So, I'm trying to get back in the swing of writing after kind of losing my mojo for a long time. For that, I'm going to attempt what I'm calling #OpinionatedOctober: write one short paragraph review of something that I watched/read/listened/did that day each day in October. The key word is short, 500 words or less usually. I'm not going to get bogged down in a lot of detail, just get to the heart of whatever it is.
October 1
Zenni Optical
Eyeglass manufacturer/website
http://bit.ly/2xQPnar
*Note: This is a referral link, so I will get a credit if you purchase from it.
It's been a quite a few months now since I had to get glasses, and I really balked at the price of the first pair I ever bought even after insurance covered parts of it. Then a friend mentioned Zenni Optical and I thought, why not? Their website is pretty easy to browse, though it can be a bit of a learning curve for how much your glasses will really cost, as it's based on a large number of options you choose as you go. The hardest part is measuring the distance between your eyes, which seems to have worked fine for me using their directions. They've got a large variety of frames, but I definitely have to say when you put the expensive pair next to the Zennis, you can tell the difference in the price points. Zennis feel like cheaper glasses, for sure. But the lenses are the same strength, and I only wear them at home while I'm using the computer so I don't need them to be incredibly sturdy. If you're pretty active or hard on your glasses, you might want to consider that you get what you pay for. Just in the case of computer glasses, maybe you don't need to pay for so much. Also, the Zennis I have on now are way cuter than my expensive "professional" glasses.
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label opinion. Show all posts
Monday, October 01, 2018
Wednesday, January 04, 2017
The Value of "Real Mail"
So, probably about a year ago I signed up for the Letter Writer's Alliance. It's a pretty small fee, and you get a cute little membership kit and access to part of their shop that is members only. But the biggest thing I signed up for is they do pen pals.
I've done pen pal services before and they always kind of faltered, especially because a lot of them seem designed for like a one time exchange. I wanted to actually write back and forth and establish a real connection. So I signed up, and what they do is they send you one address, and they send your address to one person. So you get two pen pals right off the bat.
In addition, at some point last year I started an effort to send two postcards and one letter each week to friends and family that have said they want to get more snail mail. In part because I like snail mail, and in part because I have literally an entire wooden chest full of postcards, stationary, and stickers and some of them have been in there since I was in middle school which was a very long time ago. And I told myself I couldn't get new stationary and stickers until I used up what I had (I've only kind of stuck to that, but done okay).
It's been great. I don't get replies as often as I send things out, for sure, but I love putting together everything to send stuff out and it's a nice way to stop and do something non-screen related for a while. I put on some music (I can't do podcasts and write words) and write for a little while. I made a checklist to keep track of where I was in my rotation, so that everybody gets stuff pretty regularly. It's just on the graph paper in the back of my Passion Planner.
I buy cool stamps, but I also get stamps in big packs so I don't have to worry about it that often. There's no bulk discount for stamps, but if you get forever ones you save some money if you have some when they go up. I've also gotten a few wax seal stamps and wax, but that's another post about how that's going.
My pen pals from LWA have been great. I've really enjoyed getting to know them, and seeing what all we have in common. They're both very awesome women. A lot of LWA posts make it look like you have to do all this fancy mail art to fit in and that's definitely not the case, my pen pals do all that sometimes and not others. I will put together what I can depending on how busy I am, I figure I'd rather write a letter and send it than put it off until I can make it all impressive. The point is to write in the first place.
I've been getting more mail, which makes me happy and making connections, which also makes me happy. And I know that I'm making at least a small part of my friend's days nice when they open their mailboxes too. Just remember if you start that it's not about getting replies (you'll get some, I'm sure, especially if you do pen pals) but it's about the joy of sending the mail. If you start from that, it'll be great.
Send more letters in 2017!
I've done pen pal services before and they always kind of faltered, especially because a lot of them seem designed for like a one time exchange. I wanted to actually write back and forth and establish a real connection. So I signed up, and what they do is they send you one address, and they send your address to one person. So you get two pen pals right off the bat.
In addition, at some point last year I started an effort to send two postcards and one letter each week to friends and family that have said they want to get more snail mail. In part because I like snail mail, and in part because I have literally an entire wooden chest full of postcards, stationary, and stickers and some of them have been in there since I was in middle school which was a very long time ago. And I told myself I couldn't get new stationary and stickers until I used up what I had (I've only kind of stuck to that, but done okay).
It's been great. I don't get replies as often as I send things out, for sure, but I love putting together everything to send stuff out and it's a nice way to stop and do something non-screen related for a while. I put on some music (I can't do podcasts and write words) and write for a little while. I made a checklist to keep track of where I was in my rotation, so that everybody gets stuff pretty regularly. It's just on the graph paper in the back of my Passion Planner.
I buy cool stamps, but I also get stamps in big packs so I don't have to worry about it that often. There's no bulk discount for stamps, but if you get forever ones you save some money if you have some when they go up. I've also gotten a few wax seal stamps and wax, but that's another post about how that's going.
My pen pals from LWA have been great. I've really enjoyed getting to know them, and seeing what all we have in common. They're both very awesome women. A lot of LWA posts make it look like you have to do all this fancy mail art to fit in and that's definitely not the case, my pen pals do all that sometimes and not others. I will put together what I can depending on how busy I am, I figure I'd rather write a letter and send it than put it off until I can make it all impressive. The point is to write in the first place.
I've been getting more mail, which makes me happy and making connections, which also makes me happy. And I know that I'm making at least a small part of my friend's days nice when they open their mailboxes too. Just remember if you start that it's not about getting replies (you'll get some, I'm sure, especially if you do pen pals) but it's about the joy of sending the mail. If you start from that, it'll be great.
Send more letters in 2017!
Tuesday, August 06, 2013
A jerk is a jerk
Lately I've noticed a tendency that's hard to quantify exactly. Basically it's the "blaming a group/opinion for the bad actions of a few" but it's almost a little more pervasive than that.
Recently, there was a bit of an online argument (I know, I know) that I was involved in that really seemed to center around one person (the other guy) basically assuming anybody with a particular opinion only knew how to express said opinion in a rude and insensitive way.
This is a bit like when people get mad at Christians, atheists, vegetarians, or vegans. Or even feminists or people who advocate for equal rights. They say things like "vegans are always yelling at you for eating what you want to" or "feminists just screech at men for being men all the time."
But the thing I see fewer and fewer people understanding is that it's not the opinion, group, or stance that's the problem. It's that the person they're talking to is a jerk.
If a vegetarian is out to eat with a meat eater, and the vegetarian screams "murderer" at the top of their lungs when the omnivore orders, then they're a jerk. If the person who eats meat waves their burger in a vegan's face and tries to trick them into eating cheese, then they are a bad person. It's not that omnivores are bad people, it's that one particular person.
If an atheist says anybody who has religion is "irrational and stupid" and is constantly teasing others about their "sky god" then they are being pompous and stupid. If a Christian walks around telling people they're going to hell and is constantly hassling them to go to church, they're being narrow minded and stupid.
I would love it if we all stopped acting like it was and took the time to call people out on their personal actions and behaviors and not lashed out at other people who happen to think the same way as that guy you know who is always yelling at people.
It used to be that people could see the difference, that they took the time to make sure when they complained they were being clear about who, what, and why. It's not even time consuming, it's a matter of word choice. But lately, more and more I'm running into people not just being vague about their complaints but actually meaning it as a condemnation of the entire group. That's what I was dealing with in this argument, where I tried to point out the motivations of the particular group of people in question I was constantly met with "no, it's just rude, they're just jerks, they're insensitive. To feel that way is insensitive."
There are some opinions that do make you a jerk. Being racist or homophobic is just wrong and it is insensitive. Not liking muenster cheese is not one of those opinions.
Recently, there was a bit of an online argument (I know, I know) that I was involved in that really seemed to center around one person (the other guy) basically assuming anybody with a particular opinion only knew how to express said opinion in a rude and insensitive way.
This is a bit like when people get mad at Christians, atheists, vegetarians, or vegans. Or even feminists or people who advocate for equal rights. They say things like "vegans are always yelling at you for eating what you want to" or "feminists just screech at men for being men all the time."
But the thing I see fewer and fewer people understanding is that it's not the opinion, group, or stance that's the problem. It's that the person they're talking to is a jerk.
If a vegetarian is out to eat with a meat eater, and the vegetarian screams "murderer" at the top of their lungs when the omnivore orders, then they're a jerk. If the person who eats meat waves their burger in a vegan's face and tries to trick them into eating cheese, then they are a bad person. It's not that omnivores are bad people, it's that one particular person.
If an atheist says anybody who has religion is "irrational and stupid" and is constantly teasing others about their "sky god" then they are being pompous and stupid. If a Christian walks around telling people they're going to hell and is constantly hassling them to go to church, they're being narrow minded and stupid.
I would love it if we all stopped acting like it was and took the time to call people out on their personal actions and behaviors and not lashed out at other people who happen to think the same way as that guy you know who is always yelling at people.
It used to be that people could see the difference, that they took the time to make sure when they complained they were being clear about who, what, and why. It's not even time consuming, it's a matter of word choice. But lately, more and more I'm running into people not just being vague about their complaints but actually meaning it as a condemnation of the entire group. That's what I was dealing with in this argument, where I tried to point out the motivations of the particular group of people in question I was constantly met with "no, it's just rude, they're just jerks, they're insensitive. To feel that way is insensitive."
There are some opinions that do make you a jerk. Being racist or homophobic is just wrong and it is insensitive. Not liking muenster cheese is not one of those opinions.
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
Short and Sweet: Freedom of Speech
Sometimes on Tuesdays I'm going to start doing a "short and sweet" column where I try to actually keep it under a paragraph. Here's the first one!
I know a lot of people have been saying this lately, and in many places, but I felt like making it clear on my blog after I got "yelled at" by a couple commenters on another site. Newsflash: in America, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences or freedom from judgement. You are technically allowed to say whatever idiotic, racist, homophobic, stupid thing that you want to say. But I have every right to point out that you're being idiotic, racist, homophobic, and stupid. I also have every right to change the way I react to you as a person (within boundaries) because of it. I can choose not to support a politician because I disagree with their opinions, so I can do the same for businesses and other people too. Most of the recent "controversies" that people have declared "free speech" issues are not in fact anything to do with free speech. So stop telling me I can't be mad at somebody because "free speech."
I know a lot of people have been saying this lately, and in many places, but I felt like making it clear on my blog after I got "yelled at" by a couple commenters on another site. Newsflash: in America, freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences or freedom from judgement. You are technically allowed to say whatever idiotic, racist, homophobic, stupid thing that you want to say. But I have every right to point out that you're being idiotic, racist, homophobic, and stupid. I also have every right to change the way I react to you as a person (within boundaries) because of it. I can choose not to support a politician because I disagree with their opinions, so I can do the same for businesses and other people too. Most of the recent "controversies" that people have declared "free speech" issues are not in fact anything to do with free speech. So stop telling me I can't be mad at somebody because "free speech."
Tuesday, July 09, 2013
Everybody needs a vacation
In the last week or so, I've seen about a half dozen friends and bloggers that I follow announce that they're stepping back from social media and the internet.
This is actually not long after I also announced that I was cutting back on a lot of my personal social media use. I unfriended and unfollowed a lot of people (especially celebrities and blogs that I don't personally know).
Why? Well, for one thing, the internet is exhausting. For somebody like me, it's especially so. If I follow a blog, I at least want to read the headlines for every post. If I follow somebody on Twitter, I want to see everything they say, not just the last ten posts whenever I open my timeline.
When I'm gone for a few days, I actually do my best to go through my entire tumblr dash. Sometimes it takes days just to do that, more time than I was away.
On top of that the culture and the attitude right now is also not very conducive to enlightening debates or enjoyable discourse. A lot of us came online in the first place to find people like us, people to talk to, hobbies to enjoy, things like that. Instead, the culture is shifting to where the bulk of the talk is either vile anon posting and insults or people being angrily offended about one thing or another. And I'll be clear, most of the time it's stuff that they have every right to be angry and offended about.
But it's still tiring. It's no longer energizing for a lot of people. A lot of the same people who came to the internet to find acceptance and love and a place where their voice would have value are getting shouted down and silenced and going away again. Today, it was Jen from Epbot, one of my favorite bloggers who I've gotten to meet in person at book signings twice. The one thing I can say about her without hesitation is that she is incredibly kind. Before the second book signing I went to, I wrote her an email in response to a post she made that I had found particularly inspiring and helpful. I don't normally do that kind of thing, but I spilled out the story of my life at the moment, not expecting anything in return, just wanting to say thanks.
And her reply was just as kind and heartfelt as the original post, and I was able to tell her thanks for that in person. Her husband is just as nice, and if anybody deserves to always see the best of the internet it's the two of them.
Another friend of mine has been talking today about trying to engage with people in the debate about convention harassment policies, spurred on by John Scalzi's new convention policy about harassment. I've been quite proud of him (my friend, but Scalzi deserves some praise too) for standing up against what has become a huge problem. But this debate has been bringing trolls and jerks out of the woodwork, and it's become again a very disheartening and exhausting situation to try to follow or be involved in.
I don't know what the answer is, or what should be done. I'm just sad that we've somehow managed to cultivate a culture that silences these nice and intelligent people because we're mirroring middle school too clearly or something. I still enjoy being online, I still like my social media sites and I still am reading quite a lot. But I wish that the spaces that people had carved out for themselves had stayed what they needed, instead of becoming the same old junk on a different day. I wish that people would follow the simplest rule of the world, just be nice and don't be a jerk.
This is actually not long after I also announced that I was cutting back on a lot of my personal social media use. I unfriended and unfollowed a lot of people (especially celebrities and blogs that I don't personally know).
Why? Well, for one thing, the internet is exhausting. For somebody like me, it's especially so. If I follow a blog, I at least want to read the headlines for every post. If I follow somebody on Twitter, I want to see everything they say, not just the last ten posts whenever I open my timeline.
When I'm gone for a few days, I actually do my best to go through my entire tumblr dash. Sometimes it takes days just to do that, more time than I was away.
On top of that the culture and the attitude right now is also not very conducive to enlightening debates or enjoyable discourse. A lot of us came online in the first place to find people like us, people to talk to, hobbies to enjoy, things like that. Instead, the culture is shifting to where the bulk of the talk is either vile anon posting and insults or people being angrily offended about one thing or another. And I'll be clear, most of the time it's stuff that they have every right to be angry and offended about.
But it's still tiring. It's no longer energizing for a lot of people. A lot of the same people who came to the internet to find acceptance and love and a place where their voice would have value are getting shouted down and silenced and going away again. Today, it was Jen from Epbot, one of my favorite bloggers who I've gotten to meet in person at book signings twice. The one thing I can say about her without hesitation is that she is incredibly kind. Before the second book signing I went to, I wrote her an email in response to a post she made that I had found particularly inspiring and helpful. I don't normally do that kind of thing, but I spilled out the story of my life at the moment, not expecting anything in return, just wanting to say thanks.
And her reply was just as kind and heartfelt as the original post, and I was able to tell her thanks for that in person. Her husband is just as nice, and if anybody deserves to always see the best of the internet it's the two of them.
Another friend of mine has been talking today about trying to engage with people in the debate about convention harassment policies, spurred on by John Scalzi's new convention policy about harassment. I've been quite proud of him (my friend, but Scalzi deserves some praise too) for standing up against what has become a huge problem. But this debate has been bringing trolls and jerks out of the woodwork, and it's become again a very disheartening and exhausting situation to try to follow or be involved in.
I don't know what the answer is, or what should be done. I'm just sad that we've somehow managed to cultivate a culture that silences these nice and intelligent people because we're mirroring middle school too clearly or something. I still enjoy being online, I still like my social media sites and I still am reading quite a lot. But I wish that the spaces that people had carved out for themselves had stayed what they needed, instead of becoming the same old junk on a different day. I wish that people would follow the simplest rule of the world, just be nice and don't be a jerk.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
E-Books are real books, and they're okay
Today, I was reading a book and in the text, they referenced something they had said on a previous page. It had taken me a while to get back into reading this book, so I clicked on the page number and it took me back to the page in question so I could reread that part.
Then they referenced an additional audio file to supplement part of the book available on their website, and I clicked on that. I called up the audio file and played it right then and there, before returning to my book.
My mom has a crafting book with embedded videos that display the steps that people might have trouble with. When I have trouble reading a book because my eyes are tired, I can just increase the font size, change the contrast, or adjust the brightness.
On top of all of that, most of the books I have bought lately were ones that were on one day only sales, or temporary specials. The ability of a publisher or author to incrementally adjust the price of their books, and see the response that price adjustment brings them in sales and profits, is changing the entire face of publishing and probably for the better for consumers in the long run (if it helps authors, I don't know yet). The Nook Free Friday books are often books by authors who are releasing something new, so they give away an older book or the first in the series and it works like a free sample at the grocery store.
I've written about this before, but it seems like it bears repeating since it's been almost a year that I've had my Nook. Now I can get books from the library without leaving my house, including audiobooks.
It intrigues me that since the printing press, we haven't really revolutionized how we process the written word. We've changed the sales process, we've definitely changed what's popular and what gets printed. But we haven't really had something quite as revolutionary. And e-books are actually fundamentally changing how we process stories AND how we sell them.
Are there drawbacks? Absolutely. Mostly because publishers are trying to cling to old models for profits and hurting authors in the process instead of embracing the change fully. But I'm really tired of book snobs.
People complain if you read the book after the movie, if you have an e-reader instead of buying hardcovers, if you have the wrong edition, if your paperback spine has cracks in it, and on and on. If you read too slowly, if you read too quickly, if you like to read the end first, if you like to read in order without spoiling yourself. Everybody wants to say "this is the way to read" "this is the way to enjoy books." Like there's only one way and only one thing.
That's stupid. Enjoy stories. That's all that's needed. Enjoy stories at your pace, in your way, and embrace yourself and your life with storytelling. And if anybody gives you grief about it know this: they aren't as good a reader as you if they insult others for being different.
Then they referenced an additional audio file to supplement part of the book available on their website, and I clicked on that. I called up the audio file and played it right then and there, before returning to my book.
My mom has a crafting book with embedded videos that display the steps that people might have trouble with. When I have trouble reading a book because my eyes are tired, I can just increase the font size, change the contrast, or adjust the brightness.
On top of all of that, most of the books I have bought lately were ones that were on one day only sales, or temporary specials. The ability of a publisher or author to incrementally adjust the price of their books, and see the response that price adjustment brings them in sales and profits, is changing the entire face of publishing and probably for the better for consumers in the long run (if it helps authors, I don't know yet). The Nook Free Friday books are often books by authors who are releasing something new, so they give away an older book or the first in the series and it works like a free sample at the grocery store.
I've written about this before, but it seems like it bears repeating since it's been almost a year that I've had my Nook. Now I can get books from the library without leaving my house, including audiobooks.
It intrigues me that since the printing press, we haven't really revolutionized how we process the written word. We've changed the sales process, we've definitely changed what's popular and what gets printed. But we haven't really had something quite as revolutionary. And e-books are actually fundamentally changing how we process stories AND how we sell them.
Are there drawbacks? Absolutely. Mostly because publishers are trying to cling to old models for profits and hurting authors in the process instead of embracing the change fully. But I'm really tired of book snobs.
People complain if you read the book after the movie, if you have an e-reader instead of buying hardcovers, if you have the wrong edition, if your paperback spine has cracks in it, and on and on. If you read too slowly, if you read too quickly, if you like to read the end first, if you like to read in order without spoiling yourself. Everybody wants to say "this is the way to read" "this is the way to enjoy books." Like there's only one way and only one thing.
That's stupid. Enjoy stories. That's all that's needed. Enjoy stories at your pace, in your way, and embrace yourself and your life with storytelling. And if anybody gives you grief about it know this: they aren't as good a reader as you if they insult others for being different.
Thursday, June 06, 2013
Food busybodies
A few weeks ago I mentioned how much it annoys me when people view spicy foods as more macho but really that whole rant is also part of another problem that's really taken over.
Basically, the thing that bothers me the most is how invested people are in what other people are eating. I'm constantly getting people telling me their opinions on what I do and don't eat, and most of these people know nothing about me and why I may or may not choose to eat something. The only people who's opinions I value when it comes to food are my doctors (and even then only some of them) and a few select friends who understand the complex interplay between my health issues, my personal tastes, and everything else that's going on.
It's when you post a picture of your dinner to social media and somebody just has to pipe up and say something about your food. It's when you order at a restaurant and you ask for something to be left off and somebody gives you a speech about how it's good for you. Or you mention a particular place you went to eat, and the person just HAS to talk about the fat content of the typical meal at that place.
I read stories on websites like "Not Always Working" where even wait staff will have an opinion about what people are getting and sometimes bring them the wrong thing because they "should" want something else.
You also get those people who can't believe you don't like something they love. I was once at a catered lunch (a very informal thing) where they had some eggplant something or other. I didn't get any, and the caterer asked why, I just said I don't really like eggplant and I got the same line I've heard so many times, "that's because you haven't tried THIS eggplant!"
No, it's because I don't like eggplant. This is such a horrible thing to say to somebody, because then I felt required to try it, I didn't like it, and he came by later to ask how I liked it. What do I say, "actually I was right, it was terrible." That's impolite, and unlike those people I don't want to be rude.
Or when you go to a family dinner, and everybody is saying "did you get some of the corn pudding, you have to get some of Aunt Busybody's homemade corn pudding!" What's even worse is when you're not feeling well and you don't want to eat at all, then everybody is trying to force you to eat. "Oh, but you NEED to eat!" No, I need to let my stomach settle.
A few months ago, I made a random tumblr post mentioning different companies that support marriage equality and gay rights. Most of them were pre-packaged food companies, and I'd say a good 10% of the responses were "good for them but they still make poison" or "if their food wasn't such trash that would be great." Really? REALLY? First of all, back off Oreo's man, or we'll have to fight. Second, keep that crap to yourself. Every time there's a news story about a restaurant, somebody will pipe up with "I don't eat that junk" like it makes them superior or special. News flash: it doesn't make you special, it makes you a judgmental jerk who can't keep their mouth shut.
There's a way to express that you like a food without being a jerk about it. If somebody says, "I haven't tried a lot of Mexican food," you can reply with, "I really love the breakfast burritos at Anita's, have you ever had them?" But if somebody says, "I always get sick when I eat avocado" then you don't go "but you HAVE to try my guacamole!" If somebody mentions they're addicted to diet soda, if you know them well enough you could mention that you read an article the other day about some new studies about artificial sweeteners. But if it's a random co-worker that says they can't wait to chow down on some fast food after work, don't start talking about processing plants.
Stop trying to make people eat, stop trying to act like everybody should eat the exact same way, and stop acting like whatever food choices you've made are the only "right" ones.
Basically, the thing that bothers me the most is how invested people are in what other people are eating. I'm constantly getting people telling me their opinions on what I do and don't eat, and most of these people know nothing about me and why I may or may not choose to eat something. The only people who's opinions I value when it comes to food are my doctors (and even then only some of them) and a few select friends who understand the complex interplay between my health issues, my personal tastes, and everything else that's going on.
It's when you post a picture of your dinner to social media and somebody just has to pipe up and say something about your food. It's when you order at a restaurant and you ask for something to be left off and somebody gives you a speech about how it's good for you. Or you mention a particular place you went to eat, and the person just HAS to talk about the fat content of the typical meal at that place.
I read stories on websites like "Not Always Working" where even wait staff will have an opinion about what people are getting and sometimes bring them the wrong thing because they "should" want something else.
You also get those people who can't believe you don't like something they love. I was once at a catered lunch (a very informal thing) where they had some eggplant something or other. I didn't get any, and the caterer asked why, I just said I don't really like eggplant and I got the same line I've heard so many times, "that's because you haven't tried THIS eggplant!"
No, it's because I don't like eggplant. This is such a horrible thing to say to somebody, because then I felt required to try it, I didn't like it, and he came by later to ask how I liked it. What do I say, "actually I was right, it was terrible." That's impolite, and unlike those people I don't want to be rude.
Or when you go to a family dinner, and everybody is saying "did you get some of the corn pudding, you have to get some of Aunt Busybody's homemade corn pudding!" What's even worse is when you're not feeling well and you don't want to eat at all, then everybody is trying to force you to eat. "Oh, but you NEED to eat!" No, I need to let my stomach settle.
A few months ago, I made a random tumblr post mentioning different companies that support marriage equality and gay rights. Most of them were pre-packaged food companies, and I'd say a good 10% of the responses were "good for them but they still make poison" or "if their food wasn't such trash that would be great." Really? REALLY? First of all, back off Oreo's man, or we'll have to fight. Second, keep that crap to yourself. Every time there's a news story about a restaurant, somebody will pipe up with "I don't eat that junk" like it makes them superior or special. News flash: it doesn't make you special, it makes you a judgmental jerk who can't keep their mouth shut.
There's a way to express that you like a food without being a jerk about it. If somebody says, "I haven't tried a lot of Mexican food," you can reply with, "I really love the breakfast burritos at Anita's, have you ever had them?" But if somebody says, "I always get sick when I eat avocado" then you don't go "but you HAVE to try my guacamole!" If somebody mentions they're addicted to diet soda, if you know them well enough you could mention that you read an article the other day about some new studies about artificial sweeteners. But if it's a random co-worker that says they can't wait to chow down on some fast food after work, don't start talking about processing plants.
Stop trying to make people eat, stop trying to act like everybody should eat the exact same way, and stop acting like whatever food choices you've made are the only "right" ones.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
Spice ratings aren't cool points
One of my friends posted a complaint the other day that she was tired of people acting like she was weak or there was something wrong because she doesn't like spicy food.
I really wanted to reply with the internet standard of "are you me?" Because I have had to put up with this attitude so much in my life it's ridiculous.
What's worse is that I usually have to severely exaggerate my problems with spicy food in order for people to take me seriously about it. Because they always think of spice in terms of what THEY tolerate and they don't really care about anybody else.
And what is up with that? Why are people so weird about the heat of their food? And in my experience, it's usually not even the people who are from cultures that frequently use spices. I mean, I've had a few cultural misunderstanding moments where, for example, Mexican food that's listed as mild is still too much for me. But when I ate with an Indian family once, they very carefully showed me which foods I would probably enjoy, and they were right, everything was delicious. That's been pretty emblematic of my experiences eating with people from other cultures, once they know I have problems with too much heat, they're very nice about telling me what's good and what I'll like.
It's the Americans that get all macho and weird about it, and usually it's men for some reason. Listen, being able to eat something spicy doesn't really mean anything. It doesn't say anything about your stamina or manliness or even pain tolerance. It just says whether or not your taste buds and digestive system are acclimated and adapted to handle it.
Mine aren't. I have actual health problems that mean that certain spices and overly "hot" foods make me sick. And because I'm so sensitive to it, it means that I have no tolerance for it because I have no experience with it. I read an article the other day about how we're not opposed to certain foods as much as we just don't like new foods. There were two important things to gain from it - one, because these foods make me sick I'm not going to ever eat them the ten to fifteen times it takes to learn to like them and acclimate myself to them. And two, they outright say that if a food makes you sick then you're going to hate it and there's nothing you can do about it.
But here's the overall point to this - it doesn't actually matter if it makes me sick or not because liking or being able to eat spicy food still doesn't say anything about how manly you are, or how cool you are, or how worldly, or anything else. It says absolutely nothing about you except that you like spicy food. That's it, that's the sum total of it. It doesn't mean you're more experienced or you've traveled more or even that you're open to new things. It just means that there's a food that you like.
And the inverse is not liking spicy food also doesn't say anything about you automatically. Sure, there are some people who don't like it because they've never done anything and refuse to try anything new. Not that it matters, but the point is that just the preference for or against spice isn't a mark of that attitude.
So if you're the type of person who goes on about it, points it out, or generally makes any kind of deal about it, then do us all a favor and think about shutting up next time. There's nothing wrong with a, "oh, I love hot wings, the spicier the better." It's when somebody replies, "Oh, I'm not really a fan" and you freak out about it that's a problem. That's generally true of all food preferences, but I'll write about that another time.
Long story short, if somebody doesn't like a food that you love, get over it.
Unless it's cheese. People who don't like cheese still make me wary.
I really wanted to reply with the internet standard of "are you me?" Because I have had to put up with this attitude so much in my life it's ridiculous.
What's worse is that I usually have to severely exaggerate my problems with spicy food in order for people to take me seriously about it. Because they always think of spice in terms of what THEY tolerate and they don't really care about anybody else.
And what is up with that? Why are people so weird about the heat of their food? And in my experience, it's usually not even the people who are from cultures that frequently use spices. I mean, I've had a few cultural misunderstanding moments where, for example, Mexican food that's listed as mild is still too much for me. But when I ate with an Indian family once, they very carefully showed me which foods I would probably enjoy, and they were right, everything was delicious. That's been pretty emblematic of my experiences eating with people from other cultures, once they know I have problems with too much heat, they're very nice about telling me what's good and what I'll like.
It's the Americans that get all macho and weird about it, and usually it's men for some reason. Listen, being able to eat something spicy doesn't really mean anything. It doesn't say anything about your stamina or manliness or even pain tolerance. It just says whether or not your taste buds and digestive system are acclimated and adapted to handle it.
Mine aren't. I have actual health problems that mean that certain spices and overly "hot" foods make me sick. And because I'm so sensitive to it, it means that I have no tolerance for it because I have no experience with it. I read an article the other day about how we're not opposed to certain foods as much as we just don't like new foods. There were two important things to gain from it - one, because these foods make me sick I'm not going to ever eat them the ten to fifteen times it takes to learn to like them and acclimate myself to them. And two, they outright say that if a food makes you sick then you're going to hate it and there's nothing you can do about it.
But here's the overall point to this - it doesn't actually matter if it makes me sick or not because liking or being able to eat spicy food still doesn't say anything about how manly you are, or how cool you are, or how worldly, or anything else. It says absolutely nothing about you except that you like spicy food. That's it, that's the sum total of it. It doesn't mean you're more experienced or you've traveled more or even that you're open to new things. It just means that there's a food that you like.
And the inverse is not liking spicy food also doesn't say anything about you automatically. Sure, there are some people who don't like it because they've never done anything and refuse to try anything new. Not that it matters, but the point is that just the preference for or against spice isn't a mark of that attitude.
So if you're the type of person who goes on about it, points it out, or generally makes any kind of deal about it, then do us all a favor and think about shutting up next time. There's nothing wrong with a, "oh, I love hot wings, the spicier the better." It's when somebody replies, "Oh, I'm not really a fan" and you freak out about it that's a problem. That's generally true of all food preferences, but I'll write about that another time.
Long story short, if somebody doesn't like a food that you love, get over it.
Unless it's cheese. People who don't like cheese still make me wary.
Friday, March 08, 2013
Crosspost: The solution to Too Many books
I'm crossposting this from another blog of mine:
So, in response to ameliaearharts post, “Is there wizardry on how to never have overstuffed shelves?”
Sadly, no, it’s not wizardry. It’s the thing that pains readers the most in the entire world and the problem they find the hardest to solve: just not having so many books.
You actually have to force yourself to the realization that you have the shelf space you have, and if you want your shelves to look good and to treat your books well, that’s the space you can use and you just can only have what will fit. I rebelled against that idea for DECADES, since I was a kid I would just box up books and store them all over the place. Boxes under my bed, in my closet, in the attic, whatever. Just to make room for more books.
The thing was though that I wouldn’t read them for months, sometimes years, and in some cases they stayed in the attic until my mom said “you’re not reading these donate them to kids that will.” When I was 25, so obviously they’d been up there a while. And so finally what dawned on me was that there were some books I will always want to have, and will always want in case I’m going to randomly want to read them. There are books I own because my friends wrote them or gave them to me.
But at the end of the day, if I’ve got a book that I’ve not read, or that I won’t pick up again, or that I’m keeping for any reason other than I love it and want to read it over again, then that book deserves a different home than one where it’s getting ignored. At that point, I’m treating that book no better than a decoration, no matter what my good intentions are.
Now, I couldn’t really do this when I was living in dorms or moving every year because it actually was quite true that I didn’t _know_ what space I had. And because I wasn’t ready to actually face the whole thing yet. But when I got married and my husband built my bookshelf, I looked at it and realized that I had enough shelves to house over 60 square feet of books, and that even when you add in his books (which were few, we actually had a lot of duplicates that I sold when we got married) I had more books than any one person could really enjoy, and I told myself that I was doing the world a disservice by not letting someone read this book. The book deserved to fill it’s purpose in life, which is to be read and cherished. And while I might have enjoyed the book (if I had read it, seven years in a bookstore means I had a LOT of books I picked up and never got around to reading) maybe I didn’t love it the way someone else would.
And since I’m not having kids, keeping all of my books from when I was a kid felt like denying things I loved in my childhood from other children who should experience the things that made my life good. I kept my favorites, but for the most part I reread them one more time and either donated or sold them. Because unless I’m going to read them again, another child should get to experience it. I see it a bit like Indiana Jones and his “it belongs in a museum” thing.
Now, obviously I’m not saying if you keep books that’s bad. Like I said, I have over 900. I can’t remember what the last count was when I finally finished cataloging them a few weeks ago. I’m also a sucker for wanting complete matched collections, so I have every Star Wars book from before New Jedi Order, for example. I’ve got almost every graphic novel Crossgen published (I’m missing a couple because I didn’t start collecting until they were out of print). I adore books and I have a LOT of them.
But I also made it a point to have a very specific space for them, a large one, and I decided that at least for now, my books have to fit in that space. If I add too many and I’ve got a shelf double-rowed or a stack sitting somewhere, then I need to sort my collection again to find things I may be ready to part with.
I also massively curtailed my spending on books. At least until I got an e-reader, but that’s another story. But I stopped buying just anything that caught my eye and started getting stuff from the library first, then buying it if I truly loved it and wanted to own it. I got pickier about what I wanted to own versus what I just wanted to read. And I told myself that my worth as a reader wasn’t measured by how many books I owned but how many books I’ve read, and how much I enjoyed them. It definitely helps that my county has a fantastic library system, so that wouldn’t have worked when I was a kid in a small town. But it helps now.
So far this has worked for me. It was hard, it was really hard. But it was one of the last steps in what’s now been about seven years of me really changing my perceptions of the things I own and my living space so that I could live a less cluttered life, because let me tell you I was on a one way train to hoarding when I got married. And the struggle to get away from that has been about dealing with a lot of stuff, both mental and physical, and so I don’t say any of this lightly or like I think people can just turn around and magically figure it all out.
What I can say though is that those changes have all made me happier, and helped me financially, so that’s why I’m always willing to talk about it when it comes up, in the hopes that maybe somebody else will be helped by listening. I’ve not regretted a single book I’ve let go of, because I waited until I was ready to do it and let them go in the right way for the right reasons. Being able to walk into my guest room and just scan the shelves for something to read next, without having to sort through and move things just to see what I own, it’s huge. And on top of that, now I actually know what I own (I used to buy extra copies of things because I’d forget I had it) AND I usually know exactly where it is when I want it. I can pinpoint the shelf, about where it is on the shelf, and what’s next to it on either side within a few volumes (maybe not exactly next to it).
I haven’t had to do a big “take everything down and put it back” reorganization in years. Instead, every few months when I’ve got a handful of new books, I’ll work them into the shelves while going over them and deciding what maybe can go this time.
It’s not always perfect, but it’s working so far.
But seriously, ebooks have brought all of it back, so I also am just channeling a lot of my old habits right into my Nook, so I am a bit of a hypocrite here. I just can’t apply the same principles to digital stuff, I’m not at that point mentally yet I think.
So, in response to ameliaearharts post, “Is there wizardry on how to never have overstuffed shelves?”
Sadly, no, it’s not wizardry. It’s the thing that pains readers the most in the entire world and the problem they find the hardest to solve: just not having so many books.
You actually have to force yourself to the realization that you have the shelf space you have, and if you want your shelves to look good and to treat your books well, that’s the space you can use and you just can only have what will fit. I rebelled against that idea for DECADES, since I was a kid I would just box up books and store them all over the place. Boxes under my bed, in my closet, in the attic, whatever. Just to make room for more books.
The thing was though that I wouldn’t read them for months, sometimes years, and in some cases they stayed in the attic until my mom said “you’re not reading these donate them to kids that will.” When I was 25, so obviously they’d been up there a while. And so finally what dawned on me was that there were some books I will always want to have, and will always want in case I’m going to randomly want to read them. There are books I own because my friends wrote them or gave them to me.
But at the end of the day, if I’ve got a book that I’ve not read, or that I won’t pick up again, or that I’m keeping for any reason other than I love it and want to read it over again, then that book deserves a different home than one where it’s getting ignored. At that point, I’m treating that book no better than a decoration, no matter what my good intentions are.
Now, I couldn’t really do this when I was living in dorms or moving every year because it actually was quite true that I didn’t _know_ what space I had. And because I wasn’t ready to actually face the whole thing yet. But when I got married and my husband built my bookshelf, I looked at it and realized that I had enough shelves to house over 60 square feet of books, and that even when you add in his books (which were few, we actually had a lot of duplicates that I sold when we got married) I had more books than any one person could really enjoy, and I told myself that I was doing the world a disservice by not letting someone read this book. The book deserved to fill it’s purpose in life, which is to be read and cherished. And while I might have enjoyed the book (if I had read it, seven years in a bookstore means I had a LOT of books I picked up and never got around to reading) maybe I didn’t love it the way someone else would.
And since I’m not having kids, keeping all of my books from when I was a kid felt like denying things I loved in my childhood from other children who should experience the things that made my life good. I kept my favorites, but for the most part I reread them one more time and either donated or sold them. Because unless I’m going to read them again, another child should get to experience it. I see it a bit like Indiana Jones and his “it belongs in a museum” thing.
Now, obviously I’m not saying if you keep books that’s bad. Like I said, I have over 900. I can’t remember what the last count was when I finally finished cataloging them a few weeks ago. I’m also a sucker for wanting complete matched collections, so I have every Star Wars book from before New Jedi Order, for example. I’ve got almost every graphic novel Crossgen published (I’m missing a couple because I didn’t start collecting until they were out of print). I adore books and I have a LOT of them.
But I also made it a point to have a very specific space for them, a large one, and I decided that at least for now, my books have to fit in that space. If I add too many and I’ve got a shelf double-rowed or a stack sitting somewhere, then I need to sort my collection again to find things I may be ready to part with.
I also massively curtailed my spending on books. At least until I got an e-reader, but that’s another story. But I stopped buying just anything that caught my eye and started getting stuff from the library first, then buying it if I truly loved it and wanted to own it. I got pickier about what I wanted to own versus what I just wanted to read. And I told myself that my worth as a reader wasn’t measured by how many books I owned but how many books I’ve read, and how much I enjoyed them. It definitely helps that my county has a fantastic library system, so that wouldn’t have worked when I was a kid in a small town. But it helps now.
So far this has worked for me. It was hard, it was really hard. But it was one of the last steps in what’s now been about seven years of me really changing my perceptions of the things I own and my living space so that I could live a less cluttered life, because let me tell you I was on a one way train to hoarding when I got married. And the struggle to get away from that has been about dealing with a lot of stuff, both mental and physical, and so I don’t say any of this lightly or like I think people can just turn around and magically figure it all out.
What I can say though is that those changes have all made me happier, and helped me financially, so that’s why I’m always willing to talk about it when it comes up, in the hopes that maybe somebody else will be helped by listening. I’ve not regretted a single book I’ve let go of, because I waited until I was ready to do it and let them go in the right way for the right reasons. Being able to walk into my guest room and just scan the shelves for something to read next, without having to sort through and move things just to see what I own, it’s huge. And on top of that, now I actually know what I own (I used to buy extra copies of things because I’d forget I had it) AND I usually know exactly where it is when I want it. I can pinpoint the shelf, about where it is on the shelf, and what’s next to it on either side within a few volumes (maybe not exactly next to it).
I haven’t had to do a big “take everything down and put it back” reorganization in years. Instead, every few months when I’ve got a handful of new books, I’ll work them into the shelves while going over them and deciding what maybe can go this time.
It’s not always perfect, but it’s working so far.
But seriously, ebooks have brought all of it back, so I also am just channeling a lot of my old habits right into my Nook, so I am a bit of a hypocrite here. I just can’t apply the same principles to digital stuff, I’m not at that point mentally yet I think.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
You can't see it, so why is it important?
For no good reason lately, there's been a rash of people grumping again about how many spaces are "proper" to put after a period.
You can't see it, but everything I type for this blog has two spaces after every period, and it's going to stay that way. You know why?
Because it doesn't actually matter.
Listen, I get the arguments that we should start teaching that it's proper to only put one space. Because the idea of putting two spaces was due to an outdated technology (specifically, typewriters, which is where a lot of our randomness comes from, including how our keys are laid out, or so I've heard). Okay, we change with the times, that's cool. Kids today already pretty much know how to type from birth, so I can't imagine we have typing classes anymore, but sure, let's teach them that you put one space.
After all, with the code for most webpages, it doesn't actually even recognize the second space half the time. Or at least that was the way of it back in the day when I did HTML coding by hand.
Because you see, I'm also very old school when it comes to how long I've been doing this stuff, and that's why I think we need to lay off of people about this whole thing. No, teachers in communications classes shouldn't be teaching two spaces.
But we also shouldn't act like it's incorrect either. At the moment, because we're in a transition, BOTH are correct. It's like fish or fishes. It's not wrong, people who put two spaces aren't evil, and getting angry about it or even cranky is actually really dumb. Save your energy for something important, like defending the Oxford Comma.
I used to type about 60 WPM when I was in middle school, and it was through a sort of slapped together hunt and peck style coupled with so many years experience that I just knew where the keys were. But I looked at the keyboard, and despite being fast by the standards of the day, it wasn't as great as it could be. Then I took a typing class because it got rid of a requirement for school, and the teacher forced me to learn to "touch type" or whatever the kids today are calling it. Proper typing technique, fingers in the right places, not looking at the keyboard, all that fun stuff. She actually put stickers on my keyboard so that I couldn't see the letters anymore.
I learned to type not just faster, but twice as fast. I can get to 120 WPM without even trying that hard these days, and actually at the moment my typing speed is one of the things I can use to earn money. It's a marketable skill, the fact that I can type so quickly. And I do it because I don't actually think about it. It's all muscle memory and mostly unconscious. I don't think out "now I need to type B, here's the B, now I need to type E, here's the E." I just think the word and then it's there on the screen because I've practiced so much that this is the way it is. My typing speed is a necessary part of my life, and again, it makes me money.
Part of that typing speed is that I don't think when I put a period at the end of a sentence. I just hit the space bar twice and move on because I'm not actually thinking about anything that my hands are doing, it's a weird disconnect when you think about it, but there it is.
So if you're going to sit there and be snotty and sneer at somebody for putting two spaces at after a period when I do that because I'm actually REALLY GOOD at what I do, then you just come across looking like a jerk. Just shut up and ignore how many spaces are there unless there's 3 or 50 or something, and move on with your life. The teenagers will put what they want to put, and in twenty years we'll be doing something else entirely. They're already changing communication entirely, just let them do it and be the old fogy who does what they want anyway.
So let's get back to arguing about the Oxford Comma. Because I will defend that one to my last breath.
You can't see it, but everything I type for this blog has two spaces after every period, and it's going to stay that way. You know why?
Because it doesn't actually matter.
Listen, I get the arguments that we should start teaching that it's proper to only put one space. Because the idea of putting two spaces was due to an outdated technology (specifically, typewriters, which is where a lot of our randomness comes from, including how our keys are laid out, or so I've heard). Okay, we change with the times, that's cool. Kids today already pretty much know how to type from birth, so I can't imagine we have typing classes anymore, but sure, let's teach them that you put one space.
After all, with the code for most webpages, it doesn't actually even recognize the second space half the time. Or at least that was the way of it back in the day when I did HTML coding by hand.
Because you see, I'm also very old school when it comes to how long I've been doing this stuff, and that's why I think we need to lay off of people about this whole thing. No, teachers in communications classes shouldn't be teaching two spaces.
But we also shouldn't act like it's incorrect either. At the moment, because we're in a transition, BOTH are correct. It's like fish or fishes. It's not wrong, people who put two spaces aren't evil, and getting angry about it or even cranky is actually really dumb. Save your energy for something important, like defending the Oxford Comma.
I used to type about 60 WPM when I was in middle school, and it was through a sort of slapped together hunt and peck style coupled with so many years experience that I just knew where the keys were. But I looked at the keyboard, and despite being fast by the standards of the day, it wasn't as great as it could be. Then I took a typing class because it got rid of a requirement for school, and the teacher forced me to learn to "touch type" or whatever the kids today are calling it. Proper typing technique, fingers in the right places, not looking at the keyboard, all that fun stuff. She actually put stickers on my keyboard so that I couldn't see the letters anymore.
I learned to type not just faster, but twice as fast. I can get to 120 WPM without even trying that hard these days, and actually at the moment my typing speed is one of the things I can use to earn money. It's a marketable skill, the fact that I can type so quickly. And I do it because I don't actually think about it. It's all muscle memory and mostly unconscious. I don't think out "now I need to type B, here's the B, now I need to type E, here's the E." I just think the word and then it's there on the screen because I've practiced so much that this is the way it is. My typing speed is a necessary part of my life, and again, it makes me money.
Part of that typing speed is that I don't think when I put a period at the end of a sentence. I just hit the space bar twice and move on because I'm not actually thinking about anything that my hands are doing, it's a weird disconnect when you think about it, but there it is.
So if you're going to sit there and be snotty and sneer at somebody for putting two spaces at after a period when I do that because I'm actually REALLY GOOD at what I do, then you just come across looking like a jerk. Just shut up and ignore how many spaces are there unless there's 3 or 50 or something, and move on with your life. The teenagers will put what they want to put, and in twenty years we'll be doing something else entirely. They're already changing communication entirely, just let them do it and be the old fogy who does what they want anyway.
So let's get back to arguing about the Oxford Comma. Because I will defend that one to my last breath.
Tuesday, February 05, 2013
Photographer's responsibilities to their subjects
Ages ago, I was a newspaper reporter and a photographer. Basically, pretty much any given day for just under a year there was a picture I took on the front page of our local paper. Which means I took an awful lot of pictures.
So this recent article by NPR caught my eye - What It Feels Like To Be Photographed In A Moment of Grief.
The article is well done, so I suggest reading it first because this will be entirely in response to that. Anyway, the point of it is that a woman was grieving at a religious statue in Newtown, Connectictut after the Sandy Hook shooting and a photographer took her picture. The picture was then sold and licensed to several news services, and published pretty much worldwide. All without the woman being contacted or talked to in any way.
Understandably the woman, Aline Marie, was upset about this. But to my surprise, she reacted very reasonably, saying that she didn't want to photo taken down, and she wasn't offended. But she did want people to understand her perspective on the situation and that she felt that somebody should have asked her permission.
The comments that come withe the article range across the board, but several said that photographers should "always" ask permission BEFORE taking a picture. Most agreed that photographers should speak to the subjects of their photos at some point. Though no one I saw really takes in the most important fact of the photo to me - which is that the "private" moment of grief is already heavily observed by cameras int he background, both photo and video. Which is part of what makes it a powerful statement, in my eyes.
Okay, so here's the way I see this. First - asking permission before taking a photograph isn't a good idea. While I never really took controversial pictures for the paper, my favorites are almost always candid ones where the subject doesn't realize I'm there. People act differently the moment that a camera is involved. Even if you tell them, "pretend I'm not here," "do what you were doing," "just act natural." Nothing will get you as good a picture as that candid moment before they realize you're there. I will never say that photographers should speak to their subjects before the picture.
However I will point out again that in this picture, Marie is already being observed on all sides and was likely aware of it. Which, again, is partially why it's a powerful image about this moment in our history. It can be a note about many different aspects of the moment. So again, I don't feel the photographer should have spoken to her before he took the picture.
But then we get to the question of after. Listen, when I was a photographer I was the world's WORST about talking to people after I'd taken the picture, even when they saw me. It was a benefit that my local paper was relatively well known and my picture was in it once a week so people probably knew me (and if they didn't know me from that, more than one of my subjects turned out to be people who knew my family, it was a small town). But on at least one occasion I had a man come into the newspaper office yelling and screaming because he was in a picture I took at the local fair that we had published in the paper. He threatened to sue, got belligerent, and generally made me want to hide. My desk was easily visible from the front desk of the paper, so I was in full view the entire time, though he thankfully didn't connect my name with me sitting there.
The editor came out and took care of the situation with a simple fact that most people don't realize: if you are in public or visible from a public area then any photographer is allowed to take a picture of you and use it. Especially newspaper photographers, they do not need your permission, they do not need your name, they can use it "to sell papers" and so on. This is a matter of legality, and most photographers know the ins and outs of it pretty well. I'm not as well versed in it anymore, but back then I was well aware of exactly what I could and could not do.
So, legally, this photographer is well within his rights. The AFP is within their rights to publish and sell the photo. And I, for one, don't want to see this changed. But was it moral or ethical? Is it moral to take a picture of somebody grieving? Or to be taking pictures at all at a time like this?
The photographer should have spoken to the subject. He should have gotten her name, found out if she knew anyone at the school, and shown her the picture (digital cameras give us that power) so that she could see first hand that his picture was respectful. He didn't because he was embarrassed and because he didn't want to intrude, and those are very valid feelings. I felt them constantly when I was at the paper, and in an instant like this those would only be heightened. Even passing her his business card would have been nice. Ethically, he could have done better. But in a situation like this, I can't give him an awful lot of fault for it.
But as for taking the picture itself? I believe we need to take pictures at times like these. We have to, because in ten years, twenty years, thirty years, this is what we'll have. Photography is how we record our history and we are a better people for it. These photos are able to capture more than words can, because they not only show you the emotion on the part of the subjects but they create an emotion in the viewer. We must take these pictures.
So lastly, I want to make a point about how people in these situations treat the photographers. I remember once I was sent to take pictures of a particularly bad car accident on the interstate, because that kind of thing is front page news in a small town. There were miles of people slowing down to stare as they drove past, and there were victims being airlifted out by helicopter from the scene of the accident. I went to a nearby service road, which was also backed up with onlookers and even people pulled open to stare and watch. But the second I took out my camera, I started getting heckled, honked at, insulted, and even flipped off.
Those people maybe didn't realize I was with the press, but even if they did I bet they would have thought it was disgusting. Though I don't see how it's any more or less disgusting than slowing down to gawk, especially considering I made sure to stay on the service road and no one working the accident was even aware of my presence. Maybe they didn't realize that we had a policy at my paper to never publish a picture of a victim, and so when I came back with my images I went through and deleted the ones where you could see even an arm or a leg that wasn't covered. We published a picture of the stretcher being loaded onto the helicopter where the patient was blocked from view by emergency personnel, even though I had better shots, because it was the most respectful one.
Did they send me on that assignment out of respect? No, they did it because pictures of wrecks sell papers and they wanted to sell more papers. But was there a way for us to do it properly and did we do that? Yes. So what should those onlookers have done when they saw me with my camera? First of all, nothing, there was no reason for them to say anything. But if they absolutely must speak, they should have simply said, "excuse me, do you really need to take pictures" or "I'm sorry, but why are you photographing this?" And I would have replied, "I'm with the newspaper, we'll do our best to be respectful of the victims. I would be happy to give you my editor's information if you'd like to speak with him more about it." We all could have moved on with our lives and maybe contemplated sensationalist journalism over our dinners that night instead of being insulted on the side of the road.
So this recent article by NPR caught my eye - What It Feels Like To Be Photographed In A Moment of Grief.
The article is well done, so I suggest reading it first because this will be entirely in response to that. Anyway, the point of it is that a woman was grieving at a religious statue in Newtown, Connectictut after the Sandy Hook shooting and a photographer took her picture. The picture was then sold and licensed to several news services, and published pretty much worldwide. All without the woman being contacted or talked to in any way.
Understandably the woman, Aline Marie, was upset about this. But to my surprise, she reacted very reasonably, saying that she didn't want to photo taken down, and she wasn't offended. But she did want people to understand her perspective on the situation and that she felt that somebody should have asked her permission.
The comments that come withe the article range across the board, but several said that photographers should "always" ask permission BEFORE taking a picture. Most agreed that photographers should speak to the subjects of their photos at some point. Though no one I saw really takes in the most important fact of the photo to me - which is that the "private" moment of grief is already heavily observed by cameras int he background, both photo and video. Which is part of what makes it a powerful statement, in my eyes.
Okay, so here's the way I see this. First - asking permission before taking a photograph isn't a good idea. While I never really took controversial pictures for the paper, my favorites are almost always candid ones where the subject doesn't realize I'm there. People act differently the moment that a camera is involved. Even if you tell them, "pretend I'm not here," "do what you were doing," "just act natural." Nothing will get you as good a picture as that candid moment before they realize you're there. I will never say that photographers should speak to their subjects before the picture.
However I will point out again that in this picture, Marie is already being observed on all sides and was likely aware of it. Which, again, is partially why it's a powerful image about this moment in our history. It can be a note about many different aspects of the moment. So again, I don't feel the photographer should have spoken to her before he took the picture.
But then we get to the question of after. Listen, when I was a photographer I was the world's WORST about talking to people after I'd taken the picture, even when they saw me. It was a benefit that my local paper was relatively well known and my picture was in it once a week so people probably knew me (and if they didn't know me from that, more than one of my subjects turned out to be people who knew my family, it was a small town). But on at least one occasion I had a man come into the newspaper office yelling and screaming because he was in a picture I took at the local fair that we had published in the paper. He threatened to sue, got belligerent, and generally made me want to hide. My desk was easily visible from the front desk of the paper, so I was in full view the entire time, though he thankfully didn't connect my name with me sitting there.
The editor came out and took care of the situation with a simple fact that most people don't realize: if you are in public or visible from a public area then any photographer is allowed to take a picture of you and use it. Especially newspaper photographers, they do not need your permission, they do not need your name, they can use it "to sell papers" and so on. This is a matter of legality, and most photographers know the ins and outs of it pretty well. I'm not as well versed in it anymore, but back then I was well aware of exactly what I could and could not do.
So, legally, this photographer is well within his rights. The AFP is within their rights to publish and sell the photo. And I, for one, don't want to see this changed. But was it moral or ethical? Is it moral to take a picture of somebody grieving? Or to be taking pictures at all at a time like this?
The photographer should have spoken to the subject. He should have gotten her name, found out if she knew anyone at the school, and shown her the picture (digital cameras give us that power) so that she could see first hand that his picture was respectful. He didn't because he was embarrassed and because he didn't want to intrude, and those are very valid feelings. I felt them constantly when I was at the paper, and in an instant like this those would only be heightened. Even passing her his business card would have been nice. Ethically, he could have done better. But in a situation like this, I can't give him an awful lot of fault for it.
But as for taking the picture itself? I believe we need to take pictures at times like these. We have to, because in ten years, twenty years, thirty years, this is what we'll have. Photography is how we record our history and we are a better people for it. These photos are able to capture more than words can, because they not only show you the emotion on the part of the subjects but they create an emotion in the viewer. We must take these pictures.
So lastly, I want to make a point about how people in these situations treat the photographers. I remember once I was sent to take pictures of a particularly bad car accident on the interstate, because that kind of thing is front page news in a small town. There were miles of people slowing down to stare as they drove past, and there were victims being airlifted out by helicopter from the scene of the accident. I went to a nearby service road, which was also backed up with onlookers and even people pulled open to stare and watch. But the second I took out my camera, I started getting heckled, honked at, insulted, and even flipped off.
Those people maybe didn't realize I was with the press, but even if they did I bet they would have thought it was disgusting. Though I don't see how it's any more or less disgusting than slowing down to gawk, especially considering I made sure to stay on the service road and no one working the accident was even aware of my presence. Maybe they didn't realize that we had a policy at my paper to never publish a picture of a victim, and so when I came back with my images I went through and deleted the ones where you could see even an arm or a leg that wasn't covered. We published a picture of the stretcher being loaded onto the helicopter where the patient was blocked from view by emergency personnel, even though I had better shots, because it was the most respectful one.
Did they send me on that assignment out of respect? No, they did it because pictures of wrecks sell papers and they wanted to sell more papers. But was there a way for us to do it properly and did we do that? Yes. So what should those onlookers have done when they saw me with my camera? First of all, nothing, there was no reason for them to say anything. But if they absolutely must speak, they should have simply said, "excuse me, do you really need to take pictures" or "I'm sorry, but why are you photographing this?" And I would have replied, "I'm with the newspaper, we'll do our best to be respectful of the victims. I would be happy to give you my editor's information if you'd like to speak with him more about it." We all could have moved on with our lives and maybe contemplated sensationalist journalism over our dinners that night instead of being insulted on the side of the road.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
What NOT to do when you get engaged: become a "bride"
So I'm reading this list of "things to do as soon as you get engaged" because somebody somewhere linked to it (probably on Pinterest.
So, because I'm amused, how stupid this list is:
1. Get a manicure! Because you're now not a human being with a face or eyes, you are only a hand on which to display the ring. Listen, if you want to get a manicure, that's cool, I think having nice looking nails is a good thing. But the reasoning, which is basically "you're going to be showing your ring off and taking pictures of your hand A LOT" is just stupid because it's part of this ridiculous notion that an engagement is about the ring and not the two people becoming a family/partners and committing to help and support each other for the rest of their lives.
Which is what leads to the kind of stuff I talked about last week where a woman was saying her own mother was being rude to her and telling her she needs to force her fiance to buy her a better/bigger engagement ring.
Like almost all things, the answer is to just be yourself. If you like having nice nails/hands then do it! If you don't give a flip then don't! But seriously, you're a human being with a life and hobbies and activities, not a jewelry display case. You aren't your ring, and nobody should act like it including you.
2. Insure your ring! You know, this would be totally great advice except for the fact that it's completely dripping with the aforementioned assumption that a man's worth as a husband is tied up in the worth of the ring. My engagement ring cost less than $100, nobody is going to write an insurance policy for that.
But whatever, my point is that this isn't something that every single person should do when they get engaged because in my opinion, people need to stop being so tied up in super expensive gaudy engagement rings. Again, if you love expensive jewelry and it's within your means, I'm not telling you that you shouldn't.
I'm saying that going into debt to buy a pricey ring that you have to have insured seems a little stupid if you don't have the money to do it and/or you aren't the type of woman who wears a lot of jewelry regularly. If you have expensive possessions, you should insure them, absolutely.
But there's no requirement that you need a ring worth insuring.
3. Settle on a Budget: This is, in some ways, good advice, but not in others. Because the fact is before you can talk numbers or any of that, you need to talk expectations, ideas, and other generalities. You can't make a budget without knowing what you're budgeting. Were you wanting to invite a few close friends and he wants to invite the world? Are your parents going to insist that you have a catered dinner when you were thinking buffet? Yes, you probably have a general idea of how much money you can spend, but specific numbers? Not on your life. That's going to take part of the planning and research before you can do that. Unless you are a wedding planner, or just helped your friend get married or something then you don't really know what things cost when you get engaged.
Also, this line: "keep all familial relationships in tact by minding this budget down to the last red cent."
HA. The money and the budget is what STARTS almost all wedding arguments, and it's largely brides who are trying to "mind this budget down to the last red cent" that are the most screwed.
Seriously though, do a bit of research before you come to the table with whoever is footing the bill because otherwise you're just going to end up with bad estimates for everything and your budget will be messed up from day one. Honestly I would suggest coming up with ball park figures on your own after a discussion with your fiance about what type of wedding you both want. There's no use having a meeting without information.
4. Pick a date: Another thing that's good advice but not exactly once they elaborate. First, this should come before the budget because the season/month you get married in can change your budget immensely. This is exactly what I was talking about.
Second, their reasons? Because it will influence a lot of important decisions like "picking your gown, theme, bridesmaids dresses, etc." Okay, you know what all those things are? Things you should have in mind before you make your budget. They're also things that could be season specific if you want them to be, but depending on your venue, might not matter.
There was literally nothing about my actual ceremony that wouldn't work in any season, because it was inside a church. And because this whole "you can't do X at a winter wedding!" stuff is stupid. Plus, you should probably pick your venue before you can pick your date or season. Because what if you pick a date but the church is booked?
Your date will impact some things, but your venue is more important to picking your dress, bridesmaid's gowns, and probably also your "theme." And your venue also will affect your date. Pick a couple possible dates, in case you can't get the one you want.
5. Choose a diet plan and start it: The response I have to this advice is actually too vulgar for this particular blog. Let's just say it's a word that you're only allowed to say once in a PG-13 setting.
The fact that it's REQUIRED for bride's to try to lose weight and make themselves into something they aren't for their wedding day is a sign of a much, much greater problem with our entire society and I just don't have time to break that down.
If you aren't healthy and you want to be, great, it's always a good time to start being HEALTHY. But focusing on your weight and your perceived flaws is a really terrible way to start your life with your new spouse.
6. Sign up for Pinterest: Okay, yeah, that's probably a good idea but geeze do people go freakin' overboard with it all the time. First of all, roughly half the single/unmarried women I know already have wedding boards on Pinterest. Second, they pin EVERYTHING.
But it is just a technology advancement on what I did, which was go to the bookstore and buy a stack of wedding magazines and tear out the stuff I liked. Personally I still need the tactile aspect of physical pictures for that kind of thing, but yeah, Pinterest is probably going to be pretty helpful.
7. Pick a location: You know, if they had suggested this was a freeform list, maybe I'd still be on board. But the implication was that this was in order, and you're way past the time to pick a location. I mean, they're saying it's the most significant decision, but it's 7th? Then they say that you should consider the season, theme, and budget to pick a location, which seems completely backwards to me for the reasons I pointed out above. It is significant, because it will affect your season, theme, and budget not the other way around.
I mean, you could do it this way, but I don't see why you would. You certainly can't even begin to make a budget until you know about the venue, because you don't know if there will be a cost. And you can't get the cost for your venue until you know when it's available. And sometimes it'll be a lot cheaper in a certain season, so why pick a season until you know that?
8.Adopt better beauty habits: Okay, you are going to be in a lot of pictures and stuff, but seriously? Do we need yet another thing piling on to the "women-you don't look right no matter what you do so get to fixing yourself PRONTO" bandwagon?
One of the things I hate most about weddings is that they are all about becoming "a bride" instead of about the actual woman.
9. Hire a planner: Oh for Pete's sake. Hire a planner IF YOU NEED ONE. Also, IF YOU CAN AFFORD ONE. Planning a wedding is a bit stressful but it's actually kind of fun, and while I have the fuzziness of mine being seven years ago, I don't remember it being all that hard. It's certainly not nearly as difficult as a lot of the stuff I've done since. You try planning a film shoot, then a wedding feels like organizing a brunch date.
Not to mention the fact that this is one more thing that's telling you that you HAVE to do certain things and your wedding HAS to include this, that, and the other. You HAVE to be complicated. You HAVE to have place cards and favors and something quirky at the reception like Mad Libs or whatever. You HAVE to spend X amount of dollars. You HAVE to have a DJ and toasts, and dancing, and an open bar.
Listen, here's the most important rule of weddings and getting engaged: what you have to do is only governed by the laws of your municipality and your religion. Otherwise? It's all optional.
ALL OF IT.
A wedding planner, 9 times out of 10, is probably going to try to make you have all the requirements. So if you want the straight up traditional exactly as everybody else experience, then sure, whatever, get a planner.
If you're a busy career woman who doesn't have time for the annoying aspects and the paperwork, then sure, have a helping hand.
But you don't NEED a wedding planner anymore than you NEED a wedding. Have the day you want to have. End of story.
10. Sign up for sale alerts: Again, good advice for the wrong reasons. This one is because the gown is apparently worth splurging for but the accessories are not.
Listen: you will not wear your gown again. It is a one time thing, and while you will likely see your pictures often so you should be happy with it, at the same time, your accessories can be paired with other things and worn for the rest of your life (except your veil, that really isn't going to work with anything else).
Yes, you should absolutely save money where you can, including on the gown. Sale alerts probably aren't a bad idea. But there are other ways to save on your gown, like, oh, not going with a designer label? Not spending $6,000 on it in the first place?
Again, this entire list was basically the "how to have a standard cookie cutter wedding 101." So here's my best advice for you for what to do as soon a you get engaged:
Take a deep breath. Think about yourself for a little while. Think about your fiance. Think about your lives together, both before and in the future. Think about who you are, outside the wedding, without the trappings.
And keep that in your mind, as clear as you can make it, through the whole process. Your wedding isn't about what other people think you have to have or what other people want. It's about two people standing together, not just for one day but forever.
Your wedding day is just the start of your marriage, and a milestone in your life up to that point. It's about you, and your fiance, and the two of you together. It's about celebrating a great moment in your life with the people you love most, and them wanting to wish you well and enjoy the moment with you. It's about families coming together, and creating a new family.
If you can keep that in mind, then the rest will fall into place and you'll enjoy every minute.
So, because I'm amused, how stupid this list is:
1. Get a manicure! Because you're now not a human being with a face or eyes, you are only a hand on which to display the ring. Listen, if you want to get a manicure, that's cool, I think having nice looking nails is a good thing. But the reasoning, which is basically "you're going to be showing your ring off and taking pictures of your hand A LOT" is just stupid because it's part of this ridiculous notion that an engagement is about the ring and not the two people becoming a family/partners and committing to help and support each other for the rest of their lives.
Which is what leads to the kind of stuff I talked about last week where a woman was saying her own mother was being rude to her and telling her she needs to force her fiance to buy her a better/bigger engagement ring.
Like almost all things, the answer is to just be yourself. If you like having nice nails/hands then do it! If you don't give a flip then don't! But seriously, you're a human being with a life and hobbies and activities, not a jewelry display case. You aren't your ring, and nobody should act like it including you.
2. Insure your ring! You know, this would be totally great advice except for the fact that it's completely dripping with the aforementioned assumption that a man's worth as a husband is tied up in the worth of the ring. My engagement ring cost less than $100, nobody is going to write an insurance policy for that.
But whatever, my point is that this isn't something that every single person should do when they get engaged because in my opinion, people need to stop being so tied up in super expensive gaudy engagement rings. Again, if you love expensive jewelry and it's within your means, I'm not telling you that you shouldn't.
I'm saying that going into debt to buy a pricey ring that you have to have insured seems a little stupid if you don't have the money to do it and/or you aren't the type of woman who wears a lot of jewelry regularly. If you have expensive possessions, you should insure them, absolutely.
But there's no requirement that you need a ring worth insuring.
3. Settle on a Budget: This is, in some ways, good advice, but not in others. Because the fact is before you can talk numbers or any of that, you need to talk expectations, ideas, and other generalities. You can't make a budget without knowing what you're budgeting. Were you wanting to invite a few close friends and he wants to invite the world? Are your parents going to insist that you have a catered dinner when you were thinking buffet? Yes, you probably have a general idea of how much money you can spend, but specific numbers? Not on your life. That's going to take part of the planning and research before you can do that. Unless you are a wedding planner, or just helped your friend get married or something then you don't really know what things cost when you get engaged.
Also, this line: "keep all familial relationships in tact by minding this budget down to the last red cent."
HA. The money and the budget is what STARTS almost all wedding arguments, and it's largely brides who are trying to "mind this budget down to the last red cent" that are the most screwed.
Seriously though, do a bit of research before you come to the table with whoever is footing the bill because otherwise you're just going to end up with bad estimates for everything and your budget will be messed up from day one. Honestly I would suggest coming up with ball park figures on your own after a discussion with your fiance about what type of wedding you both want. There's no use having a meeting without information.
4. Pick a date: Another thing that's good advice but not exactly once they elaborate. First, this should come before the budget because the season/month you get married in can change your budget immensely. This is exactly what I was talking about.
Second, their reasons? Because it will influence a lot of important decisions like "picking your gown, theme, bridesmaids dresses, etc." Okay, you know what all those things are? Things you should have in mind before you make your budget. They're also things that could be season specific if you want them to be, but depending on your venue, might not matter.
There was literally nothing about my actual ceremony that wouldn't work in any season, because it was inside a church. And because this whole "you can't do X at a winter wedding!" stuff is stupid. Plus, you should probably pick your venue before you can pick your date or season. Because what if you pick a date but the church is booked?
Your date will impact some things, but your venue is more important to picking your dress, bridesmaid's gowns, and probably also your "theme." And your venue also will affect your date. Pick a couple possible dates, in case you can't get the one you want.
5. Choose a diet plan and start it: The response I have to this advice is actually too vulgar for this particular blog. Let's just say it's a word that you're only allowed to say once in a PG-13 setting.
The fact that it's REQUIRED for bride's to try to lose weight and make themselves into something they aren't for their wedding day is a sign of a much, much greater problem with our entire society and I just don't have time to break that down.
If you aren't healthy and you want to be, great, it's always a good time to start being HEALTHY. But focusing on your weight and your perceived flaws is a really terrible way to start your life with your new spouse.
6. Sign up for Pinterest: Okay, yeah, that's probably a good idea but geeze do people go freakin' overboard with it all the time. First of all, roughly half the single/unmarried women I know already have wedding boards on Pinterest. Second, they pin EVERYTHING.
But it is just a technology advancement on what I did, which was go to the bookstore and buy a stack of wedding magazines and tear out the stuff I liked. Personally I still need the tactile aspect of physical pictures for that kind of thing, but yeah, Pinterest is probably going to be pretty helpful.
7. Pick a location: You know, if they had suggested this was a freeform list, maybe I'd still be on board. But the implication was that this was in order, and you're way past the time to pick a location. I mean, they're saying it's the most significant decision, but it's 7th? Then they say that you should consider the season, theme, and budget to pick a location, which seems completely backwards to me for the reasons I pointed out above. It is significant, because it will affect your season, theme, and budget not the other way around.
I mean, you could do it this way, but I don't see why you would. You certainly can't even begin to make a budget until you know about the venue, because you don't know if there will be a cost. And you can't get the cost for your venue until you know when it's available. And sometimes it'll be a lot cheaper in a certain season, so why pick a season until you know that?
8.Adopt better beauty habits: Okay, you are going to be in a lot of pictures and stuff, but seriously? Do we need yet another thing piling on to the "women-you don't look right no matter what you do so get to fixing yourself PRONTO" bandwagon?
One of the things I hate most about weddings is that they are all about becoming "a bride" instead of about the actual woman.
9. Hire a planner: Oh for Pete's sake. Hire a planner IF YOU NEED ONE. Also, IF YOU CAN AFFORD ONE. Planning a wedding is a bit stressful but it's actually kind of fun, and while I have the fuzziness of mine being seven years ago, I don't remember it being all that hard. It's certainly not nearly as difficult as a lot of the stuff I've done since. You try planning a film shoot, then a wedding feels like organizing a brunch date.
Not to mention the fact that this is one more thing that's telling you that you HAVE to do certain things and your wedding HAS to include this, that, and the other. You HAVE to be complicated. You HAVE to have place cards and favors and something quirky at the reception like Mad Libs or whatever. You HAVE to spend X amount of dollars. You HAVE to have a DJ and toasts, and dancing, and an open bar.
Listen, here's the most important rule of weddings and getting engaged: what you have to do is only governed by the laws of your municipality and your religion. Otherwise? It's all optional.
ALL OF IT.
A wedding planner, 9 times out of 10, is probably going to try to make you have all the requirements. So if you want the straight up traditional exactly as everybody else experience, then sure, whatever, get a planner.
If you're a busy career woman who doesn't have time for the annoying aspects and the paperwork, then sure, have a helping hand.
But you don't NEED a wedding planner anymore than you NEED a wedding. Have the day you want to have. End of story.
10. Sign up for sale alerts: Again, good advice for the wrong reasons. This one is because the gown is apparently worth splurging for but the accessories are not.
Listen: you will not wear your gown again. It is a one time thing, and while you will likely see your pictures often so you should be happy with it, at the same time, your accessories can be paired with other things and worn for the rest of your life (except your veil, that really isn't going to work with anything else).
Yes, you should absolutely save money where you can, including on the gown. Sale alerts probably aren't a bad idea. But there are other ways to save on your gown, like, oh, not going with a designer label? Not spending $6,000 on it in the first place?
Again, this entire list was basically the "how to have a standard cookie cutter wedding 101." So here's my best advice for you for what to do as soon a you get engaged:
Take a deep breath. Think about yourself for a little while. Think about your fiance. Think about your lives together, both before and in the future. Think about who you are, outside the wedding, without the trappings.
And keep that in your mind, as clear as you can make it, through the whole process. Your wedding isn't about what other people think you have to have or what other people want. It's about two people standing together, not just for one day but forever.
Your wedding day is just the start of your marriage, and a milestone in your life up to that point. It's about you, and your fiance, and the two of you together. It's about celebrating a great moment in your life with the people you love most, and them wanting to wish you well and enjoy the moment with you. It's about families coming together, and creating a new family.
If you can keep that in mind, then the rest will fall into place and you'll enjoy every minute.
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Get over your engagement ring
I've probably said this before, but I read a couple of advice columns pretty regularly.
Today, I read a Dear Prudence where the first letter was this particular problem, which I've heard before:
Prudence is, of course, a lot more diplomatic than I would have been.
Because my answer would have been simple: anybody, including your mother, who says anything other than "that's lovely" when they see your ring should be told to shut up and stuff their opinions in their ears. Or something less diplomatic.
If they don't proceed to promptly stuff it and shut the heck up, then they should be crossed off the wedding invite list. Immediately, with no recourse or apologies, and that STILL includes the bride's mother.
Of course, there's also the fact that I sense an undertone in this letter that the bride herself is not happy with her ring, and sees it as a failing. And that's the actual problem at the root of all of this.
Because the thing is I know a number of women who had non-traditional engagement rings, myself included. Women with sapphires, emeralds, small stones, fake stones, and everything in between. My own engagement ring was just a sterling silver Celtic knot. The unifying factor with all of these women? These rings were exactly what they wanted, and were chosen because the women had specifically asked for them. I had shown my husband a handful of rings that I liked the style of, and gave him one specific rule: the price could not exceed three figures. If the ring was a diamond, or too expensive, then I would turn down the proposal because it would mean he was either not listening or too willing to cave to a societal expectation instead of doing what was best for me or us.
The other thing that unifies all of these women? None of us put up with any grief from ANYBODY about our rings. We had something we loved, and it was what we wanted, and if people didn't agree then that wasn't really our problem, was it? We already knew that we were bucking an expectation because we also knew the expectation existed for no real reason, and that was FINE. I get the feeling that this bride wanted the traditional ring, and that's why she's letting these people get to her, and why she doesn't know what to say in response. Because the response is really simple, "this is what I wanted and it's my ring."
There's also another thing at play here: this woman has bad friends. You should never, ever, ever comment on somebody else's engagement ring unless you're saying something nice. Maybe if it was your best friend and she confided in you that she was unhappy with his choice (and then you could suggest they try to pick out a ring together). But 99.9% of the time your opinion on someone else's engagement ring doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter, and should be kept to yourself. And if you don't know that, you are a bad person and you should probably figure out how to fix that about yourself.
As for telling your daughter that her fiance isn't worthy because he bought a ring that fits within his own culture instead of YOURS, that's a bit...xenophobic? I don't know the right word, other than self-centered.
All in all, the letter writer seems to have a lot of problems, but a fiance who doesn't love her or isn't really committed really isn't one of them.
Today, I read a Dear Prudence where the first letter was this particular problem, which I've heard before:
I recently got engaged to my boyfriend of two years. He is from a northern European country where engagement rings are usually simple gold band, worn by both the man and the woman. The big diamonds that American women expect are very rare, and considered rather vulgar by most. My engagement ring is a cultural compromise: A gold band set with a very small (1/6 of a carat) diamond. I love my ring, but back home in the U.S., many people seem personally offended by it. My mother is urging me to have my ring "upgraded" because a respectable American middle-class woman needs a bigger diamond. Other people have made comment along the lines of "That looks like a promise ring that a high schooler would give to his girlfriend" and "You should have held out for something nicer." To many American women, the size of the diamond engagement ring seems to be a symbol of their success and worth as women, and the message that I have failed at this goal comes across loud and clear. It stings a bit when they wave their giant rings in my face while making their little comments. What can I do to get them to stop?
Prudence is, of course, a lot more diplomatic than I would have been.
Because my answer would have been simple: anybody, including your mother, who says anything other than "that's lovely" when they see your ring should be told to shut up and stuff their opinions in their ears. Or something less diplomatic.
If they don't proceed to promptly stuff it and shut the heck up, then they should be crossed off the wedding invite list. Immediately, with no recourse or apologies, and that STILL includes the bride's mother.
Of course, there's also the fact that I sense an undertone in this letter that the bride herself is not happy with her ring, and sees it as a failing. And that's the actual problem at the root of all of this.
Because the thing is I know a number of women who had non-traditional engagement rings, myself included. Women with sapphires, emeralds, small stones, fake stones, and everything in between. My own engagement ring was just a sterling silver Celtic knot. The unifying factor with all of these women? These rings were exactly what they wanted, and were chosen because the women had specifically asked for them. I had shown my husband a handful of rings that I liked the style of, and gave him one specific rule: the price could not exceed three figures. If the ring was a diamond, or too expensive, then I would turn down the proposal because it would mean he was either not listening or too willing to cave to a societal expectation instead of doing what was best for me or us.
The other thing that unifies all of these women? None of us put up with any grief from ANYBODY about our rings. We had something we loved, and it was what we wanted, and if people didn't agree then that wasn't really our problem, was it? We already knew that we were bucking an expectation because we also knew the expectation existed for no real reason, and that was FINE. I get the feeling that this bride wanted the traditional ring, and that's why she's letting these people get to her, and why she doesn't know what to say in response. Because the response is really simple, "this is what I wanted and it's my ring."
There's also another thing at play here: this woman has bad friends. You should never, ever, ever comment on somebody else's engagement ring unless you're saying something nice. Maybe if it was your best friend and she confided in you that she was unhappy with his choice (and then you could suggest they try to pick out a ring together). But 99.9% of the time your opinion on someone else's engagement ring doesn't matter, and shouldn't matter, and should be kept to yourself. And if you don't know that, you are a bad person and you should probably figure out how to fix that about yourself.
As for telling your daughter that her fiance isn't worthy because he bought a ring that fits within his own culture instead of YOURS, that's a bit...xenophobic? I don't know the right word, other than self-centered.
All in all, the letter writer seems to have a lot of problems, but a fiance who doesn't love her or isn't really committed really isn't one of them.
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Speaking in tongues
Sometimes I wonder if I'm actually speaking English.
But it's weird, because it's not like the people I'm talking to don't actually hear anything I say, it's like they only hear a few key words and the rest are something different.
So maybe I'm speaking English but I'm not actually using the words I hear myself using? I have no idea how that would work, but I'm not sure what other conclusion to draw some days.
For example, I spent a good five minutes explaining a particular issue I've been having with sleeping. I thought that I was being very exact about the problem, which was basically sleep paralysis and vivid dreams.
He seemed to understand, made a few notes, and then a few minutes later made an offhand comment that made me suspect that he actually thinks I'm sleep walking. What I was describing as dreams, where I thought I was very clear that these things weren't real I just thought they were, he took as me saying they were actually happening.
In a general context, this would be kind of funny. But half the time it happens to me when I'm dealing with medical issues, and the other half it's usually a problem at work. So while I normally would laugh it off if it happened with a friend, it's starting to really bug me.
Some days, like today, I think it's an issue that we're not really teaching communication skills in school anymore. Because nobody is being taught a set of rules or a certain way to behave in a professional context, everybody is just kind of making it up as they go along and then nobody understands each other perfectly.
Other days, I think it's that nobody wants to listen because they're too self absorbed anyway. Or maybe that they don't know what they're doing, so they ignore any indication that a problem is something outside their expertise so that they can fit it into what they know and deal with it, even if that means they're not actually dealing with the problem at all.
Personally, I've always been a big fan of trying to use the exact right word at the exact right time. I once spent twenty minutes arguing the difference between "can" and "may." So when I try so hard to carefully choose my words and then somebody doesn't really read or hear what I say, I don't really know what to do. I've already considered what I was going to say and sifted through my vocabulary for the best set of words, so how can I rephrase it?
Most of the time, if somebody is upset or offended and it was because they didn't really comprehend what I meant, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and try to figure out how we can communicate. But it's started to happen so often lately that I'm back to the original thought: am I not speaking English or something?
Because if I'm not and I think I am, I think it's a sign of something serious and I should probably tell somebody about that.
You know, if I could figure out how.
But it's weird, because it's not like the people I'm talking to don't actually hear anything I say, it's like they only hear a few key words and the rest are something different.
So maybe I'm speaking English but I'm not actually using the words I hear myself using? I have no idea how that would work, but I'm not sure what other conclusion to draw some days.
For example, I spent a good five minutes explaining a particular issue I've been having with sleeping. I thought that I was being very exact about the problem, which was basically sleep paralysis and vivid dreams.
He seemed to understand, made a few notes, and then a few minutes later made an offhand comment that made me suspect that he actually thinks I'm sleep walking. What I was describing as dreams, where I thought I was very clear that these things weren't real I just thought they were, he took as me saying they were actually happening.
In a general context, this would be kind of funny. But half the time it happens to me when I'm dealing with medical issues, and the other half it's usually a problem at work. So while I normally would laugh it off if it happened with a friend, it's starting to really bug me.
Some days, like today, I think it's an issue that we're not really teaching communication skills in school anymore. Because nobody is being taught a set of rules or a certain way to behave in a professional context, everybody is just kind of making it up as they go along and then nobody understands each other perfectly.
Other days, I think it's that nobody wants to listen because they're too self absorbed anyway. Or maybe that they don't know what they're doing, so they ignore any indication that a problem is something outside their expertise so that they can fit it into what they know and deal with it, even if that means they're not actually dealing with the problem at all.
Personally, I've always been a big fan of trying to use the exact right word at the exact right time. I once spent twenty minutes arguing the difference between "can" and "may." So when I try so hard to carefully choose my words and then somebody doesn't really read or hear what I say, I don't really know what to do. I've already considered what I was going to say and sifted through my vocabulary for the best set of words, so how can I rephrase it?
Most of the time, if somebody is upset or offended and it was because they didn't really comprehend what I meant, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and try to figure out how we can communicate. But it's started to happen so often lately that I'm back to the original thought: am I not speaking English or something?
Because if I'm not and I think I am, I think it's a sign of something serious and I should probably tell somebody about that.
You know, if I could figure out how.
Wednesday, January 09, 2013
Sleep Studies
So, tonight I'm going in to get a sleep study done. It's actually something I've gone through before, so when I was reading the book Dreamland a few months ago and he describes it like this strange and other-worldly thing, it was kind of amusing.
It does seem weird when it's written out. You sleep in a random room in a lab, with a bunch of wires sticking out of your head, and monitors all over the place. But it wasn't all that strange the first time around for me, it felt like sleeping in a hotel. The part that was really weird, for me anyway, was that there was somebody watching on a monitor. Though they explained to me they only start watching when you're actually asleep, since they can tell the difference on all the other equipment.
What interests me though is that this has become such an industry. I think it means something greater that there are so many sleep clinics and doctors specializing in it, because so many people have problems. Technically, what most people are being tested for is sleep apnea (which is, incidentally, what I was being tested for and despite a negative result what I have to go in to prove again tonight). On the one hand, there's an increased awareness that leads to increased testing and diagnosis. It's not so much that the rates are rising but that we're figuring it out. This is true of a lot of diseases that are getting a lot of attention these days.
But at the same time, I think there's a large degree of this being a result of our cult of tiredness and caffeine that we've nurtured in the modern world. It's a point of pride how little sleep we've gotten, and how much coffee it takes to make us human. We have little competitions every day with co-workers about who is more exhausted, like it means something.
In our world, being more tired and needing more coffee is a sign of strength instead of weakness, when it should be the opposite. But we value work over sleep because it shows self-sacrifice and putting other things over our own comfort. People are addicted to caffeine in a way that would land them in rehab if it were any other substance, but instead we praise them and brag about how we need even more coffee than that. And what's worse is that our bosses expect this of us, and exhausting yourself is praised and rewarded on that level too.
It's a topic that I get angry about pretty often, but I think in general we'd all be healthier and happier if we just got eight hours of sleep a night. I get why people don't, because they're busy and there are only so many hours in the day. I have insomnia, I understand that part. But what I'm struggling with now is convincing myself to value eight hours asleep more than I do other things, to make it a priority over working, or writing, or reading, or watching something I want to see. I don't know how to do that, to make going to bed and sleeping more important than almost anything else.
But the way our society treats rest and sleep certainly isn't helping me, because I feel like everybody else would start judging me harshly if I started saying "I'm sorry, but I go to bed at 11 p.m. every night, even weekends, because it's important."
I know it's wishing for too much in wanting the world to change. But I can't help thinking we'd be healthier and happier if we did.
It does seem weird when it's written out. You sleep in a random room in a lab, with a bunch of wires sticking out of your head, and monitors all over the place. But it wasn't all that strange the first time around for me, it felt like sleeping in a hotel. The part that was really weird, for me anyway, was that there was somebody watching on a monitor. Though they explained to me they only start watching when you're actually asleep, since they can tell the difference on all the other equipment.
What interests me though is that this has become such an industry. I think it means something greater that there are so many sleep clinics and doctors specializing in it, because so many people have problems. Technically, what most people are being tested for is sleep apnea (which is, incidentally, what I was being tested for and despite a negative result what I have to go in to prove again tonight). On the one hand, there's an increased awareness that leads to increased testing and diagnosis. It's not so much that the rates are rising but that we're figuring it out. This is true of a lot of diseases that are getting a lot of attention these days.
But at the same time, I think there's a large degree of this being a result of our cult of tiredness and caffeine that we've nurtured in the modern world. It's a point of pride how little sleep we've gotten, and how much coffee it takes to make us human. We have little competitions every day with co-workers about who is more exhausted, like it means something.
In our world, being more tired and needing more coffee is a sign of strength instead of weakness, when it should be the opposite. But we value work over sleep because it shows self-sacrifice and putting other things over our own comfort. People are addicted to caffeine in a way that would land them in rehab if it were any other substance, but instead we praise them and brag about how we need even more coffee than that. And what's worse is that our bosses expect this of us, and exhausting yourself is praised and rewarded on that level too.
It's a topic that I get angry about pretty often, but I think in general we'd all be healthier and happier if we just got eight hours of sleep a night. I get why people don't, because they're busy and there are only so many hours in the day. I have insomnia, I understand that part. But what I'm struggling with now is convincing myself to value eight hours asleep more than I do other things, to make it a priority over working, or writing, or reading, or watching something I want to see. I don't know how to do that, to make going to bed and sleeping more important than almost anything else.
But the way our society treats rest and sleep certainly isn't helping me, because I feel like everybody else would start judging me harshly if I started saying "I'm sorry, but I go to bed at 11 p.m. every night, even weekends, because it's important."
I know it's wishing for too much in wanting the world to change. But I can't help thinking we'd be healthier and happier if we did.
Wednesday, January 02, 2013
New Year's Program Recommendations
I took a bit of a hiatus from the blog during the week of Christmas, and then that sort of rolled right into New Year's and so I'm playing catch up. But only a little!
I used to be very much against this whole "new year, new you" kind of idea that we get hammered with right around now. But this year it's actually something that's working for me. I've got a lot of things I want to change about me, how I live, how I deal with the world, and how I accomplish goals. I've had plans for a lot of things, but there was always little stuff standing in my way. But after the week and a half of vacation that was the Christmas holiday this year, it's just turned out that New Year's was a really good time to get started.
It really has felt like a bit of a clean break with the past this time around. So I've got a million things going on. First and foremost, to keep up with this blog and try to not just update regularly but also grow my readership and try to get some interaction with my readers. So please, comment on posts if you have something to say!
I'm also trying a few new ways to keep myself organized, including working with Evernote. One thing I'm doing is using that to keep track of all the things I want to write about, which should help me with updating this on time. So far, I like it quite a bit. Especially because I can use it on both computers, my phone, and my Nook with all the same information synced up across all devices.
Along with blog updates, I'm also using it to keep track of the deep cleaning/organizing project that I'm doing around the house. Plus another similar notebook where I'm starting to list the bigger and more long term renovations that we'd like to do, like new shelving in the linen closet.
I'm also continuing to use Todoist and Toggl for my task manager and time-keeping. Both are great programs, and I highly recommend them. Todoist is especially nice because unlike all of the other popular task managers that people like to talk about, it allows you to set up recurring tasks in a number of different ways. So you can have something that occurs every day, every Tuesday, every third Monday, etc. It's been a lifesaver so far.
The biggest fault I have with ToDoist is that it's useless to try to use it on my phone in any way. The app only syncs once a day unless you pay for the premium service and I just don't have that in the budget right now. Plus the mobile browser version of the site doesn't sync properly even when it does sync. So it's really only useful for me in Chrome, but that's okay because that's primarily where I need it.
Hopefully everyone else is having fun with trying to work out new ways to accomplish the goals that they've set for themselves. Don't overreach, but it's always worthwhile to try to make things a little easier on you, you deserve a break.
I used to be very much against this whole "new year, new you" kind of idea that we get hammered with right around now. But this year it's actually something that's working for me. I've got a lot of things I want to change about me, how I live, how I deal with the world, and how I accomplish goals. I've had plans for a lot of things, but there was always little stuff standing in my way. But after the week and a half of vacation that was the Christmas holiday this year, it's just turned out that New Year's was a really good time to get started.
It really has felt like a bit of a clean break with the past this time around. So I've got a million things going on. First and foremost, to keep up with this blog and try to not just update regularly but also grow my readership and try to get some interaction with my readers. So please, comment on posts if you have something to say!
I'm also trying a few new ways to keep myself organized, including working with Evernote. One thing I'm doing is using that to keep track of all the things I want to write about, which should help me with updating this on time. So far, I like it quite a bit. Especially because I can use it on both computers, my phone, and my Nook with all the same information synced up across all devices.
Along with blog updates, I'm also using it to keep track of the deep cleaning/organizing project that I'm doing around the house. Plus another similar notebook where I'm starting to list the bigger and more long term renovations that we'd like to do, like new shelving in the linen closet.
I'm also continuing to use Todoist and Toggl for my task manager and time-keeping. Both are great programs, and I highly recommend them. Todoist is especially nice because unlike all of the other popular task managers that people like to talk about, it allows you to set up recurring tasks in a number of different ways. So you can have something that occurs every day, every Tuesday, every third Monday, etc. It's been a lifesaver so far.
The biggest fault I have with ToDoist is that it's useless to try to use it on my phone in any way. The app only syncs once a day unless you pay for the premium service and I just don't have that in the budget right now. Plus the mobile browser version of the site doesn't sync properly even when it does sync. So it's really only useful for me in Chrome, but that's okay because that's primarily where I need it.
| Of course, I also still use Google Calendar for scheduling day to day things, but I've also started trying to adapt to using a mix of digital and analog scheduling. I'm still experimenting to find the right mix of everything for me. But scheduling my day by the hour is actually really helping me with time management, so anybody that's a freelancer or a stay-at-home whatever should consider it. All of my bills I'm starting to keep organized in a paper planner that stays on the desk, because I've realized that I don't really ever look at the month-long view in my Google Calendar so I don't see upcoming bills and paychecks as easily as I need to for our budgeting issues. The planner to the left is similar to the one I'm using, only I think mine is prettier (thanks Cyn!) and I love that it's got tabs to quickly flip to the different months. |
Hopefully everyone else is having fun with trying to work out new ways to accomplish the goals that they've set for themselves. Don't overreach, but it's always worthwhile to try to make things a little easier on you, you deserve a break.
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
The last time the world ended
Everybody is getting ready for the world to end on Friday. I've already lived through about a half dozen predictions of the end of the world, but only one that reached the same worldwide fervor the way this 2012 thing has was of course, Y2K.
The thing that was such a big deal about Y2K was that it actually was JUST believable enough. We all had computers, we all had deal with the way they would just crash and act weird for no reason we could figure out. Anybody who had written anything for the internet at that point had seen a website's code break down completely because you misplaced a semicolon.
It seemed crazy, but there was that little seed of wonder, isn't it feasible? If we could get a blue screen of death for something we've been doing for weeks, then couldn't most computers crash because of a coding error? And wasn't our whole life already starting to be completely run by computers?
So for New Year's of Y2K, I decided I needed a good vantage point for the end of the world. So my sister, my best friend, and I all drove to an overlook on Mill Mountain in Roanoke, Virginia to stand in front of the Roanoke Star just in case everything went dark. Then we could see everything without the light pollution, and be isolated in case the whole world went crazy.
We weren't the only people who had the idea, there were probably a dozen people hanging out. Of course, as the clock counted down to 0 and we entered the year 2000, nothing happened.
Of course, the 2012 scare doesn't have that slim air of legitimacy or believability. It only has the feeling that something gets when so many people believe in it. The Mayans didn't even have a concept of the end of the world at the time that they made their calendar, everything about it is ridiculous.
And yet, it's that little doubt that hits your brain. The world has to end sometime, doesn't it? One day actually will be our last, even if it's not the end of Earth as we know it.
That's the problem with apocalypse predictions, is that it reminds everyone of how ridiculous the world we live in really is sometimes. It's the idea that we could slip in the bathtub tomorrow, or come down with something and not get to a doctor in time. Because we have to live with that every day, and tamp it down all the time, when somebody predicts the end of the world it's a place to put all those fears and those doubts. So even people who are normally very rational think "well, what if?"
Of course that leads to all kinds of problems, people getting scammed, getting violent, acting irrationally, and on and on. Thankfully most people I know are going back to the same kind of idea I had during Y2K - getting together to celebrate and act silly and be with the people we care about.
I'll probably be at a party myself. But if this does turn out to be my last week of writing for my blog because the world is ending, I do want to leave this as my last big opinion statement - our world is crazy, and difficult, and painful but I have found my life to be worth the problems and the pain. I've been loved and cared for, and I've had the things I needed, and I couldn't ask for more than that, and so I simply want to say thank you.
If this is not my last blog entry ever, of course I'll go back to complaining about things next week.
Good luck with the apocalypse!
The thing that was such a big deal about Y2K was that it actually was JUST believable enough. We all had computers, we all had deal with the way they would just crash and act weird for no reason we could figure out. Anybody who had written anything for the internet at that point had seen a website's code break down completely because you misplaced a semicolon.
It seemed crazy, but there was that little seed of wonder, isn't it feasible? If we could get a blue screen of death for something we've been doing for weeks, then couldn't most computers crash because of a coding error? And wasn't our whole life already starting to be completely run by computers?
So for New Year's of Y2K, I decided I needed a good vantage point for the end of the world. So my sister, my best friend, and I all drove to an overlook on Mill Mountain in Roanoke, Virginia to stand in front of the Roanoke Star just in case everything went dark. Then we could see everything without the light pollution, and be isolated in case the whole world went crazy.
We weren't the only people who had the idea, there were probably a dozen people hanging out. Of course, as the clock counted down to 0 and we entered the year 2000, nothing happened.
Of course, the 2012 scare doesn't have that slim air of legitimacy or believability. It only has the feeling that something gets when so many people believe in it. The Mayans didn't even have a concept of the end of the world at the time that they made their calendar, everything about it is ridiculous.
And yet, it's that little doubt that hits your brain. The world has to end sometime, doesn't it? One day actually will be our last, even if it's not the end of Earth as we know it.
That's the problem with apocalypse predictions, is that it reminds everyone of how ridiculous the world we live in really is sometimes. It's the idea that we could slip in the bathtub tomorrow, or come down with something and not get to a doctor in time. Because we have to live with that every day, and tamp it down all the time, when somebody predicts the end of the world it's a place to put all those fears and those doubts. So even people who are normally very rational think "well, what if?"
Of course that leads to all kinds of problems, people getting scammed, getting violent, acting irrationally, and on and on. Thankfully most people I know are going back to the same kind of idea I had during Y2K - getting together to celebrate and act silly and be with the people we care about.
I'll probably be at a party myself. But if this does turn out to be my last week of writing for my blog because the world is ending, I do want to leave this as my last big opinion statement - our world is crazy, and difficult, and painful but I have found my life to be worth the problems and the pain. I've been loved and cared for, and I've had the things I needed, and I couldn't ask for more than that, and so I simply want to say thank you.
If this is not my last blog entry ever, of course I'll go back to complaining about things next week.
Good luck with the apocalypse!
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Is the internet exhausting anybody else?
I've just spent a half hour writing up two different rants, only to delete them both.
The first one, because I knew it would be too difficult for me to really get across what I was trying to say, and I saw how it could be interpreted the wrong way and could be considered hurtful. Which not only would hurt people, which I don't want to do, but also could possibly bring down a bunch of angry people that I don't feel like dealing with. I'm too tired.
The second rant was about how tiring it was to deal with angry people, and some ideas about how I try to do things in order to not be an angry internet person. But then I realized that once again, it would take too many words for me to be completely clear about what I wanted to say, and I came across sounding a lot more responsible and clear headed than I think I really am. I'm also too tired to be that responsible.
Needing a subject for this blog post, I think clicked over to Facebook to see what people were saying, if anything sparked my creativity.
-One friend frequently posts things related to animal activism. Which I fully support, and I thought about writing about adopting shelter pets and supporting no-kill shelters, etc. But then I remembered an argument I saw in the comments of a mostly unrelated post on another blog today where it devolved into a pro-shelter person and a pro-breeder person insulting each other and I yawned because the argument is so old and nobody is budging.
-Another friend posted a link about how Facebook seems to be making people "like" companies and pages even when they don't want to. Facebook insists it's all the people accidentally liking things or maybe the company tricking them into liking things. Other people are showing evidence that people who have died are still clicking "like" and that's probably a red flag. I ended up spending a half hour going through my likes to make sure there wasn't anything weird (there wasn't) and that was tiring too.
-Everybody everywhere is posting about Christmas. Which has two effects: 1-Christmas is exhausting and 2-Facebook is grouping posts again and I hate that and wish it would stop, but the only thing I seem to be able to tell it is that it's an "inappropriate grouping" but it isn't, so what then? There's got to be a setting somewhere but I'm tired of trying to find a setting somewhere.
-I went over to tumblr, where I saw a ton of posts that could inspire me to write, but there were also tons and tons of posts all at once from a few people. I still don't understand how people can find the time to post that much, reblog that much, and generally create that much content. Plus, I don't understand why they don't use the queue feature to spread things out a little more evenly. Now I'm once again trying to figure out how much seeing a person post is worth it when 90% of what they post is of no interest to me, but 10% is cool. If it was spread out, I wouldn't care, but scrolling through three pages of boring is...boring.
-I went over to a favorite blog and I keep making the mistake of reading the comments. I like the idea of comments, I frequently want to know what other people think about things. But everybody seems to be jumping to extremes these days, with no room for in between or even discussion about topics. Especially if it involves parenting. And blogs seem to be eager to publish things that get them more angry comments and fights because that actually gets them more pageviews, which means more money. I don't fault them for that, I just wish we had a system that rewarded people for posting good things or something.
-And in the world of "first world problems" there's too much good stuff out there too. I read a couple dozen different webcomics, and that's after I've cut down and several of my favorites ended. Blogs, review sites, financial tips, consumer awareness, there's so much good information out there and I want to know as much as I can. But there's just SO MUCH and while they all often will just repeat each other, you never know which awesome blog will originate the good story next. How does anybody keep up, or do they just give up?
So yeah, the internet is making me tired today. Which is why I just wrote a thousand words about it...because that's what the internet is for, right?
The first one, because I knew it would be too difficult for me to really get across what I was trying to say, and I saw how it could be interpreted the wrong way and could be considered hurtful. Which not only would hurt people, which I don't want to do, but also could possibly bring down a bunch of angry people that I don't feel like dealing with. I'm too tired.
The second rant was about how tiring it was to deal with angry people, and some ideas about how I try to do things in order to not be an angry internet person. But then I realized that once again, it would take too many words for me to be completely clear about what I wanted to say, and I came across sounding a lot more responsible and clear headed than I think I really am. I'm also too tired to be that responsible.
Needing a subject for this blog post, I think clicked over to Facebook to see what people were saying, if anything sparked my creativity.
-One friend frequently posts things related to animal activism. Which I fully support, and I thought about writing about adopting shelter pets and supporting no-kill shelters, etc. But then I remembered an argument I saw in the comments of a mostly unrelated post on another blog today where it devolved into a pro-shelter person and a pro-breeder person insulting each other and I yawned because the argument is so old and nobody is budging.
-Another friend posted a link about how Facebook seems to be making people "like" companies and pages even when they don't want to. Facebook insists it's all the people accidentally liking things or maybe the company tricking them into liking things. Other people are showing evidence that people who have died are still clicking "like" and that's probably a red flag. I ended up spending a half hour going through my likes to make sure there wasn't anything weird (there wasn't) and that was tiring too.
-Everybody everywhere is posting about Christmas. Which has two effects: 1-Christmas is exhausting and 2-Facebook is grouping posts again and I hate that and wish it would stop, but the only thing I seem to be able to tell it is that it's an "inappropriate grouping" but it isn't, so what then? There's got to be a setting somewhere but I'm tired of trying to find a setting somewhere.
-I went over to tumblr, where I saw a ton of posts that could inspire me to write, but there were also tons and tons of posts all at once from a few people. I still don't understand how people can find the time to post that much, reblog that much, and generally create that much content. Plus, I don't understand why they don't use the queue feature to spread things out a little more evenly. Now I'm once again trying to figure out how much seeing a person post is worth it when 90% of what they post is of no interest to me, but 10% is cool. If it was spread out, I wouldn't care, but scrolling through three pages of boring is...boring.
-I went over to a favorite blog and I keep making the mistake of reading the comments. I like the idea of comments, I frequently want to know what other people think about things. But everybody seems to be jumping to extremes these days, with no room for in between or even discussion about topics. Especially if it involves parenting. And blogs seem to be eager to publish things that get them more angry comments and fights because that actually gets them more pageviews, which means more money. I don't fault them for that, I just wish we had a system that rewarded people for posting good things or something.
-And in the world of "first world problems" there's too much good stuff out there too. I read a couple dozen different webcomics, and that's after I've cut down and several of my favorites ended. Blogs, review sites, financial tips, consumer awareness, there's so much good information out there and I want to know as much as I can. But there's just SO MUCH and while they all often will just repeat each other, you never know which awesome blog will originate the good story next. How does anybody keep up, or do they just give up?
So yeah, the internet is making me tired today. Which is why I just wrote a thousand words about it...because that's what the internet is for, right?
Thursday, December 06, 2012
Just sleep more, it's easy!
So, for the last three or four days, I've had this really annoying twitch in my right eye. It comes and goes, nothing too bad, just annoying.
I was trying to figure out if there was something I could do about it. Can a warm or cold compress help, would any kind of OTC medication do any good, that kind of thing. Because I can tell it isn't anything problematic, and I'm almost certain it's just from looking at the computer too much because I've been working a lot.
I know that looking up medical advice online is a dangerous thing anyway. But you can usually separate a lot of the junk from the real knowledge relatively easily.
In this case, there were basically only two pieces of advice on every single site I checked: reduce stress and sleep more.
I had another medical issue earlier in the month, and the three different doctors during the course of the day told me I should try to reduce my stress (they didn't mention sleep, I don't think they heard me when I said I'd only slept a couple hours, there were other things on their minds).
It's made me start thinking about it, and how often in my life I've had doctors just tell me to be less stressed out and to sleep more. How often we're told that, repeatedly.
Sure, it's sound advice. We probably all need less stress and more sleep.
But it's nonsensical in a lot of ways, because at the end of the day stress and sleep schedules are widely outside of our control. There are some things we can do, but it only is so much.
Stress often comes from jobs or money, things that we can't just cut out or change or fix easily. At the moment a lot of mine comes from health care and health insurance. But all of the issues with that are pretty much out of my control. Literally an Act of Congress can't manage to take care of most of it.
In the past few months, a significant number of my friends have had problems with their living situations and had to move on short notice. Who knows how many people are currently fighting to deal with their underwater mortgages and foreclosures.
All of this unavoidable stress that so many people are under is of course causing them to have insomnia. Or they're working long hours at multiple jobs so that they can pay for things and don't have time to sleep. Not to mention that Americans all have this cult of exhaustion going on. Have you ever heard two people at a job trying to one up each other with how little sleep they've gotten or how many coffees they've had to drink to be awake. Heck, even the show I'm watching just had a joke about how "we can sleep when we're dead."
Not to mention, how many of us have had bosses that expect long hours and even extra work once you come home? We live in a society that wants us to sacrifice everything, including sleep, to get ahead. And if you don't want to make that sacrifice then you're not just punished, you're shamed and insulted. I once had a job where I had to argue with them repeatedly that it didn't matter if they offered me extra hours or overtime pay, I had other things I was doing (I was a grad student at the time, and I'm married) and that no amount of money was worth my little spare time.
If we're supposed to reduce our stress and sleep better to help our health, then maybe we need to start looking at larger problems in our society and how they're affecting us in both large and small ways.
I was trying to figure out if there was something I could do about it. Can a warm or cold compress help, would any kind of OTC medication do any good, that kind of thing. Because I can tell it isn't anything problematic, and I'm almost certain it's just from looking at the computer too much because I've been working a lot.
I know that looking up medical advice online is a dangerous thing anyway. But you can usually separate a lot of the junk from the real knowledge relatively easily.
In this case, there were basically only two pieces of advice on every single site I checked: reduce stress and sleep more.
I had another medical issue earlier in the month, and the three different doctors during the course of the day told me I should try to reduce my stress (they didn't mention sleep, I don't think they heard me when I said I'd only slept a couple hours, there were other things on their minds).
It's made me start thinking about it, and how often in my life I've had doctors just tell me to be less stressed out and to sleep more. How often we're told that, repeatedly.
Sure, it's sound advice. We probably all need less stress and more sleep.
But it's nonsensical in a lot of ways, because at the end of the day stress and sleep schedules are widely outside of our control. There are some things we can do, but it only is so much.
Stress often comes from jobs or money, things that we can't just cut out or change or fix easily. At the moment a lot of mine comes from health care and health insurance. But all of the issues with that are pretty much out of my control. Literally an Act of Congress can't manage to take care of most of it.
In the past few months, a significant number of my friends have had problems with their living situations and had to move on short notice. Who knows how many people are currently fighting to deal with their underwater mortgages and foreclosures.
All of this unavoidable stress that so many people are under is of course causing them to have insomnia. Or they're working long hours at multiple jobs so that they can pay for things and don't have time to sleep. Not to mention that Americans all have this cult of exhaustion going on. Have you ever heard two people at a job trying to one up each other with how little sleep they've gotten or how many coffees they've had to drink to be awake. Heck, even the show I'm watching just had a joke about how "we can sleep when we're dead."
Not to mention, how many of us have had bosses that expect long hours and even extra work once you come home? We live in a society that wants us to sacrifice everything, including sleep, to get ahead. And if you don't want to make that sacrifice then you're not just punished, you're shamed and insulted. I once had a job where I had to argue with them repeatedly that it didn't matter if they offered me extra hours or overtime pay, I had other things I was doing (I was a grad student at the time, and I'm married) and that no amount of money was worth my little spare time.
If we're supposed to reduce our stress and sleep better to help our health, then maybe we need to start looking at larger problems in our society and how they're affecting us in both large and small ways.
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Letting little girls be little girls
I read several advice columns on a regular basis, and one of them today had a letter from a stepmother who was butting heads with the mother of her seven-year-old stepdaughter over clothing, makeup, and apparently hair dye.
I have to say, if I was writing the column, my advice would have been, "then stop fighting and relax."
I admit, part of this perspective comes from the fact that my mom very rarely fought with me on these topics. I started dying my hair when I was a teenager, though I can't remember exactly when. And I didn't go with normal colors, I mostly tried out purple, green, blue, and other unnatural shades. I didn't wear makeup because I just didn't really care, but I would spend hours every week painting my nails with colors and patterns. The kind of thing you find on Pinterest now, that's really popular among a lot of age groups, that's what I was doing then.
I can still remember once when I went to a church function with my hair dyed purple, and somebody asked my mom why she let me do that. Mom just shrugged it off, saying that hair dye fades out, or hair grows out, so it wasn't like it was a big deal. I don't think I even understood why this was a big deal for me until recently, when I read a this quote:
This wasn't the first time I had heard this sentiment from Willow Smith's parents either, here's an older quote from Will Smith:
-Will Smith (quoted from ABC News)
And when I thought about it, I realized that by letting my dye my hair, and paint my nails, and letting me reflect my opinions and taste through how I presented myself, my mom was doing the same thing she'd done my whole life. She was letting me be independent and be myself. I was learning to make my own choices, I was learning that I was the ultimate authority on my own body. And sometimes, I lose that lesson in all the deluge of crap that women get faced with every day. Sometimes, I see a bunch of haters and trolls online insulting women for the sin of not being attractive enough and I forget.
I hope that the stepmother from the advice column takes a deep breath and thinks about WHY she cares so much. Why does she want her stepdaughter not to wear short shorts? Why does she want her not to wear lipstick? And then she should ask her stepdaughter why she wants to wear these things. Why, at seven, does she want to dye her hair? Is it to look like her mom? Is it because her favorite actress has a different hair color? Is she being teased at school? Quite a few girls start to want to alter their appearance and their bodies because they're being told they're ugly.
Or is this little girl being encouraged by her mom to do zany things because the mom is trying to get back at the stepmother? Or is the stepmother saying and doing things that the child is hearing as "I have to change to make myself pretty?"
At the end of the day, it's the why that matters, not the clothes. Not the haircut, not the makeup. Because if a seven year old looks at all the adult women in her life and sees that they wear makeup and hears women say that makeup makes them beautiful and that they aren't worth looking at until they've "put on their face" then she's going to internalize that to herself and want to follow. Adult women say these things themselves, this isn't just something little girls get from advertising.
It's only once she knows why that the stepmother can even approach the topic from a sensible angle that isn't just slapping down a little girl's control over her own body. And she'll lose that control to society pretty quickly if she isn't reminded that it's hers. This is a chance for the stepmother to help her daughter grow into a strong, confident, and intelligent young woman. And she wants to just say "no, there's a ban on shorts in my house."
Parenting is harder than any other job in this life, but I think we can do better than that.
I have to say, if I was writing the column, my advice would have been, "then stop fighting and relax."
I admit, part of this perspective comes from the fact that my mom very rarely fought with me on these topics. I started dying my hair when I was a teenager, though I can't remember exactly when. And I didn't go with normal colors, I mostly tried out purple, green, blue, and other unnatural shades. I didn't wear makeup because I just didn't really care, but I would spend hours every week painting my nails with colors and patterns. The kind of thing you find on Pinterest now, that's really popular among a lot of age groups, that's what I was doing then.
I can still remember once when I went to a church function with my hair dyed purple, and somebody asked my mom why she let me do that. Mom just shrugged it off, saying that hair dye fades out, or hair grows out, so it wasn't like it was a big deal. I don't think I even understood why this was a big deal for me until recently, when I read a this quote:
“This is a world where women, girls are constantly reminded that they don’t belong to themselves; that their bodies are not their own, nor their power or self determination. I made a promise to endow my little girl with the power to always know that her body, spirit and her mind are HER domain.-Jada Pinkett Smith (quoted from Refinery29)
Willow cut her hair because her beauty, her value, her worth is not measured by the length of her hair. It’s also a statement that claims that even little girls have the RIGHT to own themselves and should not be a slave to even their mother’s deepest insecurities, hopes and desires. Even little girls should not be a slave to the preconceived ideas of what a culture believes a little girl should be."
This wasn't the first time I had heard this sentiment from Willow Smith's parents either, here's an older quote from Will Smith:
"We let Willow cut her hair. When you have a little girl, it's like how can you teach her that you're in control of her body? If I teach her that I'm in charge of whether or not she can touch her hair, she's going to replace me with some other man when she goes out in the world. She can't cut my hair but that's her hair. She has got to have command of her body. So when she goes out into the world, she's going out with a command that it is hers. She is used to making those decisions herself. We try to keep giving them those decisions until they can hold the full weight of their lives."
-Will Smith (quoted from ABC News)
And when I thought about it, I realized that by letting my dye my hair, and paint my nails, and letting me reflect my opinions and taste through how I presented myself, my mom was doing the same thing she'd done my whole life. She was letting me be independent and be myself. I was learning to make my own choices, I was learning that I was the ultimate authority on my own body. And sometimes, I lose that lesson in all the deluge of crap that women get faced with every day. Sometimes, I see a bunch of haters and trolls online insulting women for the sin of not being attractive enough and I forget.
I hope that the stepmother from the advice column takes a deep breath and thinks about WHY she cares so much. Why does she want her stepdaughter not to wear short shorts? Why does she want her not to wear lipstick? And then she should ask her stepdaughter why she wants to wear these things. Why, at seven, does she want to dye her hair? Is it to look like her mom? Is it because her favorite actress has a different hair color? Is she being teased at school? Quite a few girls start to want to alter their appearance and their bodies because they're being told they're ugly.
Or is this little girl being encouraged by her mom to do zany things because the mom is trying to get back at the stepmother? Or is the stepmother saying and doing things that the child is hearing as "I have to change to make myself pretty?"
At the end of the day, it's the why that matters, not the clothes. Not the haircut, not the makeup. Because if a seven year old looks at all the adult women in her life and sees that they wear makeup and hears women say that makeup makes them beautiful and that they aren't worth looking at until they've "put on their face" then she's going to internalize that to herself and want to follow. Adult women say these things themselves, this isn't just something little girls get from advertising.
It's only once she knows why that the stepmother can even approach the topic from a sensible angle that isn't just slapping down a little girl's control over her own body. And she'll lose that control to society pretty quickly if she isn't reminded that it's hers. This is a chance for the stepmother to help her daughter grow into a strong, confident, and intelligent young woman. And she wants to just say "no, there's a ban on shorts in my house."
Parenting is harder than any other job in this life, but I think we can do better than that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)