Today is Transgender Day of Remembrance. The day was "set aside to memorialize those who were killed due to anti-transgender hatred or prejudice. The event is held in November to honor Rita Hester, whose murder on November 28th, 1998 kicked off the “Remembering Our Dead” web project and a San Francisco candlelight vigil in 1999. Rita Hester’s murder — like most anti-transgender murder cases — has yet to be solved," as described on the Transgender Day of Remembrance website.
Prior to moving to New York, I don't think I had ever met a transgender person before. It is quite possible that I had but was just unaware of it. I can now say, though, that I have met several and am friends with a few and honestly, I think my life is richer for having met them. Then again, I like diversity. And sure, I like some of the transgender people I've met better than others, but that is true of cisgender people as well. (For those of you who don't know, "cisgender" refers to people who identify with the gender they were born into - the opposite of transgender, which refers to people who identify with a gender other than the one they were born into. Don't feel bad if you didn't know that term - I didn't. Anyway.)
I know I have been bullied in my lifetime for certain aspects of my person over which I have no control - the paleness of my skin, my acne, my hair, my ass, my intelligence, my nerdiness. I have to say, though, that after reading about TDoR and hearing the stories of my transgender friends, I feel extremely lucky that I have never had to fear for my life if I talk about any of those things in public. One might think in today's society, those who fall under the transgender umbrella would find more acceptance than they do. There are hundreds of transgender people every year who are beaten, disowned, maimed, mutilated, and killed just for being who they know themselves to be. I don't get that. I don't understand why anyone thinks they have the right to harm someone else because of what genitalia that person has or had. What business is it of theirs?
I am not being very eloquent in my call for acceptance here. I think Hank Green did a much better job of it. There are a million trillion different boxes into which people can fit, and every one of them is beautiful. I hope one day we can all appreciate the beauty in and around those boxes. In the meantime, if we could all just take a moment of silence in honor of those whose boxes were deemed unworthy, unfit, abhorrent, or unnatural. To all of those people, I'm sorry for what happened to you. I will do what I can to make the world in which my nieces live a little more accepting, a little more loving, a little more understanding, so hopefully others will not have to pay the price you did.
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label discussion. Show all posts
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
October 22 - Categorization
So, in regard to the play I'm currently working on about transgender people at various points in their transition process, someone asked me if I do or have done a lot of queer theatre, and honestly, that question has been ringing in my head ever since it was asked. It bothered me. At first, I wasn't sure if it was the tone of voice - it was almost condescending, like as a cast member, I would only be valued if I was a crusader for gay rights since I myself do not identify as gay. I don't think that was how the question was intended, though, so I found myself thinking about it more and more and trying to figure out why the question irked me. Here's what I've come up with so far. And keep in mind, I do not identify as gay, so whatever I say here should be taken with a grain of salt. Or at least with the knowledge that it comes from a largely hetero-normative perspective.
First of all, I don't like the word "queer" in this context. To me, "queer" means "strange" or "abnormal" or "odd," and I'm not sure I want to refer to non-heterosexual lifestyles as "strange" or "abnormal" or "odd." That seems counter-intuitive to me. I realize that there is an element of, "Okay, you guys used this word to describe us for a long time, so we're going to take it back and own it," but I still don't like to use the word "queer" in this context. It feels wrong for me personally to use it as someone who hasn't really been on either side of that spat, historically speaking.
But I think the root of the problem I had with being asked if I've done a lot of queer theatre stems from the need to identify queer theatre as something separate from non-queer theatre. And as an extension of that, I don't think I would therefore have a good definition for what makes theatre queer. I was a member of a theatre company that was founded by two drag queens - does that mean everything I did there was queer theatre? My Hamlet was bisexual - does that make that queer theatre? I played a woman who suffered severe head trauma, woke up with amnesia, and fell in love with a woman - was that queer theatre? Our completely cross-gender-cast The Bad Seed: The Musical was adored by the Chicago gay community - was that queer theatre? In many of the shows that I've done, I've been in the minority as a non-homosexual cast or crew member - was that queer theatre? Or is "queer theatre" only used to describe theatre that tries to directly address or advances LGBT issues? Because using one set of criteria, I've done a lot of "queer theatre," but using another, I've not. So I honestly didn't know how to answer the question.
Which then brought me back to another question that came up in the past few days and how much I liked the answer to it. Within the context of a lesbian relationship, I know someone who takes issue with describing one partner as the "butch" and one as the "fem," because not all lesbian relationships are composed of a "butch" and a "fem." Often times, it's two women who fell in love. Each of them might like to wear makeup from time to time, or flannel shirts from time to time. They don't necessarily fall into one category or the other, they fall into the gray area in between, like so many of us do in relation to so many things.
Again: they fall into the gray area in between, like so many of us do in relation to so many things.
So I think what bothered me about being asked if I've done a lot of "queer theatre" was the need to categorize what I do and what I've done. I understand that labels and categorizations are comforting for a lot of people. They give a point of reference for how to relate to the world around us. I'm getting tired of categorizations, though. I'm starting to feel like they separate us more than they bring us together. If you're gay and I'm not, does that mean we can't interact? If you're a boy and I'm a girl, does that mean we can't geek out over Doctor Who together? If I'm American and you're French, does that mean we can't be great dance partners? For me, the answer to all of those questions is "no." And I like having a diverse circle of friends (or at the very least, a diverse circle of acquaintances). And I like having a diverse group of life experiences, meaning I like to do straight theatre, queer theatre, classical theatre, contemporary theatre, theatre written by playwrights from all over the world. I like to do theatre. I like to tell stories of all sorts. I'm just as thrilled to be a part of a production that is topical and designed to raise awareness as I am to be part of a Shakespearean production of a play that has been produced thousands of times before. I don't feel the need to concentrate my efforts on one type of theatre or another, as I think they're all valid and fun and vibrant.
Is that wrong?
First of all, I don't like the word "queer" in this context. To me, "queer" means "strange" or "abnormal" or "odd," and I'm not sure I want to refer to non-heterosexual lifestyles as "strange" or "abnormal" or "odd." That seems counter-intuitive to me. I realize that there is an element of, "Okay, you guys used this word to describe us for a long time, so we're going to take it back and own it," but I still don't like to use the word "queer" in this context. It feels wrong for me personally to use it as someone who hasn't really been on either side of that spat, historically speaking.
But I think the root of the problem I had with being asked if I've done a lot of queer theatre stems from the need to identify queer theatre as something separate from non-queer theatre. And as an extension of that, I don't think I would therefore have a good definition for what makes theatre queer. I was a member of a theatre company that was founded by two drag queens - does that mean everything I did there was queer theatre? My Hamlet was bisexual - does that make that queer theatre? I played a woman who suffered severe head trauma, woke up with amnesia, and fell in love with a woman - was that queer theatre? Our completely cross-gender-cast The Bad Seed: The Musical was adored by the Chicago gay community - was that queer theatre? In many of the shows that I've done, I've been in the minority as a non-homosexual cast or crew member - was that queer theatre? Or is "queer theatre" only used to describe theatre that tries to directly address or advances LGBT issues? Because using one set of criteria, I've done a lot of "queer theatre," but using another, I've not. So I honestly didn't know how to answer the question.
Which then brought me back to another question that came up in the past few days and how much I liked the answer to it. Within the context of a lesbian relationship, I know someone who takes issue with describing one partner as the "butch" and one as the "fem," because not all lesbian relationships are composed of a "butch" and a "fem." Often times, it's two women who fell in love. Each of them might like to wear makeup from time to time, or flannel shirts from time to time. They don't necessarily fall into one category or the other, they fall into the gray area in between, like so many of us do in relation to so many things.
Again: they fall into the gray area in between, like so many of us do in relation to so many things.
So I think what bothered me about being asked if I've done a lot of "queer theatre" was the need to categorize what I do and what I've done. I understand that labels and categorizations are comforting for a lot of people. They give a point of reference for how to relate to the world around us. I'm getting tired of categorizations, though. I'm starting to feel like they separate us more than they bring us together. If you're gay and I'm not, does that mean we can't interact? If you're a boy and I'm a girl, does that mean we can't geek out over Doctor Who together? If I'm American and you're French, does that mean we can't be great dance partners? For me, the answer to all of those questions is "no." And I like having a diverse circle of friends (or at the very least, a diverse circle of acquaintances). And I like having a diverse group of life experiences, meaning I like to do straight theatre, queer theatre, classical theatre, contemporary theatre, theatre written by playwrights from all over the world. I like to do theatre. I like to tell stories of all sorts. I'm just as thrilled to be a part of a production that is topical and designed to raise awareness as I am to be part of a Shakespearean production of a play that has been produced thousands of times before. I don't feel the need to concentrate my efforts on one type of theatre or another, as I think they're all valid and fun and vibrant.
Is that wrong?
Thursday, March 06, 2014
March 6 - Relationships
I've been thinking about relationships a lot lately, for various reasons. I've been talking about them with a girl friend of mine, I've been listening to my old songs and remembering why I wrote them, and I've been on three dates in the last month. So put these all together, mix them around in the head of an over-analytic introvert and voila! I've been thinking about relationships a lot lately.
Please note: I am not a relationship expert. I have no real wisdom to share, just blathering to do and questions to ask.
One of the songs I wrote oh so many years ago is about running into a past love way after the fact and really having nothing left to say to that person. It was inspired by an obsession I had that I had to get over on my own because he vanished from my life for a long period of time. When I wrote it, I thought it was kind of self-indulgent and possibly even masturbatory, but in retrospect, it needed to be written and it's actually kind of pretty. But I find myself with this song stuck in my head quite a lot lately as I go on dates with new people and find myself thinking about the last person with whom I tried to have a relationship. It was sort of a "burn bright for short bursts" thing with very little staying power in the interim, and because of that lack of staying power, it fizzled and died. Nothing dramatic. Nothing exciting. No hard feelings, I don't think. It just didn't work out. But I've also not really had a postmortem with this person, so as I go on dates with new people, I find myself remembering how bright we burned when we did burn and it makes me sad that a) I'm not finding that with these new people yet and b) it didn't work out with the last one. I find myself remembering silly things like the way a t-shirt hung on his shoulders, or how easy conversation was, or how we could talk about anything right up until the time we decided we should be able to talk about everything. And I know I'm romanticizing and over-simplifying, but I think that is part of the process.
In dating new people, I'm also re-learning kind of exactly why I don't like dating in the first place. As much as I don't like to subscribe to various dating rules (how long before you can call or text, what you should talk about, what you shouldn't talk about, etc.), other people still do. I can't fault them for that - they are at different places in their lives than I am and have come to different conclusions, or they are still figuring things out - but I do find it a little bit frustrating. I want to talk about all of the things. I want to ask all of the questions, and I want to be asked all of the questions. I want my assertions to be challenged so I have to back-up my points of view. I want to be inspired by someone. I want to feel passionate about someone. And I know these feelings sometimes grow over time, but there is part of me that really wants to be bowled over from the get-go.
So the question my girl friend presented today is essentially, "Why do we do this if it causes so much anxiety? Isn't there another way to go about finding a life partner (without resorting to arranged marriages)?" I've kind of known for a long time that if I ever do get married, I want to do things a little differently. I don't need the bridal shower and the bachelorette party and the big ordeal in a church with dull chicken served in a hotel ballroom afterward. While a lot of traditional weddings like that are really nice (I've been to more beautiful weddings than I can count), that's not really me. So why does the traditional dating process have to apply to me? And/or why am I trying to make myself fit into that world?
I guess it's because I'm not sure what the alternative is. How does one get to know someone else intimately without some sort of courtship rituals? And secondary to that is how did I get over a lost relationship last time without help from the other party? Because I think I need to do that before I'll be able to really enjoy getting to know somebody new. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
Please note: I am not a relationship expert. I have no real wisdom to share, just blathering to do and questions to ask.
One of the songs I wrote oh so many years ago is about running into a past love way after the fact and really having nothing left to say to that person. It was inspired by an obsession I had that I had to get over on my own because he vanished from my life for a long period of time. When I wrote it, I thought it was kind of self-indulgent and possibly even masturbatory, but in retrospect, it needed to be written and it's actually kind of pretty. But I find myself with this song stuck in my head quite a lot lately as I go on dates with new people and find myself thinking about the last person with whom I tried to have a relationship. It was sort of a "burn bright for short bursts" thing with very little staying power in the interim, and because of that lack of staying power, it fizzled and died. Nothing dramatic. Nothing exciting. No hard feelings, I don't think. It just didn't work out. But I've also not really had a postmortem with this person, so as I go on dates with new people, I find myself remembering how bright we burned when we did burn and it makes me sad that a) I'm not finding that with these new people yet and b) it didn't work out with the last one. I find myself remembering silly things like the way a t-shirt hung on his shoulders, or how easy conversation was, or how we could talk about anything right up until the time we decided we should be able to talk about everything. And I know I'm romanticizing and over-simplifying, but I think that is part of the process.
In dating new people, I'm also re-learning kind of exactly why I don't like dating in the first place. As much as I don't like to subscribe to various dating rules (how long before you can call or text, what you should talk about, what you shouldn't talk about, etc.), other people still do. I can't fault them for that - they are at different places in their lives than I am and have come to different conclusions, or they are still figuring things out - but I do find it a little bit frustrating. I want to talk about all of the things. I want to ask all of the questions, and I want to be asked all of the questions. I want my assertions to be challenged so I have to back-up my points of view. I want to be inspired by someone. I want to feel passionate about someone. And I know these feelings sometimes grow over time, but there is part of me that really wants to be bowled over from the get-go.
So the question my girl friend presented today is essentially, "Why do we do this if it causes so much anxiety? Isn't there another way to go about finding a life partner (without resorting to arranged marriages)?" I've kind of known for a long time that if I ever do get married, I want to do things a little differently. I don't need the bridal shower and the bachelorette party and the big ordeal in a church with dull chicken served in a hotel ballroom afterward. While a lot of traditional weddings like that are really nice (I've been to more beautiful weddings than I can count), that's not really me. So why does the traditional dating process have to apply to me? And/or why am I trying to make myself fit into that world?
I guess it's because I'm not sure what the alternative is. How does one get to know someone else intimately without some sort of courtship rituals? And secondary to that is how did I get over a lost relationship last time without help from the other party? Because I think I need to do that before I'll be able to really enjoy getting to know somebody new. If you have any thoughts or suggestions, I'd be happy to hear them.
Monday, January 20, 2014
January 20 - Decisions
I'm having one of those days wherein I don't seem to be able to make any decisions, particularly the relatively unimportant ones. I think it all started with me wanting to snooze my alarm one more time before actually getting out of bed, but then getting up half-way between snoozes, knowing my lunch would take an extra minute to pack this morning. It's all been downhill since then.
So the two big (read: not so big) decisions in front of me right now are whether or not I should buy a new handbag (and if so, which one), and whether or not I should drive straight from work to rehearsal or if I should go home first. Now, I know a lot of people like to make pro/con lists to help with the decision making process, so here we go. Let's make a pro/con list for going straight to rehearsal after work versus going home first:
Going Straight to Rehearsal
Pro
Con
Pro
Con
So the two big (read: not so big) decisions in front of me right now are whether or not I should buy a new handbag (and if so, which one), and whether or not I should drive straight from work to rehearsal or if I should go home first. Now, I know a lot of people like to make pro/con lists to help with the decision making process, so here we go. Let's make a pro/con list for going straight to rehearsal after work versus going home first:
Going Straight to Rehearsal
Pro
- I won't feel rushed getting there.
- Shorter drive.
- Less fuel.
Con
- Have to stop somewhere to get dinner (meaning, spend money).
- Longer overall day.
- Less time with cat (though the time I would spend at home with my cat before rehearsal would not be quality time).
Pro
- The feeling like I've finished one part of my day before moving on to the next.
- Eat dinner at home (saving money, eating probably healthier)
- I can change out of my work clothes.
- Few minutes with my cat.
Con
- Longer drive.
- Feeling of being rushed.
- Kind of wasteful on the fuel front to go way north to come back south and go out west.
Kind of looks like a wash to me, yes? Let's look at the handbag situation.
Reasons to Buy a New Handbag
- My old one is falling apart. Literally. I've already sewn the strap back on.
- Spice things up/update my look.
Reasons Not to Buy a New Handbag
- Money.
- The one I have, while repaired with the wrong color thread, is still fine and suits my needs perfectly.
Again, a wash. And of the three bags I'm looking at, one is a cross-body, which I like, in a color that is not black but also not visible from space, though it might be a little thin; the other two are shoulder bags which would mean a rethinking of how I carry myself and my things, they have great pockets, but neither is in an optimum color for me - one could be a fashion faux pas, the other is quite possibly visible from outer space and we all know how I am about calling attention to myself. The cross-body one is more expensive, too.
With the handbag situation, I can keep chugging along the way I'm going until the one I have breaks or something I really love appears on the scene. But with the driving out to rehearsal right after work or not...I have to make that decision one way or the other in just over an hour and the pro/con list doesn't seem to be pointing me in either direction. Am I missing something?
When you're faced with a decision (relatively unimportant) and the pro/con list is of no help, how do you go about picking one thing over another?
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
November 19 - Nasty Habits
I was talking to someone over the weekend who said he was thoroughly disgusted by people who choose to chew gum. His argument was that it is akin to a cow chewing his cud.
Now, I will agree that it is perhaps odd to put something in your mouth that you chew and chew and chew but never swallow. It's a lump of mushy stuff that you infuse with your saliva and the bacteria that accumulate in your mouth and then you either stick it to the underside of a table to piss other people off or spit it out into a garbage receptacle where it will remain permanently adhered to the receptacle, never actually being disposed of. Gum chewing is not part of the digestive process, though, and is not semi-regurgitated matter mixed with stomach acid that has come up for a second go-around. And the kicker is, there are actually quite a few benefits to chewing gum. Particularly sugar-free gum. Particularly mint gum. Which happens to be what I chew when I chew gum.
The person who made this bold statement that chewing gum was gross also happens to be a smoker. Did I mention that? Yeah, he is. The person who inhales nicotine and tar that turn his teeth yellow and rot his lungs thought that chewing gum is more disgusting than smoking.
Now, I think we all know the dangers of smoking. And I think it is safe to say that most smokers don't give a rat's ass. In Europe, they put giant labels on cigarette packages with pictures of diseased lungs or that say, "Smoking Kills" and people keep smoking them anyway. For some, I'm sure it's turned into a "collect them all!" game with the warning labels. But from the very basest, very simplest, most mundane perspective, smoking makes you smell bad. We can tell you've been smoking because of the foul odor that accompanies you when you walk back inside. The stench that lingers in the air. And maybe that stench isn't the bit that is going to give me cancer, but I still have to smell it, the same as I have to smell my coworkers cooking their Lean Cuisine lunches in the kitchen. It is a distinctive, unpleasant smell that follows you everywhere, no matter how much perfume or cologne or body spray you try to use to cover it up. It just smells bad. You smell bad. And heaven forbid you try dating a smoker and feel the urge to kiss them...now you get to lick the tar and nicotine out of the inside of their mouth. Sounds like fun, yes?
I'll admit it - I've kissed smokers. And I'll also admit that regardless of technique, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of doing things like brushing my teeth, eating mints, chewing minty gum, or putting on lip balm to make the experience more pleasant for my kissing partner if he's just going to light up and taste like an ashtray to me.
I don't know that I've had much on my "dealbreakers" list before, if anything, but let's put this on there. No smokers. I'm done with it. I'm done with overlooking that "character flaw" when it comes to interviewing life partners (I'll overlook it for friends and casual acquaintances, but not for life partners). But I'll offer a deal to any smokers out there who were considering applying for the position - I'll give up chewing gum if you'll give up smoking. Deal?
Now, I will agree that it is perhaps odd to put something in your mouth that you chew and chew and chew but never swallow. It's a lump of mushy stuff that you infuse with your saliva and the bacteria that accumulate in your mouth and then you either stick it to the underside of a table to piss other people off or spit it out into a garbage receptacle where it will remain permanently adhered to the receptacle, never actually being disposed of. Gum chewing is not part of the digestive process, though, and is not semi-regurgitated matter mixed with stomach acid that has come up for a second go-around. And the kicker is, there are actually quite a few benefits to chewing gum. Particularly sugar-free gum. Particularly mint gum. Which happens to be what I chew when I chew gum.
The person who made this bold statement that chewing gum was gross also happens to be a smoker. Did I mention that? Yeah, he is. The person who inhales nicotine and tar that turn his teeth yellow and rot his lungs thought that chewing gum is more disgusting than smoking.
Now, I think we all know the dangers of smoking. And I think it is safe to say that most smokers don't give a rat's ass. In Europe, they put giant labels on cigarette packages with pictures of diseased lungs or that say, "Smoking Kills" and people keep smoking them anyway. For some, I'm sure it's turned into a "collect them all!" game with the warning labels. But from the very basest, very simplest, most mundane perspective, smoking makes you smell bad. We can tell you've been smoking because of the foul odor that accompanies you when you walk back inside. The stench that lingers in the air. And maybe that stench isn't the bit that is going to give me cancer, but I still have to smell it, the same as I have to smell my coworkers cooking their Lean Cuisine lunches in the kitchen. It is a distinctive, unpleasant smell that follows you everywhere, no matter how much perfume or cologne or body spray you try to use to cover it up. It just smells bad. You smell bad. And heaven forbid you try dating a smoker and feel the urge to kiss them...now you get to lick the tar and nicotine out of the inside of their mouth. Sounds like fun, yes?
I'll admit it - I've kissed smokers. And I'll also admit that regardless of technique, I'm tired of it. I'm tired of doing things like brushing my teeth, eating mints, chewing minty gum, or putting on lip balm to make the experience more pleasant for my kissing partner if he's just going to light up and taste like an ashtray to me.
I don't know that I've had much on my "dealbreakers" list before, if anything, but let's put this on there. No smokers. I'm done with it. I'm done with overlooking that "character flaw" when it comes to interviewing life partners (I'll overlook it for friends and casual acquaintances, but not for life partners). But I'll offer a deal to any smokers out there who were considering applying for the position - I'll give up chewing gum if you'll give up smoking. Deal?
Monday, October 28, 2013
October 28 - Question Monday
I didn't know what to write about today, as I feel like I've been writing about acting too much lately or falling back on Haikus when I'm feeling lazy, so I went to the Twitterverse to get some questions to answer. And here we go:
Thursdayschild asked, "If you could erase your life and start over as a child in any location and (past) time period, Where, When, and Why?"
I think perhaps the more important question here is why would I erase my entire life? I've done some pretty cool things in my time on this planet and it has taken me a long time to build up all of my experiences, wisdom and expertise. And if I had to erase my whole life as it currently exists and start over as a child, I'd have to be a teenager again which was a thoroughly miserable experience. So while I have often thought that it might be fun to know what it was like to grow up elsewhere under other circumstances (i.e. one of the female children they kept in China, young boy in Germany in the 1940's who is torn between his love of swing dancing and society's insistence that he join the Hitler Youth, native Australian before the UK criminals were sent there, etc.), I think I'm going to have to pass in favor of holding onto what I have, rather than flying to that which I know not of. (There's some bonus mutated Shakespeare, just for you. Because I know you love it.)
Tomfromhr asked (and doomzTO seconded/built upon), "Chicago is consumed in a zombie apocalypse. Where do you move to start fresh? Bridge that with your escape plan so you CAN start fresh!"
Zombies. Yay. Everybody's favorite monster. I read something recently that said zombies are the American monster of choice because really, all you can do with them is shoot them in the face. They are a monster that begs to be shot in the face and as Americans, how can we say no to that? Personally, I'm more of a vampire person myself because, hello, Spike, and I like a little of the intrigue and intellectual stimulation a vampire might employ as he's trying to kill you. Besides, I'm pale as fuck so it works for me. Zombies can't even form sentences. It's like OK Cupid members on downers.
But okay, let's pretend there is a zombie apocalypse. My guess is that I don't survive because I don't really have an escape plan. The best I can come up with is a Shaun of the Dead style "hole up and wait it out" plan. But after that, I'd probably want to go somewhere with more outdoor space (and fewer stinky rotting corpses) than a major city. I've heard some people say that being on a boat or going to an island is a good choice. Maybe I'll use the zombie apocalypse as an excuse to go to the Galapagos Islands and set up camp. If we're all returning to nature, might as well, right?
Texancountess asked, "What is your comfort food?"
Just one?
I am one of those people who eats for comfort way more often than she should. Sometimes, it doesn't even matter what I'm eating, it is just the action of chewing that brings comfort (though, oddly, gum doesn't quite do it when I'm feeling down). I have seasonal comfort foods, too, because while my jambalaya is amazing in the winter, it's not so comforting in July. Summer is about berries and salads for me. Winter is about tomato-based things. Though a nice roasted garlic hummus and something to dip in it is tasty pretty much any time. And that's not even touching on sugary things...
I like to eat. Does that answer the question?
Thank you for your questions, guys! This was fun. So fun, I may even do it again someday.
Thursdayschild asked, "If you could erase your life and start over as a child in any location and (past) time period, Where, When, and Why?"
I think perhaps the more important question here is why would I erase my entire life? I've done some pretty cool things in my time on this planet and it has taken me a long time to build up all of my experiences, wisdom and expertise. And if I had to erase my whole life as it currently exists and start over as a child, I'd have to be a teenager again which was a thoroughly miserable experience. So while I have often thought that it might be fun to know what it was like to grow up elsewhere under other circumstances (i.e. one of the female children they kept in China, young boy in Germany in the 1940's who is torn between his love of swing dancing and society's insistence that he join the Hitler Youth, native Australian before the UK criminals were sent there, etc.), I think I'm going to have to pass in favor of holding onto what I have, rather than flying to that which I know not of. (There's some bonus mutated Shakespeare, just for you. Because I know you love it.)
Tomfromhr asked (and doomzTO seconded/built upon), "Chicago is consumed in a zombie apocalypse. Where do you move to start fresh? Bridge that with your escape plan so you CAN start fresh!"
Zombies. Yay. Everybody's favorite monster. I read something recently that said zombies are the American monster of choice because really, all you can do with them is shoot them in the face. They are a monster that begs to be shot in the face and as Americans, how can we say no to that? Personally, I'm more of a vampire person myself because, hello, Spike, and I like a little of the intrigue and intellectual stimulation a vampire might employ as he's trying to kill you. Besides, I'm pale as fuck so it works for me. Zombies can't even form sentences. It's like OK Cupid members on downers.
But okay, let's pretend there is a zombie apocalypse. My guess is that I don't survive because I don't really have an escape plan. The best I can come up with is a Shaun of the Dead style "hole up and wait it out" plan. But after that, I'd probably want to go somewhere with more outdoor space (and fewer stinky rotting corpses) than a major city. I've heard some people say that being on a boat or going to an island is a good choice. Maybe I'll use the zombie apocalypse as an excuse to go to the Galapagos Islands and set up camp. If we're all returning to nature, might as well, right?
Texancountess asked, "What is your comfort food?"
Just one?
I am one of those people who eats for comfort way more often than she should. Sometimes, it doesn't even matter what I'm eating, it is just the action of chewing that brings comfort (though, oddly, gum doesn't quite do it when I'm feeling down). I have seasonal comfort foods, too, because while my jambalaya is amazing in the winter, it's not so comforting in July. Summer is about berries and salads for me. Winter is about tomato-based things. Though a nice roasted garlic hummus and something to dip in it is tasty pretty much any time. And that's not even touching on sugary things...
I like to eat. Does that answer the question?
Thank you for your questions, guys! This was fun. So fun, I may even do it again someday.
Friday, October 25, 2013
October 25 - Exercise
Much like Randall who hates people but loves gatherings, I love physical activity but I hate exercise. Lemme explain. No, there is too much, let me sum up.
Wow, conflicting movie references in the opening paragraph. Sorry about that. It's Friday and I'm eating Sour Beans, so that should tell you how the day is going.
So physical activity. Our three hour rehearsal last night was time spent with a fight choreographer, working out a rather complex "melee" with seven actors, trying to make it all look good and funny while keeping everyone safe and visible and out of harm's way. There was a lot of running around and jumping and squatting and using levels and letting out shrieks and shouting and, well, fun. It was fun. It was a blast. I love that kind of thing. And when I was in the play about the roller derby, I enjoyed the skating bits. My favorite part was getting to the theater and in gear early enough that I had the track to myself for a little while. Not to mention the years I spent as a social (and then semi-professional) lindy hopper. I love moving my body. I love figuring out what it can do. I love the physical exhaustion that comes after a night of dancing or three hours of running around a table trying to get away from my "husband," or an afternoon of fencing drills. I love it. I honestly do.
I hate, however, going to the gym. I hate running on a treadmill for a predetermined length of time or "distance." I hate putting on work-out gear and setting some goal like "I want to bench press 60lbs twenty times today." I know that is how you supposedly "get in shape" or "tone muscles" or whatever, but to me, it is boring as toast. Undercooked white toast that has neither crunch nor color. When I find I need to have something else going on to make my exercise palpable, it's no longer fun.
So the question is this: how do I continue to get exercise without exercising? How do I keep at doing different things that keep me challenged and entertained and motivated without running up and down the street at 5am? How do I keep it new and fresh and fun so I can fool myself into enjoying the workout?
I'm honestly asking. Because the only thing I can come up with is to keep taking roles in shows that have some physical challenge, some physical component, some physical task that I have to learn during the rehearsal process.
Actually, that's not a bad idea.
Wow, conflicting movie references in the opening paragraph. Sorry about that. It's Friday and I'm eating Sour Beans, so that should tell you how the day is going.
So physical activity. Our three hour rehearsal last night was time spent with a fight choreographer, working out a rather complex "melee" with seven actors, trying to make it all look good and funny while keeping everyone safe and visible and out of harm's way. There was a lot of running around and jumping and squatting and using levels and letting out shrieks and shouting and, well, fun. It was fun. It was a blast. I love that kind of thing. And when I was in the play about the roller derby, I enjoyed the skating bits. My favorite part was getting to the theater and in gear early enough that I had the track to myself for a little while. Not to mention the years I spent as a social (and then semi-professional) lindy hopper. I love moving my body. I love figuring out what it can do. I love the physical exhaustion that comes after a night of dancing or three hours of running around a table trying to get away from my "husband," or an afternoon of fencing drills. I love it. I honestly do.
I hate, however, going to the gym. I hate running on a treadmill for a predetermined length of time or "distance." I hate putting on work-out gear and setting some goal like "I want to bench press 60lbs twenty times today." I know that is how you supposedly "get in shape" or "tone muscles" or whatever, but to me, it is boring as toast. Undercooked white toast that has neither crunch nor color. When I find I need to have something else going on to make my exercise palpable, it's no longer fun.
So the question is this: how do I continue to get exercise without exercising? How do I keep at doing different things that keep me challenged and entertained and motivated without running up and down the street at 5am? How do I keep it new and fresh and fun so I can fool myself into enjoying the workout?
I'm honestly asking. Because the only thing I can come up with is to keep taking roles in shows that have some physical challenge, some physical component, some physical task that I have to learn during the rehearsal process.
Actually, that's not a bad idea.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
September 12 - Coming of Age
I've been thinking a lot lately about the slew of young female pop stars or actors who "come of age" by turning into hot messes. I've been thinking about them much more than I would like to, but I do have a question and I'm not sure what the answer is, so I'm going to chat about it for a bit today to try to see if anything gels.
I think it is important to note, too, that young male stars sometimes come of age by turning into hot messes, but not nearly with the frequency that young female stars do (at least not anymore). There are the classic examples of Danny Bonaduce and Todd Bridges who grew out of their "cute boy" phases and got into drugs and got into trouble with the law and whatnot. I would argue that their shenanigans didn't hold a candle to Lindsay Lohan's or Miley Cyrus' or Amanda Bynes'. And when we look at young male actors now who find a way to come of age in Hollywood, showing their maturity often times involves wearing nice suits to premieres, or taking more dramatic roles in films. I will just throw out the names Joseph Gordon Leavitt, Zac Efron, Justin Timberlake, and Daniel Radcliffe. All of these men have grown up in the Hollywood system fairly recently and while yes, Daniel Radcliffe has now done nudity on stage and on film, all of these men have somehow managed to keep it together. Justin Timberlake is probably the one focusing the most on sex in his career (he is the one who brought it back, you know), but watching his videos and listening to his music (which, admittedly, I don't do very much as it is not to my taste), it appears that his image of what is sexy for a man is a more classic styling. Three piece suits. Suave appearance. He's not running around in a Speedo trying to be sexy.
However, when young women in Hollywood feel the need to grow up, come of age, find themselves, or make a break with the young, sweet image of their youth, they do so by eschewing clothing, taste, manners and sensibility. There is the occasional notable exception like Emma Watson who parted with her Hermione image by cutting her hair, but the vast majority of young starlets think that the way to "grow up" is to wear less clothing and behave like idiots. Lindsay Lohan. Amanda Bynes. Miley Cyrus. Brittney Spears. They embrace the idea that sex appeal equals maturity and naked equals sexy. Why is that?
I think a perfect example of this is the video for "Blurred Lines." Whether you are watching the version wherein the women are nude or the version wherein the women are wearing skimpy undergarments, the basic image is the same. Here are a bunch of men expressing their individual styles, all looking sexy in suits and sunglasses and whatnot, and here are a bunch of women who are completely interchangeable, all looking sexy because they are naked. I don't know the lyrics for the song, nor do I want to. I was so beyond offended when I saw the semi-clothed version of the video that now I quickly change the radio station whenever the song threatens to come on. I want nothing to do with the song, the message, or the image associated therewith.
Scratch that - I'm not going to talk smack about something I've never read. I just went to find the lyrics online and I can now say that having read them (or having tried to), I continue to be sickened by the existence of that song. Now I can make the fully informed decision to avoid the song at all costs.
Now, I understand that finding one's own sexuality is an important part of growing up. Children are not supposed to be sexy; adults are supposed to procreate. Somewhere in between there, you have to figure out how. Not to mention the role that sexual intimacy plays in our relationships, whether or not there is procreation involved. So I can see how equating "growing up" with "having sex" happens. What I take issue with is how this seems to have morphed into "growing up" meaning "ready to have sex in public with anyone who might be walking by because I am turned on all of the time." One can embrace and even advertise one's sexuality without it becoming the focal point of one's entire existence. Yet with so many young Hollywood starlets, that is the way it goes.
There are a lot of "coming of age" movies out there, too, about young men - high school seniors or college freshmen - who have set the goal of losing their virginity by a certain end date. When they reach that goal, they are lauded and applauded by their friends. For a long time, the women in those films (or those situations) were considered sluts. I understand (and agree with) the backlash against the idea that it is okay for men to be sexually experienced but not for women to be so. I understand embracing that idea and adopting the "I'm okay with my own sexuality and with my level of sexual experience and with my sexual appetite" attitude. What I see, though, is that our culture is still a long way away from fully accepting female sexuality. We still call those girls sluts. We still look down on them. Slut-shaming happens all of the time. All of the time. Women who are not particularly sexually promiscuous are still called sluts if they wear short skirts. It has nothing to do with her sexuality, really. It has to do with how those around her see her, and they see the short skirt or the low cut top as an invitation to touch, grope, and grab. Hell, I was riding a crowded train once wearing a knee-length skirt and the guy standing behind me started feeling up my leg and lifting my skirt's hem. I smacked his hand away and got off the train at the next stop. That had nothing to do with my sexuality, whether I am a slut or not, or what my relationship status with men was. That had everything to do with his fucked up attitude that women exist to pleasure men. If our starlets continue along the path they are currently on where twerking is the highest form of social expression, that attitude will never change.
So I understand the desire to grow up and find oneself. And I understand that it has to be difficult to do so when everything you do is so scrutinized by an unforgiving public. And I can see how public speculation regarding when a certain starlet may have lost her virginity or online countdown clocks to when a girl becomes "legal" can really mess with a girl's sense of self-worth. Or how they might push her to just say, "Fuck it; they think I'm a slut? I'll show them how slutty I can be." It still makes me sad how many young women go this route.
See, for me (and I know I'm the odd one here), I know now and have known for a long time that my brain is my most attractive feature. The few men I have dated have been attracted to me for the conversations we have and the various artistic talents I possess as much as, if not more than, they have been attracted to me physically. Because another way to separate oneself as an adult from oneself as a child is by gaining knowledge, wisdom, poise, and experience. Take Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, or Cate Blanchett, for example. They each have more sex appeal in a wisp of hair than Lohan, Bynes, and Cyrus combined. They are intelligent, wise, humorous, poised, and talented. These qualities are what make them sexy and attractive, whether they dye their hair pink, choose to wear acrylic stripper heels, or not.
Can we find a way to teach our daughters that? Can we teach our daughters that intelligence and compassion and humor are sexy? Yes, the onus goes on our sons, too, to know that women do not exist solely for their pleasure and that when a girl says no, she means no, and that women are to be respected and treated as equals, regardless of whether or not looking in the general direction of her genitalia makes you feel all tingly. But I think as long as we have generations of starlets being told by their managers and agents and associated yes-men that they won't be taken seriously unless they're willing to bare it all (literally), young girls looking up to those starlets are going to grow up believing that in order to grow up, they have to get naked.
I don't want my nieces to grow up that way. I don't want my nieces to feel that kind of pressure to look a certain way or behave a certain way in order to prove that they are grown up. I want them to know that they are amazing young women (or will be - the oldest is currently four, so even in my pseudo-feminist world, she's a little young to be called a woman) who are valued for their hearts, minds, and souls as well as their bodies. I want my nieces to be able to come of age without becoming hot messes. Is that really so much to ask?
I think it is important to note, too, that young male stars sometimes come of age by turning into hot messes, but not nearly with the frequency that young female stars do (at least not anymore). There are the classic examples of Danny Bonaduce and Todd Bridges who grew out of their "cute boy" phases and got into drugs and got into trouble with the law and whatnot. I would argue that their shenanigans didn't hold a candle to Lindsay Lohan's or Miley Cyrus' or Amanda Bynes'. And when we look at young male actors now who find a way to come of age in Hollywood, showing their maturity often times involves wearing nice suits to premieres, or taking more dramatic roles in films. I will just throw out the names Joseph Gordon Leavitt, Zac Efron, Justin Timberlake, and Daniel Radcliffe. All of these men have grown up in the Hollywood system fairly recently and while yes, Daniel Radcliffe has now done nudity on stage and on film, all of these men have somehow managed to keep it together. Justin Timberlake is probably the one focusing the most on sex in his career (he is the one who brought it back, you know), but watching his videos and listening to his music (which, admittedly, I don't do very much as it is not to my taste), it appears that his image of what is sexy for a man is a more classic styling. Three piece suits. Suave appearance. He's not running around in a Speedo trying to be sexy.
However, when young women in Hollywood feel the need to grow up, come of age, find themselves, or make a break with the young, sweet image of their youth, they do so by eschewing clothing, taste, manners and sensibility. There is the occasional notable exception like Emma Watson who parted with her Hermione image by cutting her hair, but the vast majority of young starlets think that the way to "grow up" is to wear less clothing and behave like idiots. Lindsay Lohan. Amanda Bynes. Miley Cyrus. Brittney Spears. They embrace the idea that sex appeal equals maturity and naked equals sexy. Why is that?
I think a perfect example of this is the video for "Blurred Lines." Whether you are watching the version wherein the women are nude or the version wherein the women are wearing skimpy undergarments, the basic image is the same. Here are a bunch of men expressing their individual styles, all looking sexy in suits and sunglasses and whatnot, and here are a bunch of women who are completely interchangeable, all looking sexy because they are naked. I don't know the lyrics for the song, nor do I want to. I was so beyond offended when I saw the semi-clothed version of the video that now I quickly change the radio station whenever the song threatens to come on. I want nothing to do with the song, the message, or the image associated therewith.
Scratch that - I'm not going to talk smack about something I've never read. I just went to find the lyrics online and I can now say that having read them (or having tried to), I continue to be sickened by the existence of that song. Now I can make the fully informed decision to avoid the song at all costs.
Now, I understand that finding one's own sexuality is an important part of growing up. Children are not supposed to be sexy; adults are supposed to procreate. Somewhere in between there, you have to figure out how. Not to mention the role that sexual intimacy plays in our relationships, whether or not there is procreation involved. So I can see how equating "growing up" with "having sex" happens. What I take issue with is how this seems to have morphed into "growing up" meaning "ready to have sex in public with anyone who might be walking by because I am turned on all of the time." One can embrace and even advertise one's sexuality without it becoming the focal point of one's entire existence. Yet with so many young Hollywood starlets, that is the way it goes.
There are a lot of "coming of age" movies out there, too, about young men - high school seniors or college freshmen - who have set the goal of losing their virginity by a certain end date. When they reach that goal, they are lauded and applauded by their friends. For a long time, the women in those films (or those situations) were considered sluts. I understand (and agree with) the backlash against the idea that it is okay for men to be sexually experienced but not for women to be so. I understand embracing that idea and adopting the "I'm okay with my own sexuality and with my level of sexual experience and with my sexual appetite" attitude. What I see, though, is that our culture is still a long way away from fully accepting female sexuality. We still call those girls sluts. We still look down on them. Slut-shaming happens all of the time. All of the time. Women who are not particularly sexually promiscuous are still called sluts if they wear short skirts. It has nothing to do with her sexuality, really. It has to do with how those around her see her, and they see the short skirt or the low cut top as an invitation to touch, grope, and grab. Hell, I was riding a crowded train once wearing a knee-length skirt and the guy standing behind me started feeling up my leg and lifting my skirt's hem. I smacked his hand away and got off the train at the next stop. That had nothing to do with my sexuality, whether I am a slut or not, or what my relationship status with men was. That had everything to do with his fucked up attitude that women exist to pleasure men. If our starlets continue along the path they are currently on where twerking is the highest form of social expression, that attitude will never change.
So I understand the desire to grow up and find oneself. And I understand that it has to be difficult to do so when everything you do is so scrutinized by an unforgiving public. And I can see how public speculation regarding when a certain starlet may have lost her virginity or online countdown clocks to when a girl becomes "legal" can really mess with a girl's sense of self-worth. Or how they might push her to just say, "Fuck it; they think I'm a slut? I'll show them how slutty I can be." It still makes me sad how many young women go this route.
See, for me (and I know I'm the odd one here), I know now and have known for a long time that my brain is my most attractive feature. The few men I have dated have been attracted to me for the conversations we have and the various artistic talents I possess as much as, if not more than, they have been attracted to me physically. Because another way to separate oneself as an adult from oneself as a child is by gaining knowledge, wisdom, poise, and experience. Take Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, or Cate Blanchett, for example. They each have more sex appeal in a wisp of hair than Lohan, Bynes, and Cyrus combined. They are intelligent, wise, humorous, poised, and talented. These qualities are what make them sexy and attractive, whether they dye their hair pink, choose to wear acrylic stripper heels, or not.
Can we find a way to teach our daughters that? Can we teach our daughters that intelligence and compassion and humor are sexy? Yes, the onus goes on our sons, too, to know that women do not exist solely for their pleasure and that when a girl says no, she means no, and that women are to be respected and treated as equals, regardless of whether or not looking in the general direction of her genitalia makes you feel all tingly. But I think as long as we have generations of starlets being told by their managers and agents and associated yes-men that they won't be taken seriously unless they're willing to bare it all (literally), young girls looking up to those starlets are going to grow up believing that in order to grow up, they have to get naked.
I don't want my nieces to grow up that way. I don't want my nieces to feel that kind of pressure to look a certain way or behave a certain way in order to prove that they are grown up. I want them to know that they are amazing young women (or will be - the oldest is currently four, so even in my pseudo-feminist world, she's a little young to be called a woman) who are valued for their hearts, minds, and souls as well as their bodies. I want my nieces to be able to come of age without becoming hot messes. Is that really so much to ask?
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
September 10 - The Thing
Here's the thing: money cannot buy happiness. But it can pay the rent and buy food. It is an unfortunate world in which we live where these essentials are dependent upon little green pieces of paper. Or in many cases, not even little green pieces of paper, but numbers in a spreadsheet somewhere online that go up and down with direct deposit paychecks and plastic debit card payments.
So here's the question: how much is your happiness worth? In dollars. In pounds. In Euros. If you are unhappy in your current position, how many dollars would you give up in order to be happy?
There is a Bill Watterson cartoon floating around talking about leaving corporate life for a lower-paying (or non-paying) position elsewhere, for the sake of making other choices in life that lead to greater life-fulfillment, like being a stay at home dad. Which is lovely and inspiring. But the cartoon shows him as part of a family, and I am sure that while he was being a stay at home dad, his wife was out earning money so they could feed their child. Nothing wrong with that. But what if you are unhappy in your life and don't have a life partner to support you while you float looking for something else? What if you are not a super talented skilled artist like Bill Watterson who was lucky enough to be picked up by a publisher after I don't know how much time spent not working and just submitting materials to anyone who might look at them?
I don't mean to poo-poo the decision to follow one's happiness. I am all for following one's happiness. But there is an element of practicality that needs to be factored in, too. If pursuing your happiness means dropping everything else and is going to cost you everything that you have - your health, your home, your friends - is that really the wisest decision to make at this time? Is there a way to pursue your happiness without sacrificing everything else you have? Because if you give up everything, yes your happiness will taste super sweet when you finally find it, but how long can you go without happiness, without food, without shelter, without friends while you search for it?
So how much is your happiness worth? I don't think I can put a dollar value on mine, but I wish I could as I have many big decisions ahead.
So here's the question: how much is your happiness worth? In dollars. In pounds. In Euros. If you are unhappy in your current position, how many dollars would you give up in order to be happy?
There is a Bill Watterson cartoon floating around talking about leaving corporate life for a lower-paying (or non-paying) position elsewhere, for the sake of making other choices in life that lead to greater life-fulfillment, like being a stay at home dad. Which is lovely and inspiring. But the cartoon shows him as part of a family, and I am sure that while he was being a stay at home dad, his wife was out earning money so they could feed their child. Nothing wrong with that. But what if you are unhappy in your life and don't have a life partner to support you while you float looking for something else? What if you are not a super talented skilled artist like Bill Watterson who was lucky enough to be picked up by a publisher after I don't know how much time spent not working and just submitting materials to anyone who might look at them?
I don't mean to poo-poo the decision to follow one's happiness. I am all for following one's happiness. But there is an element of practicality that needs to be factored in, too. If pursuing your happiness means dropping everything else and is going to cost you everything that you have - your health, your home, your friends - is that really the wisest decision to make at this time? Is there a way to pursue your happiness without sacrificing everything else you have? Because if you give up everything, yes your happiness will taste super sweet when you finally find it, but how long can you go without happiness, without food, without shelter, without friends while you search for it?
So how much is your happiness worth? I don't think I can put a dollar value on mine, but I wish I could as I have many big decisions ahead.
Monday, September 09, 2013
September 9 - A Theory and a Love Letter
I have this theory about the United States, but there are two bits of background information you need first before you can try to hop on board with this theory.
Okay, so now that we have those bits out of the way, I can tell you my theory about the United States. New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles correspond to the phases of a woman's life - crone, mother, and maiden, respectively.
New York is the crone. She is the wise old grandmother who has been everywhere and done everything. She may not be as showy and forthcoming with her love as you'd like, but when she tells you that she baked too many cookies and shouldn't eat them herself so you're welcome to them, you secretly know that she baked them in anticipation of you coming over. She loves you with that deep understanding that just lets you be because it would cause too much of a fuss to try to change you. She has raised her children and just wants to enjoy her grandkids now. Because you can give grandkids back to their parents when they start to cry.
Chicago is the mother. Nurturing, caring, welcoming. Chicago is a little more forthcoming with her love because she remembers what it was like to be that young once. She makes mistakes from time to time and tries to learn from them, and she is far from perfect. But she tries. And she would not go back to being young herself because she is happy the way she is. She loves her life and loves sharing it with those around her.
Los Angeles is the maiden. Young, a bit self-involved, a bit detached. She is concerned with appearances and being liked. If you have what she wants, she is your best friend. If you don't, she'll barely give you the time of day. She is young and fickle and outwardly beautiful.
There are things to love about each of these places, and certain elements of each of these places that appeal to different people and different personality types. I don't mean to cast dispersions on any of these cities or their inhabitants - we all exist at different stages of our lives at different times and want different things. Between the three, I would argue that just about anyone could find a happy home.
So my friend tomfromhr asked why I settled in Chicago. The simple answer is that I grew up here, so it is more a matter of "I haven't left yet" than a matter of settling. The more complicated answer is that I am fulfilled by this mother city. She moves at the right pace for me. She has everything I need. She believes in many of the same things that I do - knowledge, caring, letting those who you love know that you love them. Chicago just feels good to me. She has since I moved into the city from the suburbs when I was about eighteen.
The funny thing is that New York also feels like home to me. I get it. I get the vibe of the city. Some of the happiest moments of my life have been just fleeting Tuesday morning moments in New York. But I get it. The city spoke to me and let me know I am always welcome there.
I wonder sometimes what this says about me that I am equally happy in the mother city and the crone city, but I feel completely out of place in the maiden city. I think it goes hand in hand with the fact that I was never the ingenue type, even when I was that age. I think I have always been a little older, a little wiser, a little stronger than my age would suggest, which would put me in the mother and crone phases of my life perhaps a little earlier than some. I'm okay with that. I think I would rather enjoy a long, fulfilling croneship than a drawn-out maidenhood.
So why Chicago? Because home is where my mother is, and my mother is Chicago.
- As an actor, I split up the United States into New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Yes, there are other cities and towns and lovely places, but as an actor, those are my big three target markets. I have spent a significant amount of time in all three, though I have spent more time in Chicago than in the other two.
- I am very much on board with trying to reclaim the word "crone" as it applies to wise older women. Crone used to just mean an old woman, but with the cultural shift to prize youth and beauty (and imbecility as Craig Ferguson would put it) above all else, "crone" fell into disuse and became associated with crazy, senile, disagreeable, scary, old witch ladies. There are those who are now trying to reclaim the word as one meaning a woman who is past her reproductive cycle and in a phase of her life characterized by wisdom, personal power and freedom. American culture, specifically, does not celebrate older women, and I think we should. In part because I know a lot of amazing older women and in part because I plan on being one someday and I really hope they don't stick me in a home to rot away in my old age. I'm going to have too many fun stories to tell for that.
Okay, so now that we have those bits out of the way, I can tell you my theory about the United States. New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles correspond to the phases of a woman's life - crone, mother, and maiden, respectively.
New York is the crone. She is the wise old grandmother who has been everywhere and done everything. She may not be as showy and forthcoming with her love as you'd like, but when she tells you that she baked too many cookies and shouldn't eat them herself so you're welcome to them, you secretly know that she baked them in anticipation of you coming over. She loves you with that deep understanding that just lets you be because it would cause too much of a fuss to try to change you. She has raised her children and just wants to enjoy her grandkids now. Because you can give grandkids back to their parents when they start to cry.
Chicago is the mother. Nurturing, caring, welcoming. Chicago is a little more forthcoming with her love because she remembers what it was like to be that young once. She makes mistakes from time to time and tries to learn from them, and she is far from perfect. But she tries. And she would not go back to being young herself because she is happy the way she is. She loves her life and loves sharing it with those around her.
Los Angeles is the maiden. Young, a bit self-involved, a bit detached. She is concerned with appearances and being liked. If you have what she wants, she is your best friend. If you don't, she'll barely give you the time of day. She is young and fickle and outwardly beautiful.
There are things to love about each of these places, and certain elements of each of these places that appeal to different people and different personality types. I don't mean to cast dispersions on any of these cities or their inhabitants - we all exist at different stages of our lives at different times and want different things. Between the three, I would argue that just about anyone could find a happy home.
So my friend tomfromhr asked why I settled in Chicago. The simple answer is that I grew up here, so it is more a matter of "I haven't left yet" than a matter of settling. The more complicated answer is that I am fulfilled by this mother city. She moves at the right pace for me. She has everything I need. She believes in many of the same things that I do - knowledge, caring, letting those who you love know that you love them. Chicago just feels good to me. She has since I moved into the city from the suburbs when I was about eighteen.
The funny thing is that New York also feels like home to me. I get it. I get the vibe of the city. Some of the happiest moments of my life have been just fleeting Tuesday morning moments in New York. But I get it. The city spoke to me and let me know I am always welcome there.
I wonder sometimes what this says about me that I am equally happy in the mother city and the crone city, but I feel completely out of place in the maiden city. I think it goes hand in hand with the fact that I was never the ingenue type, even when I was that age. I think I have always been a little older, a little wiser, a little stronger than my age would suggest, which would put me in the mother and crone phases of my life perhaps a little earlier than some. I'm okay with that. I think I would rather enjoy a long, fulfilling croneship than a drawn-out maidenhood.
So why Chicago? Because home is where my mother is, and my mother is Chicago.
Monday, July 29, 2013
July 29 - Thoughts on Acting
It's funny; a lot of people think it's odd that I consider myself an introvert yet I am so passionate about acting. They think it an odd contradiction to be an introvert but to "crave the spotlight" that comes from performance. The other day, I think I figured it out, and I've been trying to put it into words that are understandable and make sense.
I love acting because it is not about me.
This probably flies in the face of what a lot of actors believe. I have had teachers say that every actor has to have a ginormous ego, every actor has to think they are the best in the world. I think to some extent, that is true - every actor needs to believe in himself and his abilities. But acting itself, for me, is not about me. It is about everyone but me, so it feels comfortable. Let me see if I can explain.
If acting is living truthfully under imaginary circumstances, then what I put on stage will never actually be me. It will be versions of me that are subjected to imaginary, extraordinary circumstances. And the more extraordinary the circumstances, the less actual "me" is there. It becomes an exercise of "what if I had been born to a poor family in the south in 1862 instead of to a middle class family in Chicago in 1977? How would I then react to being courted by someone of a different social standing than me?" There is an element of me in there - my logic, my thought patterns - but the situations and the words are someone else's. It's not about my life on stage, it is about theirs. My job is to bring another person to life. The side effect is that I feel like I get to live more fully because I get to experience all of these other things, through the eyes of other people, that I would not normally if I spent my entire life just being me.
To take it one step further, I believe that as an actor, my job is to make my scene partner look good. I am going to go into every scene I do trying to give my partner what he or she needs to get where he or she needs to be to make the scene work. Hopefully, he or she is doing the same for me. So that's not about me, either. And when I am not doing a scene, but rather a monologue, my job is to make the audience or viewer feel something. It is my job to take them along with me on my emotional journey. So every moment I spend on stage is spent trying to elicit a reaction from someone else. It's not about me.
And even further, and specifically as it pertains to film as opposed to theater, it is about the production design and camera angles and lighting design and music and special effects and whatnot. Film is not an actor's medium. I don't say that to be harsh or to belittle film in any way; I quite love the art of filmmaking and I love performing in films. But I know when I do so, it is not about me. The right editor can make or break an actor's performance. The film would not happen without all of the technicians there, I'm just standing in front of their scenery saying words.
So as an introvert who hates calling attention to herself, it makes perfect sense to me that I would seek out a career where I get to spend time in public (so as to not appear insane) being someone other than myself. I love myself; don't get me wrong. But if people are going to be paying that much attention to me, what better way to allow them to do so without feeling like my personal space is overly imposed upon than to put on a character and do a show?
I don't know that I'm explaining it very well. Suffice it to say that I love acting because it is not about me, and that statement makes perfect sense in my head. I love acting because it is not about me.
I love acting because it is not about me.
This probably flies in the face of what a lot of actors believe. I have had teachers say that every actor has to have a ginormous ego, every actor has to think they are the best in the world. I think to some extent, that is true - every actor needs to believe in himself and his abilities. But acting itself, for me, is not about me. It is about everyone but me, so it feels comfortable. Let me see if I can explain.
If acting is living truthfully under imaginary circumstances, then what I put on stage will never actually be me. It will be versions of me that are subjected to imaginary, extraordinary circumstances. And the more extraordinary the circumstances, the less actual "me" is there. It becomes an exercise of "what if I had been born to a poor family in the south in 1862 instead of to a middle class family in Chicago in 1977? How would I then react to being courted by someone of a different social standing than me?" There is an element of me in there - my logic, my thought patterns - but the situations and the words are someone else's. It's not about my life on stage, it is about theirs. My job is to bring another person to life. The side effect is that I feel like I get to live more fully because I get to experience all of these other things, through the eyes of other people, that I would not normally if I spent my entire life just being me.
To take it one step further, I believe that as an actor, my job is to make my scene partner look good. I am going to go into every scene I do trying to give my partner what he or she needs to get where he or she needs to be to make the scene work. Hopefully, he or she is doing the same for me. So that's not about me, either. And when I am not doing a scene, but rather a monologue, my job is to make the audience or viewer feel something. It is my job to take them along with me on my emotional journey. So every moment I spend on stage is spent trying to elicit a reaction from someone else. It's not about me.
And even further, and specifically as it pertains to film as opposed to theater, it is about the production design and camera angles and lighting design and music and special effects and whatnot. Film is not an actor's medium. I don't say that to be harsh or to belittle film in any way; I quite love the art of filmmaking and I love performing in films. But I know when I do so, it is not about me. The right editor can make or break an actor's performance. The film would not happen without all of the technicians there, I'm just standing in front of their scenery saying words.
So as an introvert who hates calling attention to herself, it makes perfect sense to me that I would seek out a career where I get to spend time in public (so as to not appear insane) being someone other than myself. I love myself; don't get me wrong. But if people are going to be paying that much attention to me, what better way to allow them to do so without feeling like my personal space is overly imposed upon than to put on a character and do a show?
I don't know that I'm explaining it very well. Suffice it to say that I love acting because it is not about me, and that statement makes perfect sense in my head. I love acting because it is not about me.
Wednesday, July 24, 2013
July 24 - Business Calls
If you have ever worked in an office, you probably know how to answer the phone. "Hello. Thank you for calling [company name], this is [your name]. How can I help you?" Or something to that effect. If you work somewhere "fun," you may get to say something like, "It's a bazongo day to get blasted at Blitz Farmers. Can I offer you a blitz blaster bonus pack?" But in any case, you have likely received some sort of instruction on how they would like you to answer the phone while you are at work.
Where much of society fails us, however, is in teaching us how to place a phone call to a business. I'm not talking about telemarketers - those people have computer screens in front of them that tell them what to say in a "choose your own adventure" sort of format so they know how to respond when you tell them the person they are trying to reach has recently passed away. I'm talking about regular people. Customer service people. Accounting people. Customers needing assistance with a product they purchased. Sales people looking for information from the factories they represent. So today, I would like to offer these simple tips to make calling a business a little easier, a little less frustrating, and a little more pleasant for everyone involved.
1. Find a quiet place with the best cell phone reception you can find to place the call. I know, this may be asking a lot, but if the person on the other end can't understand what you are saying, you are both going to leave the conversation frustrated and annoyed. If you have to shout over people in the background and can't hear what the person on the other end is telling you, you'll just get pissed off. I know the pace of our crazy work-a-day world says everything has to happen right exactly now, but the call will go much smoother if you are both able to hear and understand one another on the first try. So find somewhere without a carnival in the background where you have at least two bars on your phone so the call will be clear and understandable.
1a) Do not place the call while driving. Let me say that again: Do not place the call while driving. I know, I know, you're thinking, "But it's okay! I have a hands-free device so I can legally make calls from my car!" That's only half the issue. While you are driving, you should be focused on driving. If the person on the other end of the call needs information from you, you may not be able to provide it because you don't have access to that information in your car, so you end up wasting your time and the other person's time. If the person on the other end needs to provide you with information, you may need to make a note of what they tell you, which you should not do while you are driving because you should be paying attention to your driving. Yes, traffic sucks. But a phone call to a business requires your participation (see points 5 and 6), so it is best to make the call when you can participate fully. Which is never when you are driving. Do not place the call while driving.
2. Wait for the person on the other end to answer the phone and introduce him or herself. Honestly. This seems like a no brainer, but you would be amazed how often (as a customer service representative) I have answered the phone to someone who is mid-sentence explaining their problem to me. When you're calling a business, the person you are calling is going to have their schpeil that they have to say when they answer the phone, so let them say it. Not to mention, if you didn't hear someone answer the phone and greet you, who are you talking to? Wait for the intro, then proceed to step three.
3. Introduce yourself. Honestly. While many businesses have caller ID, often times, that caller ID only shows a phone number, not a name like your cell phone does. The person answering has likely not memorized every phone number in the country, so they only know upon answering that they're receiving a call from, say, Florida. It is your job to tell them who in Florida is calling. And I'm not saying you should say, "It's Fred and I want to talk to Larry," unless you know for a fact that the person who answered the phone knows who Fred and Larry both are. If you have done step two correctly, you will know who you are talking to. It is only polite to let that person know who they are talking to, so they can begin to get an idea of the context and purpose of the call. And unless you speak to this person on a daily basis, it is best to state not only your name but the company you are calling from. There are a million Johns and Susans and Bills in the world; if you let them know which one you are, they will know how to interact with you appropriately.
4. State the purpose of your call clearly and concisely. If you have a question, ask a question. Do not assume that the question is implied. "Hi, this is Sally and I bought something from you that doesn't work." This is not a question. "Hey, it's Mark and I placed an order the other day." This is also not a question. These are statements that could each be followed with a myriad different questions. It is your job, as the caller, to let the person who answered the phone know why you called.
5. Listen to what the person on the other end of the phone is saying. If you ask a question, wait for the answer. If they ask a question, try to answer the question they asked, not the question you wish they had asked. There will be time for further discussion, but phone calls work best when both parties are engaged in the conversation. This means both talking and listening in turn.
6. Be prepared for questions. If you are calling with a question about some specific thing, have as much information as you can about that specific thing available when you call. For example, if you are calling to get service on your cell phone, have your cell phone handy so if the person on the other end needs a model number or serial number, you can provide it, or if they tell you to try something with the phone to get it working, you can try it right then and there. If you need to follow up on an order, have the order number handy so they can find your order quickly. Know your own contact information when you call so on the off chance they need a billing zip code or contact phone number to get back to you later with a status update, you can provide that information. Phone calls are conversations, which means both parties must participate. Calling a business to ask questions is not a passive activity - be prepared to participate in the conversation.
7. Remember that you are talking to a person. We've gotten used to automated phone answering systems now that when you do actually get through to a live person, you're often so frustrated you just want to scream. I get it. I've been there. But the live person you're talking to on the other end has likely not been involved in your frustration to this point and needs a moment to catch up. Yes, they are an agent of the company you are calling, but he or she may need a moment to familiarize him or herself with your specific situation or the specific product you are calling about and it is not a plot to make you even more angry. You know why you're calling; they don't yet. Give them a moment to catch up before you start berating them for their ignorance.
8. Know what information you are looking for. This way, you will know when the conversation is over. Say "thank you" and hang up.
I hope these tips have been helpful and that they will make your future business calls more pleasant and more productive. Join us again next week when we explore how to use the antiquated piece of office equipment, the land-line phone.
Where much of society fails us, however, is in teaching us how to place a phone call to a business. I'm not talking about telemarketers - those people have computer screens in front of them that tell them what to say in a "choose your own adventure" sort of format so they know how to respond when you tell them the person they are trying to reach has recently passed away. I'm talking about regular people. Customer service people. Accounting people. Customers needing assistance with a product they purchased. Sales people looking for information from the factories they represent. So today, I would like to offer these simple tips to make calling a business a little easier, a little less frustrating, and a little more pleasant for everyone involved.
1. Find a quiet place with the best cell phone reception you can find to place the call. I know, this may be asking a lot, but if the person on the other end can't understand what you are saying, you are both going to leave the conversation frustrated and annoyed. If you have to shout over people in the background and can't hear what the person on the other end is telling you, you'll just get pissed off. I know the pace of our crazy work-a-day world says everything has to happen right exactly now, but the call will go much smoother if you are both able to hear and understand one another on the first try. So find somewhere without a carnival in the background where you have at least two bars on your phone so the call will be clear and understandable.
1a) Do not place the call while driving. Let me say that again: Do not place the call while driving. I know, I know, you're thinking, "But it's okay! I have a hands-free device so I can legally make calls from my car!" That's only half the issue. While you are driving, you should be focused on driving. If the person on the other end of the call needs information from you, you may not be able to provide it because you don't have access to that information in your car, so you end up wasting your time and the other person's time. If the person on the other end needs to provide you with information, you may need to make a note of what they tell you, which you should not do while you are driving because you should be paying attention to your driving. Yes, traffic sucks. But a phone call to a business requires your participation (see points 5 and 6), so it is best to make the call when you can participate fully. Which is never when you are driving. Do not place the call while driving.
2. Wait for the person on the other end to answer the phone and introduce him or herself. Honestly. This seems like a no brainer, but you would be amazed how often (as a customer service representative) I have answered the phone to someone who is mid-sentence explaining their problem to me. When you're calling a business, the person you are calling is going to have their schpeil that they have to say when they answer the phone, so let them say it. Not to mention, if you didn't hear someone answer the phone and greet you, who are you talking to? Wait for the intro, then proceed to step three.
3. Introduce yourself. Honestly. While many businesses have caller ID, often times, that caller ID only shows a phone number, not a name like your cell phone does. The person answering has likely not memorized every phone number in the country, so they only know upon answering that they're receiving a call from, say, Florida. It is your job to tell them who in Florida is calling. And I'm not saying you should say, "It's Fred and I want to talk to Larry," unless you know for a fact that the person who answered the phone knows who Fred and Larry both are. If you have done step two correctly, you will know who you are talking to. It is only polite to let that person know who they are talking to, so they can begin to get an idea of the context and purpose of the call. And unless you speak to this person on a daily basis, it is best to state not only your name but the company you are calling from. There are a million Johns and Susans and Bills in the world; if you let them know which one you are, they will know how to interact with you appropriately.
4. State the purpose of your call clearly and concisely. If you have a question, ask a question. Do not assume that the question is implied. "Hi, this is Sally and I bought something from you that doesn't work." This is not a question. "Hey, it's Mark and I placed an order the other day." This is also not a question. These are statements that could each be followed with a myriad different questions. It is your job, as the caller, to let the person who answered the phone know why you called.
5. Listen to what the person on the other end of the phone is saying. If you ask a question, wait for the answer. If they ask a question, try to answer the question they asked, not the question you wish they had asked. There will be time for further discussion, but phone calls work best when both parties are engaged in the conversation. This means both talking and listening in turn.
6. Be prepared for questions. If you are calling with a question about some specific thing, have as much information as you can about that specific thing available when you call. For example, if you are calling to get service on your cell phone, have your cell phone handy so if the person on the other end needs a model number or serial number, you can provide it, or if they tell you to try something with the phone to get it working, you can try it right then and there. If you need to follow up on an order, have the order number handy so they can find your order quickly. Know your own contact information when you call so on the off chance they need a billing zip code or contact phone number to get back to you later with a status update, you can provide that information. Phone calls are conversations, which means both parties must participate. Calling a business to ask questions is not a passive activity - be prepared to participate in the conversation.
7. Remember that you are talking to a person. We've gotten used to automated phone answering systems now that when you do actually get through to a live person, you're often so frustrated you just want to scream. I get it. I've been there. But the live person you're talking to on the other end has likely not been involved in your frustration to this point and needs a moment to catch up. Yes, they are an agent of the company you are calling, but he or she may need a moment to familiarize him or herself with your specific situation or the specific product you are calling about and it is not a plot to make you even more angry. You know why you're calling; they don't yet. Give them a moment to catch up before you start berating them for their ignorance.
8. Know what information you are looking for. This way, you will know when the conversation is over. Say "thank you" and hang up.
I hope these tips have been helpful and that they will make your future business calls more pleasant and more productive. Join us again next week when we explore how to use the antiquated piece of office equipment, the land-line phone.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
July 17 - Gender Roles
I went to an audition a week and a half ago wherein before the monologues and things started, we all sat around and talked about amazing women from Chicago. I mentioned the Bechdel Test and got the chance to explain it to the people in the room who were not familiar with it, one of whom is a script reader. She is the person who reads scripts for producers and tells them which ones are worth their time and which ones aren't. She said she was recently presented with a script that had five male characters, all described by character traits - strength, intelligence, shadiness, etc. - and one female character described solely by her physical characteristics - skinny, brunette, hooker with a heart of gold. She didn't bother to read the script, nor did she pass it along for others to have to read, but I think this is a telling indicator of how women are viewed in the film/television/theater industry.
Then, last night, after watching Whose Line is it, Anyway?, the show I adore because it makes me squeak like no other, I left the television on and saw the new dating game show travesty, Perfect Score. The premise of this game is that you have two people of one gender fighting for a date with one of ten people of the other gender. There were two episodes, back to back, one with women fighting for a date with a man, one with men fighting for a date with a woman. The two that are fighting for the date and the ten people they have to choose from take compatibility tests before the show starts, and then the ten are ranked from most compatible to least compatible with the two based on their answers. Each date is also then given a dollar value, with the date with the most compatible person being worth the most money, the date with the least compatible being worth the least. Through a series of question and answer type rounds (and semi-humiliating stunts), the two gradually eliminate people from the group of ten (who are sent to the Loser's Lounge) until they finally choose one person to go on a date with. Whichever of the two picks the most compatible date in comparison to his or her opponent wins the date and the corresponding dollar amount. It sounds way too complex to be this ridiculous and vapid, but ridiculous and vapid, it is.
What I thought was really interesting was the gender roles people fell into on this show. I found myself wondering if they really are like that, or if these people just want to win dates and money. For example, when the women competing for a date with a man were asked what kind of men they liked, they used words like nerdy or smart - character traits - but then proceeded to eliminate most of the nerdy guys, keeping the traditionally hotter men in the competition. When the men competing for a date with a woman were asked what kind of women they liked, one said the more petite the better, and the other pulled the superiority card to say he likes a woman with a nice round booty. Like that made him more mature and accepting of different types of women. The first woman he eliminated was a little older, not as "traditionally beautiful" as some of the other women, but she was his third-most-compatible date.
It was fascinating to me that even in our every day interactions between the genders, women are reduced to body parts while men are allowed to have personalities. It reminded me of this interview with Dustin Hoffman, too. Somewhat for the women, but especially for the men. Neither gender really wanted to give people a chance who were not physically attractive to them, even when it turned out those people were their most compatible partners. I'm not saying physical attractiveness isn't important - it is - but we all know how the more you come to know and treasure a person, the more attractive they become to you, yet we're all programmed to not even get to know people who aren't attractive at a first meeting. I'm sure I'm guilty of it, too, for which, I apologize. But seriously, what the fuck? What is wrong with our culture that we think it is okay to reduce women to body parts and judge books solely on their covers? Aren't we better than this yet?
If someone could cryogenically freeze me for the time being and wake me up when American culture is a bit more sane, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Then, last night, after watching Whose Line is it, Anyway?, the show I adore because it makes me squeak like no other, I left the television on and saw the new dating game show travesty, Perfect Score. The premise of this game is that you have two people of one gender fighting for a date with one of ten people of the other gender. There were two episodes, back to back, one with women fighting for a date with a man, one with men fighting for a date with a woman. The two that are fighting for the date and the ten people they have to choose from take compatibility tests before the show starts, and then the ten are ranked from most compatible to least compatible with the two based on their answers. Each date is also then given a dollar value, with the date with the most compatible person being worth the most money, the date with the least compatible being worth the least. Through a series of question and answer type rounds (and semi-humiliating stunts), the two gradually eliminate people from the group of ten (who are sent to the Loser's Lounge) until they finally choose one person to go on a date with. Whichever of the two picks the most compatible date in comparison to his or her opponent wins the date and the corresponding dollar amount. It sounds way too complex to be this ridiculous and vapid, but ridiculous and vapid, it is.
What I thought was really interesting was the gender roles people fell into on this show. I found myself wondering if they really are like that, or if these people just want to win dates and money. For example, when the women competing for a date with a man were asked what kind of men they liked, they used words like nerdy or smart - character traits - but then proceeded to eliminate most of the nerdy guys, keeping the traditionally hotter men in the competition. When the men competing for a date with a woman were asked what kind of women they liked, one said the more petite the better, and the other pulled the superiority card to say he likes a woman with a nice round booty. Like that made him more mature and accepting of different types of women. The first woman he eliminated was a little older, not as "traditionally beautiful" as some of the other women, but she was his third-most-compatible date.
It was fascinating to me that even in our every day interactions between the genders, women are reduced to body parts while men are allowed to have personalities. It reminded me of this interview with Dustin Hoffman, too. Somewhat for the women, but especially for the men. Neither gender really wanted to give people a chance who were not physically attractive to them, even when it turned out those people were their most compatible partners. I'm not saying physical attractiveness isn't important - it is - but we all know how the more you come to know and treasure a person, the more attractive they become to you, yet we're all programmed to not even get to know people who aren't attractive at a first meeting. I'm sure I'm guilty of it, too, for which, I apologize. But seriously, what the fuck? What is wrong with our culture that we think it is okay to reduce women to body parts and judge books solely on their covers? Aren't we better than this yet?
If someone could cryogenically freeze me for the time being and wake me up when American culture is a bit more sane, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
June 11 - Dietary Issues
This is not going to be a blog about losing weight, so if that is what you are looking for, look elsewhere. Sorry.
What I do want to talk a little bit about is the trend within the United States to tout the health benefits of one particular food item for five or six years, and then debunk everything good that was said about that product for five or six years, and then add that food item back to the "it's okay to eat in moderation" food list. Honestly, I think they're all just messing with us, trying to make bigger profits on food products by coming up with new food items and then convincing the general public that all of the old food products are going to kill you so you better eat this new stuff instead.
I bring this up today because a lot of the foods I rely on to keep me healthy have come under attack lately - soy and wheat, mostly - and this bothers me. I sort of feel like I'm sure much of the world did when we were all told to avoid eggs fifteen years ago, and I am anxiously awaiting the day when either some reasonable research comes out or we get off of this "everything is bad for you for five years and then it's okay to eat again" roller coaster.
See, the thing is this - data can be interpreted in really whatever way you want to interpret it in order to support whatever hypothesis you come up with. In the simplest terms, you may have crammed all night for a big biology exam and you got an 85% which makes you proud, but your parents only focus on the 15% of the test you got wrong and ground you. Same result, different interpretations. Or, let's say two groups of scientists perform the same study under the same conditions to determine whether or not smoking is bad for you. The one group zeros in on the calming effect of nicotine, the appetite control, the lowered risk for Parkinson's disease. The other group zeros in on the prevalence of lung cancer and emphysema caused by smoking. Both publish papers on their findings. Both papers will really only talk about the things they want to highlight so it doesn't look like they spent ten years disproving their own hypotheses. No scientist wants to prove himself wrong - he'll lose funding, he'll lose respect within the community, and he'll likely lose his job. On the rare occasion, proving oneself wrong produces another, greater result that then heralds one as a genius instead of a failure (William Perkin inventing synthetic dyes instead of a malaria cure, for example), but I think most scientists would rather spend their time proving themselves right than hoping for a miracle.
So here is what I know about human biology as it relates to food:
What I do want to talk a little bit about is the trend within the United States to tout the health benefits of one particular food item for five or six years, and then debunk everything good that was said about that product for five or six years, and then add that food item back to the "it's okay to eat in moderation" food list. Honestly, I think they're all just messing with us, trying to make bigger profits on food products by coming up with new food items and then convincing the general public that all of the old food products are going to kill you so you better eat this new stuff instead.
I bring this up today because a lot of the foods I rely on to keep me healthy have come under attack lately - soy and wheat, mostly - and this bothers me. I sort of feel like I'm sure much of the world did when we were all told to avoid eggs fifteen years ago, and I am anxiously awaiting the day when either some reasonable research comes out or we get off of this "everything is bad for you for five years and then it's okay to eat again" roller coaster.
See, the thing is this - data can be interpreted in really whatever way you want to interpret it in order to support whatever hypothesis you come up with. In the simplest terms, you may have crammed all night for a big biology exam and you got an 85% which makes you proud, but your parents only focus on the 15% of the test you got wrong and ground you. Same result, different interpretations. Or, let's say two groups of scientists perform the same study under the same conditions to determine whether or not smoking is bad for you. The one group zeros in on the calming effect of nicotine, the appetite control, the lowered risk for Parkinson's disease. The other group zeros in on the prevalence of lung cancer and emphysema caused by smoking. Both publish papers on their findings. Both papers will really only talk about the things they want to highlight so it doesn't look like they spent ten years disproving their own hypotheses. No scientist wants to prove himself wrong - he'll lose funding, he'll lose respect within the community, and he'll likely lose his job. On the rare occasion, proving oneself wrong produces another, greater result that then heralds one as a genius instead of a failure (William Perkin inventing synthetic dyes instead of a malaria cure, for example), but I think most scientists would rather spend their time proving themselves right than hoping for a miracle.
So here is what I know about human biology as it relates to food:
- We need certain amounts of carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, vitamins and minerals to support our basic body functions.
- Some of these things are synthesized naturally in the body.
- What is not naturally synthesized, we get from food - the things we eat and drink are absorbed into our bodies and affect the way we function.
- Whatever we ingest that our bodies can't use is expelled as solid or liquid waste.
Based on this list, maintaining one's health by eating the right foods should not be rocket surgery. Eat things that contain the right amounts of carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, vitamins and minerals and you should be all good, yes?
I say yes.
I think where the confusion comes from is that the right amounts of the right things are not easily defined across the board. In the simplest terms, a 250-lb man has different dietary requirements than a three-year-old girl. There is more of him, he has different musculature, he has different hormonal balances to maintain, and he (hopefully) isn't still trying to grow at the rate a three-year-old is. And this isn't even taking into account conditions like diabetes or lifestyle choices like extreme athleticism that will change your nutritional requirements even more. But the problem in America is that we want to find the one right answer to "how and what should I eat?" that will work for everyone. We recognize so many other differences in ourselves; why don't we recognize and honor the differences in our dietary requirements?
The one that is really amusing to me now is the gluten-free trend. Now, I'm not trying to make fun of those who have Celiac disease - this is a real autoimmune disease wherein an autoimmune response is triggered in the small intestine when gluten is ingested, and it causes bloating, fatigue, weight loss, and malnourishment. I know people who have been positively diagnosed with Celiac disease and to them, I say, "Follow your gluten-free diet." For their sake, I am glad that companies like Udi's exist. But current estimates say that only about 1% of the population in the United States actually has Celiac disease. Now, there are also those out there with a gluten sensitivity, for whom eating gluten can cause bloating or discomfort, but they do not have the autoimmune disease. If those people also choose to avoid gluten, more power to them. Even if that brings the total percentage of the United States population who have some sort of problem with gluten to 10%, that's 90% of the population that doesn't have a problem with gluten. So why are we telling everyone to avoid gluten like it is the plague?
I know, I know, it is because wheat is so processed now and natural wheat plants today are different than they were 1,000 years ago and so on and so forth. You know what? Humans are different today than we were 1,000 years ago. So there.
"Well what about GMOs?" you might ask. Recently (i.e. within the last year or so), one of the biggest crusaders against GMOs gave a talk saying he was wrong all along - that the science to prove the harmful nature of GMOs isn't really there. I'm sure there are those who would say he was coerced into changing his position or whatever, but it does make you wonder. Did he spend the last twenty years only reading studies that supported his theories, and then recently found other studies that opposed his theories? If you can prove anything you want by looking at the results of scientific study through various colored glasses, was his flip a matter of coercion, or changing his glasses?
The simple answer is, "I don't know." I am not a researcher, I am not Mark Lynas, I am not a person suffering from a gluten sensitivity. I am a person who has been living and thriving on a plant-based diet that has included a lot of soy and wheat for almost eleven years. I have just the right balance of good and bad cholesterol in my system. I sometimes get tired when I eat sugary things. I sometimes get gassy when I eat too many beans. But I think it is clear from my outward appearance - my curvy nature, my strong fingernails and hair, my glowing complexion - that I am well-nourished. So I apologize if I am not going to jump on the "say no to soy" bandwagon, the "everything gluten free" bandwagon, or the "drink a glass of wine every day" bandwagon. I am going to eat the foods that make me feel good. I am going to eat the foods that my body tells me it needs, because if I have learned one thing from being vegan, it is that my body knows better than I do what it needs to function properly and it will tell me when something is lacking. And I am also going to allow myself to not be perfect in this regard - I will eat cake every now and again knowing exactly how crappy I will feel afterward.
And my advice to you on your diet? Eat the foods you like. The ones that make your body sing out, "Thank you!" after you have consumed them. The ones that have the carbohydrates, lipids, proteins, vitamins and minerals that support your unique body chemistry. Because you are unique, and you embrace that uniqueness in every other aspect of your life. Embrace it in your dietary choices as well.
Or not. I'm not an expert, so you're free to tell me to go piss up a tree.
Labels:
BED2013,
discussion,
food,
frustrations,
health,
healthy,
thoughts,
vegan
Friday, June 07, 2013
June 7 - Conversational Tips for Introverts
With the differences between introverts and extroverts becoming clearer, and a lot of the stigmas surrounding the word "introvert" slowly fading away (notice I said "slowly"), I feel like I can stand up proudly now and proclaim my introversion. For those of you not in the know, this does not mean I do not like other people, this does not mean I am shy, this does not mean I have low self-esteem. It means I am an introvert - I think before I speak, I observe and assess situations, and I occasionally desperately need to not be around other people. It's nothing personal, it's just how my brain works.
Okay, now we're all up to speed.
I have found myself in several situations of late where I have been hanging out with other introverts and have come to realize that some introverts have developed different social coping mechanisms than others. Some sit and don't say anything as they take in their surroundings. Some put on the face of an extrovert and try to blend in with the crowd. Some find the one other introvert in the room and go have a quiet conversation. Some use some sort of social lubricant like alcohol. All of these are great.
Except when you're the one other introvert in the room and one of the silent-type introverts comes up and expects you to...entertain them? Talk to them? Make them feel comfortable? When you yourself would really just like to be sitting there, watching people out the window, composing a symphony in your head. And now suddenly there is this other person there whose enjoyment of the outing is entirely dependent on you (or at least it feels that way).
I have been in this situation many times. I think I'm one of those introverts who has learned how to put on an extroverted mask so I look like I can blend into just about any social situation. This also means I am often the target for other introverts to seek out and sort of back into a corner for one-on-one conversation. I don't mind one-on-one conversation. I thrive on one-on-one conversations. But if you approached me and then expect me to keep the ball rolling...it's exhausting. So I have come up with a few tips that can help introverts talk to either other introverts or extroverts to make these encounters a little more enjoyable and a little less tiresome for everyone involved.
Okay, now we're all up to speed.
I have found myself in several situations of late where I have been hanging out with other introverts and have come to realize that some introverts have developed different social coping mechanisms than others. Some sit and don't say anything as they take in their surroundings. Some put on the face of an extrovert and try to blend in with the crowd. Some find the one other introvert in the room and go have a quiet conversation. Some use some sort of social lubricant like alcohol. All of these are great.
Except when you're the one other introvert in the room and one of the silent-type introverts comes up and expects you to...entertain them? Talk to them? Make them feel comfortable? When you yourself would really just like to be sitting there, watching people out the window, composing a symphony in your head. And now suddenly there is this other person there whose enjoyment of the outing is entirely dependent on you (or at least it feels that way).
I have been in this situation many times. I think I'm one of those introverts who has learned how to put on an extroverted mask so I look like I can blend into just about any social situation. This also means I am often the target for other introverts to seek out and sort of back into a corner for one-on-one conversation. I don't mind one-on-one conversation. I thrive on one-on-one conversations. But if you approached me and then expect me to keep the ball rolling...it's exhausting. So I have come up with a few tips that can help introverts talk to either other introverts or extroverts to make these encounters a little more enjoyable and a little less tiresome for everyone involved.
- If you are an introvert and you find yourself in the company of an extrovert, you will likely not have to speak at all if you don't want to. If you do encounter the odd lapse in conversation, ask a question. Doesn't matter what it is, just ask a question. The extrovert will likely answer the question, expound upon the question, get caught up in a tangent that leads to another story, circle back around, spot another friend across the room whose new boyfriend is causing quite a stir, and voila! You don't have to talk anymore unless you really want to. Don't worry about it.
- It is acceptable to ask personal questions of an extrovert. In general, they like to talk about themselves, and this is pretty much a sure-fire way to make sure you will not have to open your mouth again for the rest of the evening until you leave. If then.
- If you are an introvert and you find yourself in the company of another introvert and you both seem stuck for conversation, ask a question either about an interest you know the introvert has or some philosophical conundrum. Introverts like to talk, but they're more selective in their conversational topics. Hum-drum day-to-day "how's the weather" type conversations will put your introvert to sleep. But if you know she is into bird watching, you might mention you noticed a flock of geese migrating northward the other day and ask if that is typical for this time of year. Or if he is a computer guy, ask for his thoughts on the PC vs. Mac debate and why all the true computer geeks love Linux. The introverted brain is buzzing all of the time, and we are constantly making judgement calls about what is appropriate to say out loud and what is rubbish, so if you let us know that a certain topic is okay, we'll share everything we know on the idea. Again, introverts are not afraid of conversation; we just prefer actual conversation to chit-chat.
- It is acceptable to ask personal questions of an introvert, but can be a way to kill the conversation very quickly. "How are you?" will not elicit the same elaborate response as, say, "I notice you only seem to be eating the red peppers on the veggie plate - is there a reason for that?" One is a personal question that elicits a personal response, and one that can be kept simple. The other is an invitation to share one's theories on the superiority of red peppers or one's preference for cooked vegetables as opposed to raw except in the case of red peppers. Introverts like theories and reasons and logic.
- Under no circumstances should you say to an introvert, "Tell me about yourself."
- If you are an introvert and you find yourself stuck with another introvert who has asked you a question about yourself that you don't particularly want to answer or don't have very much to respond with, respond politely with what you have and then tack an "And you?" on the end of it. Often times, people will ask questions about things that are on their own minds. If someone asks you how things are going at work, it could be because something brilliant happened at their own workplace and rather that appear completely self-centered and spew stories all over you, they decide to first ask about your work in the hopes that the topic of "work" is one that will be stayed on long enough for their stories to come out in the natural course of conversation. Adding the "And you?" shifts the conversation back to them, makes you appear courteous and interested in their life, and takes the onus for speech off of you. It's a win-win-win.
- If you are an introvert and you are hanging out with an introvert you've hung out with before, try to remember just one thing from your last conversation and ask them about that. If they told you their sister just had a baby, ask how the baby is doing or if they have seen the baby lately. If you can remember just one thing from the previous conversation, it makes it look like you care and are invested in their life and again, shifts the speaking part of the conversation back to them so you can get back to your symphony.
- Yes, this one works on extroverts, too.
- You may find that you get to a place where you are listening too much to what the other person is telling you in the conversation so that you can store some of it away for use in your next encounter and your symphony gets put on hold for a few minutes. This is absolutely fine. The symphony will still be there later.
- When all else fails, pick the most random thought floating through your brain at that moment and say it out loud, social judgement be damned.
- Use caution if the random thought in your brain at that moment has to do with violence, murder, conspiracy plots in which you are involved, or your own need to urinate/defecate. These can be conversation/friendship killers.
I hope this has been helpful. It's really not that hard to carry on a conversation with either an introvert or an extrovert. If you are an introvert who finds yourself struggling in social situations and you'd like to be more involved, you just need to remember to ask questions, and the simplest question to ask that will keep the ball rolling is "And you?" You'll be fine. I have faith.
So those are my thoughts on conversational tips for introverts. Do you have any additional suggestions?
(See what I did there?)
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
March 27 - I Just...
I have an email address that, apparently, many many many many many many many many many many many people wish they had. Sorry, kids, it's mine. I got there first. And because of the way that this particular email service works, even if you put a period or a dash or something between the words in the email address, the email still comes to me. Which means I get a lot of emails that are not intended for me.
I know, I know, you're thinking, "Those are called SPAM messages, and it's okay to delete them." I'm not talking about spam. I'm talking about people's order confirmations from All Things Edible that include home addresses, full names, itemized lists of what was ordered and what it cost, and telephone numbers. I'm talking about emails that say, "Hi, Parent. Your child has signed up to play Innocuous Learning Game Number 6 and needs your approval to set up an account." I'm talking about emails that say, "Your phone number 919-xxx-xxxx {phone number removed by me for privacy purposes} is almost at it's data limit for this billing cycle and will be charged $1.69 for every extra kilobyte of data." These are not spam messages. These are messages meant for someone who input the wrong email address when signing up for a service of some sort.
Now, recently, I switched cell phone providers because there is a certain cell phone company that I despise that I wanted to get away from. Everything was fine, I'm okay with my new provider, but then I started getting emails from my old provider in regard to an account that was not mine. I got a full name, a full address, and a couple of phone numbers - apparently, it's a family plan. I marked these emails as spam so I wouldn't have to receive them anymore. Nope. They still arrive in my inbox every month. So I tried texting the phone number associated with the account to ask them to update their email address on the account and remove mine in the process. Didn't hear anything. Got another email. Then another. Then another. I even tried calling the phone number in the email to ask them politely on the phone to update their preferences. They sent me to a voice mail box that hasn't been set up yet.
I'm at the point where I don't know what else to do. I'm trying to help this person protect their own personal information by making sure the right contact information is in their account, in addition to trying to stop being contacted by a cell phone company I hate for something that has nothing to do with me. If I was a less honest person, I could very easily get into their account and gain access to their personal, identifying, or financial information. I'm not that person. I don't want another person's identity. I don't want to screw with someone's life like that. But I would really really really like these emails to stop.
So I'm starting a spam text campaign against the offending phone number. Random facts sent with the intent of getting this person to change their email address. Things like, "All 10 million bricks in the Empire State Building would love it if you took my email address off of your phone account," and "It is physically impossible to lick your own elbow, but it is very easy to stop these texts - remove my email address from your cell phone account." Informative, and hopefully just annoying enough to get this person to wise up and use their own email address instead of mine. Because seriously, why haven't they updated their account yet?
If you have any suggestions for texts I can send to this person (I would prefer to avoid profanity and threats of violence), please share them in the comments. Thanks!
I know, I know, you're thinking, "Those are called SPAM messages, and it's okay to delete them." I'm not talking about spam. I'm talking about people's order confirmations from All Things Edible that include home addresses, full names, itemized lists of what was ordered and what it cost, and telephone numbers. I'm talking about emails that say, "Hi, Parent. Your child has signed up to play Innocuous Learning Game Number 6 and needs your approval to set up an account." I'm talking about emails that say, "Your phone number 919-xxx-xxxx {phone number removed by me for privacy purposes} is almost at it's data limit for this billing cycle and will be charged $1.69 for every extra kilobyte of data." These are not spam messages. These are messages meant for someone who input the wrong email address when signing up for a service of some sort.
Now, recently, I switched cell phone providers because there is a certain cell phone company that I despise that I wanted to get away from. Everything was fine, I'm okay with my new provider, but then I started getting emails from my old provider in regard to an account that was not mine. I got a full name, a full address, and a couple of phone numbers - apparently, it's a family plan. I marked these emails as spam so I wouldn't have to receive them anymore. Nope. They still arrive in my inbox every month. So I tried texting the phone number associated with the account to ask them to update their email address on the account and remove mine in the process. Didn't hear anything. Got another email. Then another. Then another. I even tried calling the phone number in the email to ask them politely on the phone to update their preferences. They sent me to a voice mail box that hasn't been set up yet.
I'm at the point where I don't know what else to do. I'm trying to help this person protect their own personal information by making sure the right contact information is in their account, in addition to trying to stop being contacted by a cell phone company I hate for something that has nothing to do with me. If I was a less honest person, I could very easily get into their account and gain access to their personal, identifying, or financial information. I'm not that person. I don't want another person's identity. I don't want to screw with someone's life like that. But I would really really really like these emails to stop.
So I'm starting a spam text campaign against the offending phone number. Random facts sent with the intent of getting this person to change their email address. Things like, "All 10 million bricks in the Empire State Building would love it if you took my email address off of your phone account," and "It is physically impossible to lick your own elbow, but it is very easy to stop these texts - remove my email address from your cell phone account." Informative, and hopefully just annoying enough to get this person to wise up and use their own email address instead of mine. Because seriously, why haven't they updated their account yet?
If you have any suggestions for texts I can send to this person (I would prefer to avoid profanity and threats of violence), please share them in the comments. Thanks!
Friday, March 01, 2013
March 1 - Human Sexuality
First of all, if you've not seen this video, please take the three minutes and forty-nine seconds to watch it because it is so beautiful. If you didn't already love Hank Green, or if you don't understand why I love Hank Green, this is it. Right here. I've seen the video probably half a dozen times and it still chokes me up. So please, go watch it and then come back to read the rest of this post. I'll still be here.
Watched it? Yes? Good?
Okay. So that's the starting point for this discussion, and I just want to say really quickly that the beauty of two shiny boxes exploding into millions of shiny boxes is what gets me every time. So much beauty and so much love. It reduces me to the point of not being able to use words. I love that image of millions of shiny boxes, each one as beautiful as the last, in all of the colors of the rainbow. I like thinking about human sexuality that way.
I realize that not everybody looks at human sexuality that way, though, and it makes me sad. Because for me, it kind of goes like this.
Let's say your entire life, you've been attracted to redheads. Who isn't attracted to redheads, right? They're gorgeous and graceful and every time you fantasize about who you want your ideal life mate to be, that person always has red hair. And then one day, you meet this brunette who just knocks you on your ass. This brunette is kind and thoughtful and intelligent and likes the same leisure activities you do and the two of you communicate well and have similar life goals and spiritual beliefs and you just can't imagine your life without this person. Suddenly, the fantasy of the redhead seems so much less important than the idea of spending your life with this specific brunette, yes? I think most people can wrap their brains around that - the idea that you fall in love with the person, not necessarily the package they come in. So let's extrapolate that same idea out further and say it's not just the person's hair color that isn't what you expected yourself to love, but their eye color is different than you imagined. Or their body shape. Or their skin color. Or their genitalia. Are you not still falling in love with the person instead of the package they come in? At what point is it okay to draw the line and say that's not acceptable? At what point is it okay to say, "No, you and this other consenting adult are not allowed to enter into a relationship because of x?"
(I point out "consenting adults" because I think it is important for me to clarify that I think pedophilia is the point at which lines must be drawn. Kids who are too young to understand what is going on should not be subjected to the sexual desires of others. For that matter, adults who are old enough to understand what's going on should not be subjected to the sexual desires of others with whom they don't agree, though one would hope the adults have the tools to be able to say "no" to such situations whereas children may not know how to stand up for themselves.)
I bring this up because a bill passed the Illinois State Senate which would make gay marriage legal. It is now being debated in the Illinois State House. I'm not the praying sort, but if I was, I would be praying with all of my might that this bill passes and Illinois legalizes gay marriage. It's a no-brainer to me - if two people choose to spend their lives together, they should legally be allowed to do so, and they should be afforded the same legal rights that go along with marriage as every single other married couple. I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't.
Granted, there are those who say it is "against God." Maybe your God. But if I don't believe in your God, why do I have to be subjected to his laws? The United States grants separation of church and state in many areas, why not this one? There are so many religions and spiritual orientations in this country, and we all have the right to practice whichever one we want; why does one religion get to dictate who everyone is or isn't allowed to marry?
There are those who say it undermines the institution of marriage. Well, I hate to point this out, but marriage is a man-made construct, and an "institution" that has gone through quite a few changes since it's original inception. It came about likely around the time people figured out that men were involved in the baby-making process and and some men didn't want to be raising another guy's kid, so marriage was invented to pair up a man and a woman for procreation purposes so the guy could make sure he was only providing for his own offspring. Romantic, no? These days, marriages exist that have nothing to do with procreation - some couples just choose not to have kids. Marriages exist between more than two people in some religions so there are more people around to take care of the kids. And somewhat recently, we introduced this concept of "love" into marriage - the idea that you should like the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with instead of just entering into a contract with them to share lands and rear offspring. The notion of a romantic marriage seeped into the legal system, allowing spouses the right to visit one another in the hospital when others are not, allowing spouses to inherit from one another when one passes away, allowing tax breaks, and the like. Because if you love someone, you should be able to share in those things and provide for one another, right?
So if we take the idea that you may fall in love with someone you didn't expect to fall in love with, and the idea that you should be able to share your life with the person you love and provide for them and whatnot, the logical conclusion as I see it, is that this right should be extended to everyone, regardless of the sex or gender pairings. Right? Because where and how can you draw that line?
I know, I know, the homophobes are saying you draw the line at two people of the same sex getting married because that idea makes them uncomfortable. You know what? Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to get married will not prevent them from being together. It will not prevent them from falling in love and dedicating their lives to one another. It will not stop them from making love to one another. It will not stop them from building families or building homes or raising brilliant, beautiful children together. All it does is prevent them from being able to be there for each other when they die. It prevents them from being able to provide for one another's future. And why would you want to do that to someone who has done nothing but love another human being? In what world does that make sense?
I wanted this post to be eloquent and thought provoking and...better than I think it is. I wanted it to be one of those things that people read and can't argue with the logic of, but I don't know that it is that. I guess I mostly wanted to say that I want to live in a world where every shiny box is treated with the same love, reverence, and respect as every other shiny box, because there are so many, they are so beautiful, and because ooo! Shiny!
Watched it? Yes? Good?
Okay. So that's the starting point for this discussion, and I just want to say really quickly that the beauty of two shiny boxes exploding into millions of shiny boxes is what gets me every time. So much beauty and so much love. It reduces me to the point of not being able to use words. I love that image of millions of shiny boxes, each one as beautiful as the last, in all of the colors of the rainbow. I like thinking about human sexuality that way.
I realize that not everybody looks at human sexuality that way, though, and it makes me sad. Because for me, it kind of goes like this.
Let's say your entire life, you've been attracted to redheads. Who isn't attracted to redheads, right? They're gorgeous and graceful and every time you fantasize about who you want your ideal life mate to be, that person always has red hair. And then one day, you meet this brunette who just knocks you on your ass. This brunette is kind and thoughtful and intelligent and likes the same leisure activities you do and the two of you communicate well and have similar life goals and spiritual beliefs and you just can't imagine your life without this person. Suddenly, the fantasy of the redhead seems so much less important than the idea of spending your life with this specific brunette, yes? I think most people can wrap their brains around that - the idea that you fall in love with the person, not necessarily the package they come in. So let's extrapolate that same idea out further and say it's not just the person's hair color that isn't what you expected yourself to love, but their eye color is different than you imagined. Or their body shape. Or their skin color. Or their genitalia. Are you not still falling in love with the person instead of the package they come in? At what point is it okay to draw the line and say that's not acceptable? At what point is it okay to say, "No, you and this other consenting adult are not allowed to enter into a relationship because of x?"
(I point out "consenting adults" because I think it is important for me to clarify that I think pedophilia is the point at which lines must be drawn. Kids who are too young to understand what is going on should not be subjected to the sexual desires of others. For that matter, adults who are old enough to understand what's going on should not be subjected to the sexual desires of others with whom they don't agree, though one would hope the adults have the tools to be able to say "no" to such situations whereas children may not know how to stand up for themselves.)
I bring this up because a bill passed the Illinois State Senate which would make gay marriage legal. It is now being debated in the Illinois State House. I'm not the praying sort, but if I was, I would be praying with all of my might that this bill passes and Illinois legalizes gay marriage. It's a no-brainer to me - if two people choose to spend their lives together, they should legally be allowed to do so, and they should be afforded the same legal rights that go along with marriage as every single other married couple. I can't think of a good reason why they shouldn't.
Granted, there are those who say it is "against God." Maybe your God. But if I don't believe in your God, why do I have to be subjected to his laws? The United States grants separation of church and state in many areas, why not this one? There are so many religions and spiritual orientations in this country, and we all have the right to practice whichever one we want; why does one religion get to dictate who everyone is or isn't allowed to marry?
There are those who say it undermines the institution of marriage. Well, I hate to point this out, but marriage is a man-made construct, and an "institution" that has gone through quite a few changes since it's original inception. It came about likely around the time people figured out that men were involved in the baby-making process and and some men didn't want to be raising another guy's kid, so marriage was invented to pair up a man and a woman for procreation purposes so the guy could make sure he was only providing for his own offspring. Romantic, no? These days, marriages exist that have nothing to do with procreation - some couples just choose not to have kids. Marriages exist between more than two people in some religions so there are more people around to take care of the kids. And somewhat recently, we introduced this concept of "love" into marriage - the idea that you should like the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with instead of just entering into a contract with them to share lands and rear offspring. The notion of a romantic marriage seeped into the legal system, allowing spouses the right to visit one another in the hospital when others are not, allowing spouses to inherit from one another when one passes away, allowing tax breaks, and the like. Because if you love someone, you should be able to share in those things and provide for one another, right?
So if we take the idea that you may fall in love with someone you didn't expect to fall in love with, and the idea that you should be able to share your life with the person you love and provide for them and whatnot, the logical conclusion as I see it, is that this right should be extended to everyone, regardless of the sex or gender pairings. Right? Because where and how can you draw that line?
I know, I know, the homophobes are saying you draw the line at two people of the same sex getting married because that idea makes them uncomfortable. You know what? Denying gay and lesbian couples the right to get married will not prevent them from being together. It will not prevent them from falling in love and dedicating their lives to one another. It will not stop them from making love to one another. It will not stop them from building families or building homes or raising brilliant, beautiful children together. All it does is prevent them from being able to be there for each other when they die. It prevents them from being able to provide for one another's future. And why would you want to do that to someone who has done nothing but love another human being? In what world does that make sense?
I wanted this post to be eloquent and thought provoking and...better than I think it is. I wanted it to be one of those things that people read and can't argue with the logic of, but I don't know that it is that. I guess I mostly wanted to say that I want to live in a world where every shiny box is treated with the same love, reverence, and respect as every other shiny box, because there are so many, they are so beautiful, and because ooo! Shiny!
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
February 27 - Women
I have all of these thoughts floating around in my head about what it means to be a woman and what it is like to be a woman in today's American society and the crap we have to deal with and the things that make us great and I want to be able to write a brilliant, well-researched, well-organized post about all of these things that helps all of my girl friends love and celebrate exactly who they are.
I am not that organized. And I have not done all of the research.
So instead, I'm going to throw a couple ideas out there with no background, no supporting evidence, and maybe we can talk about them:
Discuss.
I am not that organized. And I have not done all of the research.
So instead, I'm going to throw a couple ideas out there with no background, no supporting evidence, and maybe we can talk about them:
- The idea that a perfect woman in American society should be petite is a way to devalue and dehumanize women, to steal their power.
- The idea that a strong, powerful woman has to "normalize" herself so as to not appear threatening is a way to devalue and dehumanize the woman, to steal her power.
- Those women who feel it necessary to "normalize" themselves, or tout their flaws (real or imaginary), in order to be likable are doing a disservice to women everywhere.
Discuss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)