier than busy these past few weeks, and they're only getting busier.  I have two days of relative calm--tomorrow and tuesday--and then it's go go go.  And S was away from home two nights last week, and is leaving at the end of this week for a short California interlude, so the cooking inspiration is not coming.  I may squeeze by this coming week with a muffin recipe that my sister, mom and I will hopefully be trying, but as for actual meal cooking, it ain't gonna be happening.

Not to say that we aren't trying new things.  We've both jumped on the Greek yogurt bandwagon, and today we went to Whole Paycheck for a salad for me and ended up with a veritable bounty of new things.  We bought a new bread product to go with the most delicious new cheese--Parrano--we've had in a long time.  It was a sample, and the minute I tasted it, it was downhill.  I called S over, and he tried it, and then he wanted to buy some.  So we did.  We also picked up a different granola (a low-fat strawberry and raspberry one from the bulk area), and S grabbed a new Bolthouse juice/smoothie-type bottled drink. 

And of course, on Friday night, my dad, M, Katie and I are starting to check restaurants off of my master list (yes, I do have a long list of restaurants I want to try, and yes, I keep a list of them.  Some are cheap, dive-type joints that I've heard have good food, and some are, say Everest.)  with a trip to Nacional 27.  S isn't going, obviously, because he's going to be in CA, and I originally thought that was good, thinking it wouldn't be his type of food.  Right.  Until I looked at the menu again and saw a steak dish that might as well have been named after him.  But I refuse to feel sorry for him, as he gets to eat at In 'N Out and Wahoo's.  Respectively, the best fast-food burgers EVER and the absolute best fish tacos I have ever eaten--no, I don't feel sorry for him.  I just wish he could somehow bring those things home for me.  Ah well.  I had to pass this trip up because of the job.

I am hoping to get some shopping time into my schedule, because I desperately want new clothes.  S and I went to three stores today and I tried on a grand total of ONE item, because the clothes were so ugly at one place, and simply not what I was looking for at two others.  Maybe after I take S to the airport, I'll stop off at a mall to try again.

Also, I will be going to work this week.  I'm going to try to create some sort of project for myself, since it's spring break for the kids, and well, it'll be pretty freaking slow.

Phew.  I'm tired already and it hasn't even started.

Whaa?

Every day, one of my internet stops is the political cartoons at Cagle's Professional Cartoonist's Index.  I'm usually not a fan of mediums that use pictures as well as words to get the point across--for instance, while I can recognize that some graphic novels are extraordinarily beautiful and wonderful to read, I still hate reading them--but I have this insane love for political cartoons.  I'm not sure why, though I suspect it has something to do with boiling an issue down to its very heart, and making the message easy to understand (whether or not I agree with an interpretation of an issue).  There are some cartoonists I don't always "get", and others who seem to be speaking to me personally (I love the Christian Science Monitor's Clay Bennett), and then there are those pesky regional/international divisions.  Usually, I can sort of make out what a cartoon is getting at if it's a regional thing.  But I have to say that almost 100% of the time, I don't understand the Latin American cartoons.

I'm not sure if the humor just isn't the same down there, because we're not talking language barrier here.  All of the cartoons are in English, when they actually have any sort of word content.  Which brings me to another point:  there seems to be less of an emphasis on words and more on picture content, which for me, is a weakness.  I'm better at understanding pictures when words are involved.  But even so, sometimes with words I can't make out what the cartoon is trying to say.  I have to admit that it bothers me.  I think it must be some elemental difference in humor, or politics.  Either way, it's annoying.

Linkity-Linkster

A nice piece about body image by Jill at feministe.  Particularly interesting considering the little kerfluffle over at my sis's blog, and her referencing "skinny girls complaining about being fat."

Also, a FANTASTIC post about abortion at a blog I've never read before, It's All Connected.  I've long known of the argument that abortion is offensive to men because of the power dynamic between men and women, and their subconcious fear that an abortion is like a negation of themselves.  It's an interesting argument, one that I'm not sure I whole-heartedly agree with.  However, the link points to a post that brings in religion, and it's simply a really good read.  (Via Alas, A Blog.)

And one last link.  My friend Tim's take on the Oscars, which is interesting.  Not sure I agree with all of it, but he always writes well and says intelligent things.

Why not?

Okay, now, since you've all done Janet's, and my sister's, you have to do mine too.

Update:  Now you have to do my Nohari window too, just because.  Like my sister, I found it easier to pick my bad qualities than my good ones, but I found it way harder to choose her bad qualities than her good qualities.

Algebra, and how I don't use it

That's a lie.  I know I use algebra every day of my life, because I often break down recipes, cross-stitch and even figure out strange word problems involving how fast my car is going, how many miles I have to go, and how long it will take me to go them.  If I'm using cruise control on a highway, it's practically an obsession.  I can't tell you how many hours I passed doing this going to and from college on a boring stretch of road between Chicagoland and the armpit of America.  However.  This makes me really, really uncomfortable.

I'm not even really sure why.  That's a lie; I know why.  S (and I hope he doesn't hate me for saying this) failed algebra once in high school, and then only passed the second time because the teacher took pity on him.  Now, S went to class.  He was tutored.  He was pushed and prodded by parents who thought that it was VERY important that he pass math class.  And he still would have failed.  S hasn't gone to college, either, and I think part of the argument here is that without algebra, you may not go on to college.  And that can be bad, I can't deny that.

However, and I feel this very, very strongly, college is NOT for everyone.  There are people who chafe against the demands, chafe against the rigid ways in which people are expected to learn.  And unfortunately, I don't think our system is going to change any time soon.  Does this make them bad people?  No.  Does this make them uneducated people?  Well, yes and no.  Not everyone who doesn't go to college lacks an education.  I'm sorry, but there is something to be said for being self-taught.  There is something to be said for the idea that math can be practical only, as it applies to your life.  Not everyone desires to be a scientist or an engineer.  It's nice when people want to do that, but many, many people do not.  It enrages me that these people, with their blinders on, fail to see the gray areas involved in education.

Some of what these people are saying is right.  The educational system is failing, and it's failing because we refuse to accept that people do not all process and use information the same ways.  Carpenters may use algebra every day, but I bet if you asked most of them, they'd deny it.  The quest for knowledge is important, and no one loves learning more than me.  No one believes more that more education and more knowledge is the way to a better society.  But that doesn't change the fact that not everyone reveres knowledge, and it also doesn't change the fact that if everyone was allowed to live in their heads like we allow scholars to, nothing (selling you books, making your coffee at Starbucks, fixing your car, painting your house, building your house, paving the roads, etc etc) would EVER get done, because we'd all be scientists.  I'm exaggerating, but I think what's happening here is that AMERICA doesn't value every job in society.  We simply don't.  We don't think that the person who rings up our meal at Panera is as important as the guy in the dentist's office fixing our teeth.  And in some ways, they're not equal positions. 

But we have to remember that we still want to buy things from Panera.  We still need people to serve, to be in service industries, and though algebra is probably used unconsciously, and often, in service industries, I guaran-fucking-tee it that most of those people have no idea they're using algebra.  And who cares?  Who really cares?  Are they able to do their jobs?  Are we satisfied with the job they're doing?  Do we want that job?  I just think what's happening is we're looking down our noses at people who do these jobs, and we're insisting that the only jobs/people who have value are the ones that involve rigorous education and knowledge.  These people disappear to us, because they haven't chosen a life in pursuit of knowledge.  Listen, we can't have everyone doing the same things.  High school should prepare you for a practical life, as well as an intellectual life.  And I'm not saying that we shouldn't require people to pass algebra.  I think it's a pretty useful thing, in the long run.  But I am saying that we are losing our heads when we insist EVERYONE be taught as if they're going to college.  We're failing them if we're boxing them into the "must-go-to-college" path. 

I can't tell you how strongly I feel about this.  High school can and should be both vocational and intellectual.  This may seem like an anti-intellectual position, but it's not.  I really don't know what else I can say about this. 

RIP, Betty Friedan

She passed away today, at the age of 85.  I'm sure you'll read more than one obit, so I won't even try.

I'd just like to say that I have an appreciation for the women who went before me, fighting for something that would, ultimately, benefit me.

I am able to make the choices I am making due in no small part to Ms. Friedan. 

We've lost a legend.

If I vote, you're voting too, dammit

The thing about me and brilliant ideas is that I usually have no idea how to implement the brilliant ideas I come up with....

A few weeks ago, a friend and I were talking about how apathetic our generation was, specifically in reference to voting.  We, as a generation, have not been voting in the numbers we should be.  I said that I didn't know what to do about it, because after getting the word out, what can you do?  But then I had an "a-ha" moment.  I called it the "Buddy System" and I sort of envision it as a volunteer movement that harnesses the energy of the people who will vote no matter what (like me) and uses that energy to drag others to the polls. 

So, on a college campus, for instance, you could have each concerned voter recruit someone (roommate, hallmate, sorority sister, frat brother, classmate, annoying drunk-dialing friend, etc) who wasn't going to vote and promise to be their "buddy".  The buddy who was a voter would then see that the other person registered, and even then go and find them on election day and drag them to the polls.  I know it seems like one person is doing all the work, and that's exactly what's happening.  But I would totally be someone's buddy and do this, because I feel so strongly that voting is the most important thing we can do as American citizens.  I'd rather have to do this, make an effort, than allow another person in my generation to go without voting.  (In some ways, I did this with S.  I waited to vote until he got home from work last election, mostly to reassure myself that he was going, even though he knew that if he didn't go, it would be bad.  He was nearly as gung ho as me about voting last time.)

Anyway, the point is, I think this idea has potential.  But I don't know for sure that it does, and I definitely don't know how I go about seeing if it will work.  The next presidential election is not for another two years, and I think the buddy system would work most effectively on the national election level.

I should make clear that I don't necessarily see this as a partisan effort.  I think it could be run that way, but I'm not sure that's quite what I am envisioning; I am basically just concerned that people just get their asses to the polls when election day rolls around.  Let's eliminate voter laziness by making SURE they go to the polls.

(Any reproduction or use in full of this post is expressly forbidden, unless approved.  Please don't steal!)

In Comparison

Yesterday, my sister talked about comparing herself to her peers, and the feeling that she is coming up short when she looks closely at accomplishments.  Her question, ultimately, is really a question of how we define accomplishments and success, and I think, how we play the game when our concepts of these things don't match up to everyone else's.  For the record, I struggle everyday with the same issues.  And I'm not sure if it's our generation (I suspect it's not entirely that), or some unique cocktail of things that's produced the same mindset in two sisters.  (It's a little too early to tell if my brother Litty will feel the same.  I suspect he will, but there's no way to really know.)

The truth is, my concept of success, in my head, has nothing to do with my job or with money.  It doesn't even really have anything to do with if I earn another degree (though it's something that I'd love to do, simply because I love love love learning).  It certainly has nothing to do with marriage or kids, because I don't aspire, really, to either of those things.  I know that many, many members of my generation (hell, members of my extended family) consider all those things markers of a successful life.  That I do not (and that Kate does not) makes us exotically different, at times.  (Try explaining to 95% of the population that you are a woman who doesn't want children, and you will get pretty much the same reaction from every single one of them:  you're an oddity and an aberration, and anyway, you reallly do want kids, you just don't know it yet.  You'll have kids, wink wink nudge nudge.  But that's another entry completely.)

So, the question is, if I don't consider any of those aforementioned things to be the definition of success, what do I consider success?  And the answer is, I don't know.  Some days I feel like I'm a success just because I got out of bed.  Other days, I feel like a failure and a loser.  Most days, I just feel lucky that I get to love so many incredible people.  That seems like the highest form of success that I can comprehend, being allowed to have so much love in my life.  If that seems like a saccharine answer, fine.  But it is really how I feel.  I am possibly the least ambitious person ever, simply because I am allowed to be, by dint of who I was born to.  I recognize that, and feel lucky, too, that I am allowed to say that success for me is to be loved and to love.  It's an answer with a certain amount of privilege behind it, and there is simply nothing that I can say to change that except that I am aware of how lucky I am.

At the same time, I would be lying if I said that I don't feel insecure and lame in comparison to some of my peers.  Even though I don't want to measure myself in the same ways they do, I am aware of what some of them must think about my slacker ways.  Most days, I don't care.  Some days, I'm indignant.  And other days, I wonder what it would cost me to try to live my life that way; I wonder if I even could, and feel pangs of sadness.  For them, or for me, I'm not sure.  And I'm not even THAT different.  I have a job, and a steady boyfriend.  I have plans for the future.  It is only because I am keenly aware that this is not the life I want to end up with.  This is not where I want to be in 10 years, and where I want to be in ten years seems to be very far removed from where my peers want to be.  It is perhaps my future that sets me apart.