An Open Apology

Staying indoors all day with a child who doesn't speak English that well gives me lots of time to brood. These broodings have led me to some new insights into my behavior, and I have brought it to my attention that I am sometimes unintentionally rude.  In this post I will be apologizing for and explaining my actions.

Rudeness #1: Asking if it's a child friendly event.

How its perceived: I'm putting you in an awkward position by asking this question.  If you wanted Nadia to come, you would have invited her.  But if you say it's not a child friendly party, so I should leave the kid at home,  then you feel obligated to throw a party full of hookers, pornography, cocaine, and machetes, which probably wasn't what you had in mind.

My explanation: I'm honestly just trying to figure out if I need to get a sitter or not.  

My solution: I will no longer do this.  If you don't invite Nadia specifically to an event, I will assume she is not invited.

I'm sorry.

Rudeness #2: Trying to figure out your race.

How it's Perceived: Well, I hope no one knows I'm doing it.  I'm not obvious about it, I don't make any comments, and I don't ask any questions.  At most, I might talk about my heritage, hoping that you'll chime in with yours, becoming disappointed when you don't.  BECAUSE YOU NEVER DO.

But if someone were to figure out that I'm trying to learn their race, this is what I imagine they'd think.

"Why do you need to know that?  So you can place me on some hierarchy, so you can treat me accordingly?  So you know which stereotypes to apply to me?  You're such a racist, Dana.  I hate you."

My Explanation:  NO!  It has nothing to do with racism, I swear!  I'm just curious and I want to know more about you!  Being raised in a community where 99% of everyone is white has rendered me completely unable to tell what ethnicity anyone is.  I seriously have no idea what race you are, unless you are milky pale like me.  For instance, my prom date in high school was one of the only non white people I knew, and I thought he was Indian or Pakistani, and I was surprised when he told me he was, in fact, Mexican.  His last name was Maldonado.  So you see what we're dealing with here,  I'm basically disabled at knowing your race, so it's kind of become a game for me, to try to figure it out.

Also, I'm hoping you're some ethnicity that has amazing food, and we will become friends and you'll give me your great grandmother's secret special recipe for Cambodian goulash or whatever.

I'm sorry.  Please know I don't mean anything nefarious.  I have no intention of hiding my valuables based on what I learn.

Rudeness #3: One upping your stories 

How it's perceived: You tell a story.  I tell a similar story.  You hate me because I'm trying to one up you.

My Explanation: I honestly didn't know that this was a thing that bothered people until fairly recently.  In my mind that's how conversations work.  You tell a story.  I think of a similar story, and share it with you.  We laugh over our shared experiences.  It's called bonding, you judgmental prick!  I'm trying to relate to you!  But no, you have to get all sensitive, and get all butt hurt because my story was better.

You know what?  No.  I'm actually not going to apologize for this one.

Rudenss #4: Shitting on things you love/tearing things apart

How it's perceived: "Dana is so rude.  Can you believe what she said about bicyclists?  I ride a bike, and I'm proud of it!  She obviously hates me."

My explanation:  There is no excuse.  This is the worst thing about me.  I tend to state my opinions frequently, using strong language.  I do this because I find it entertaining.  The more exaggerated I make my statements, the more entertained I am.  It makes me feel good to tear apart bad arguments, destroy bad logic, and criticize things I dislike.  It makes me so, so happy.  And I forget that most people take this kind of stuff personally.  In my mind, if I'm criticizing your wrong idea, or a show you like, it has nothing to do with YOU.  I still like YOU, even if I don't like all the things you like.  But most people don't separate themselves from their ideas or interests, and they feel personally attacked by my tirades.

This is my fault.  I AM working on it.  I'm trying to be more aware of it when I'm being negative, and I'm trying to only say nice things about the stuff people like, when I'm talking to them.  I am very, truly sorry.  

Say His Name

In the wake of yet another mass shooting, many people are calling for news outlets to maintain the anonymity of the shooter.  First of all, let me just say that I respect this position, and if you choose to refrain from using the shooter's name, more power to you.  However, though I respect this position, I disagree with it.  Here's why -

The arguments against using the shooter's name, as I understand them, are these -

1) Using his name when reporting on the shooting is somehow honoring him, and giving him fame.

My Rebuttal:

No.  It's not.  Attention is not the same as adulation.  Yes, if the news anchors were like, "The talented, brilliant and handsome Eric Cartman killed ten people today, which really showed the bastards who was the superior being.  A link to Mr. Cartman's manifesto can be found here..." OK, then yes.  That would be glorifying him, but that is NOT what is being said.  All of the attention is negative attention.

2) Giving the killer attention is giving him what he wants.  After all, these guys just do it for the attention.

My Rebuttal: 

Look.  I'm familiar with attention seeking behavior.  The nine year old who shoots spitballs in class.  The woman who has every food allergy under the sun, and is afraid of pineapples.  The guy with the obscenely huge truck.  These are all examples of things people do "just for attention".  "Mass murder" is not attention seeking behavior.  Yes, the desire for recognition may be a part of their motivations, but their pathologies go much, much MUCH deeper than "Hey, everyone look at me!"

3) Using the killer's name will give new killers someone to emulate.

My Rebuttal: 

I'm not a psychologist.  But I've read so many books about psychology, serial killers, mass shooters.  So many, you guys!  And I've watched a bunch of documentaries about this stuff too.  So yeah, I'm pretty much a psychologist. 

Mass shooters don't tend to be "copycats".  It might seem like that, because they all use guns and kill innnocent people, but they don't do it to honor other shooters, or because they idolize other shooters, at least not specifically.  Yes, they might get the idea to do a shooting because of other shootings they've heard about, but it's the actions that are inspirational to them, not the murderers.  

But aside from all these rebuttals and such, I honestly wonder: what is to be gained from preserving the shooter's anonymity?   Will prospective shooters of the future say to themselves, "Well, I was going to shoot up a movie theater today, but you know, when that last shooting happened, no one said his name, so...I guess I'll just get to work on this term paper."  

Have you ever read he Harry Potter books?  In them, the bad guy is named "Voldemort".  Voldemort is so very, very evil that most people are afraid to say his name, because it causes bad feelings.  I think this may be a part of the motivation behind the movement to stop saying the killer's name.  I think people are afraid when confronted with this kind of evil.  

But here's the thing.  By keeping the shooters anonymous, we are not helping the situation.  I honestly do not believe that keeping him nameless will act as any kind of deterrent for shooters in the future.  I truly don't believe that it will help.   What I do think it will do, is turn the shooters into nameless boogymen, which will create an even greater climate of fear.  Fear breeds irrationality.  Fear and irrationallity beget more violence.  

Worst of all, if we can't name the evil, the evil becomes disembodied and amorphous.  The shooters are anyone, could be anywhere.  And then the problem of mass shootings starts to seem like a problem that we cannot solve.  And we can solve this problem.  I truly believe that.  But we have to believe that we can, and we have to approach it rationally, without fear.

*****

Interestingly, I do think there is one good reason for maintaining the shooter's anonymity; one that's never brought up - and that is protecting the family of the shooter.  Let's face it, if people know that your brother killed dozens of innocent shoppers at a mall, people are going to look at you funny.  Employers might not want to hire you; after all, what if you're just as batshit crazy as your brother?  Would a woman want to marry into your family?  Probably not.  Even if you're the nicest, sanest person in the world, the stain of what your brother did will follow you forever.  

Stop It, Workout Instructors

I go to the gym six times per week, and I take lots of classes.  I need to work out a lot to keep myself sane, and under two hundred pounds.  And while I love most of my instructors, some of the things they do drive me insane.  Here is a list of things fitness instructors need to knock the fuck off.

1) Pretending they don't know what numbers are. 

Not all instructors do this, but enough do it that it needs to be addressed.  You'll be doing pushups or whatever, and the instructor will say "Four more!".  You'll prepare yourself mentally, rationing your energy so as to complete those last four to the best of your ability.  And the smartass instructor will go "Four, three, two, two, two, two, two...aaaaaand ONE!" and then she'll laugh.

Well, I refuse to participate in her sick games.  As soon as I've completed my four, I simply stop and stare at her until she's done pretending to be an idiot who can't count.  I urge you to do as I do.  Eventually the instructors will get the hint and stop trying to fuck with our heads.

2) Insisting that students whoop and holler like trailer trash.

Every.  Single.  Instructor.  Does this.  (Except yoga instructors, obviously.)  At some point during the class, the instructor will say "Wow.  You're all so quiet today!".  Because instructors are an extroverted bunch, and they become intensely uncomfortable with the slightest bit of quiet.  They need constant validation from their students that they are, in fact, enjoying themselves, and unless the students clap and carry on like drunks, the instructors feel blank and hollow inside.  

Dear Instructors: We do enjoy your class.  If we didn't we wouldn't come.  Not everyone likes to scream and shout, especially not when we're sweaty and breathless from exertion.  Learn to love yourself, Dear Instructor.   Your self esteem will shine from within, and it will draw us toward you, like moths to a flame.  

Or, you know, at least let us maintain what's left of our dignity.

3) Insisting that we need to burn off the claories from whatever holiday has happened recently.

I kid you not - in February, I had to hear about working off the Valentine's Day chocolate until FEBRUARY 28TH.  No one eats so much chocolate on Valentines Day that they are still working it off weeks later.  Or rather, the people who eat that much chocolate are probably not hanging out at the gym much.   But it's also Christmas, Thanksgiving, Fourth of July, Labor Day, whatever.  You can bet that if there's been a holiday within a week of the class you're taking, every instructor will make the same lame ass corny joke about how we need to burn off those Black History Month calories or whatever.  Stop it, Instructors.  Stop it!

4)Instructing  us how to smile.

"OK, now extend from the elbow.  And press.  Press.  Press.  And press.  Now lift.  Lift. Lift and lift.  Now bend the knees. And hold.  Pulse.  Pulse.  And turn the corners of your mouth up."  Then shel'll smile at her little joke.  She's tricked us into smiling!  Isn't that precious?

Dear Instructor:  We aren't smiling for a reason.  You are hurting us.  We are in physical pain.  Tricking us into smiling will only make us hate you.  It is not helpful.  It burns no calories.  Just let us be.

Hate

When I was a little girl, I knew several children who were forbidden to use the word "hate".  I distinctly remember a lilttle girl singing "I dislike myself for loving you" on the schoolbus, and thinking she was ridiculous.  After all, "hate" wasn't even a swear word.  What was her deal?

Now, many years later, I still don't really understand the thinking behind this rule.  I figure it must be one of two things - 

1) By prohibiliting the word "hate" you would somehow prohibit the feeling.  You would create a psychological environment in your child where hate was simply not allowed; it wasn't even a thing.  Or at the very least, by removing the word "hate" from the vocabulary, you would dull the child's negative emotions, muting them to mere "dislike" or "annoyance".  

Or, perhaps - 

2) The parents thought it was perfectly okay to feel hate, just not to express it.  

I very much doubt that it was a successful strategy, either way.

I sort of get it.  Hate is generally a very bad thing.  Hatred is the cause of most of the evil in the world.  I totally get wanting to protect your child from it in all of its forms.  And yes, "hate" is a very strong word, and I absolutely support rules prohibiting children from saying "I hate you", or other hurtful language, when it's not justified.

But, like it or not, hate is a part of life, and most everyone will experience a feeling of hatred at some point or another.  It seems to me that trying to ban the very concept of hate, or teaching children to simply ignore hate, is silly, and perhaps even dangerous.  

Because hate does exist.  It is a thing.  I wish I could talk to some of these mothers to see what their intentions were when they made this rule.  I don't judge them harshly - I think their intentions were probably good - and so I would like to hear their side of the story.   Did they ban other words for things they didn't like - things like "sex" and "sugar" and "war" and "guns"?  I'm honestly curious.

Home Sweet Home

I recently met a woman who was born and raised in Los Angeles.  She told me that she felt like a loser, because she'd never lived anywhere else.  She'd gone to college at UCLA, and then got a job in LA, and still lives there now.  

"That in no way makes you a loser" I said, emphatically.  "LA is basically paradise, but with shitty parking.  Why would you feel the need to move?  Everything good is here!"

She explained that she didn't want to be one of those people who never left her hometown.

And I realized that lots of people have this attitude.  They buy in to this notion that if you don't move far away from home, as soon as you're done with school, you've somehow failed at life, and you suck.  

I personally think this is ridiculous.  Whether or not you're a loser is not dependent on whether or not you leave your hometown.  That really depends on where your hometown is, and why you stayed there.  For instance, if your dream is to run a farm, and  you were raised in a rural area, then it doesn't make you a loser to stay in that rural area.  If it's important to you to live in a safe place with a real sense of community, and you were born in a beautiful, friendly small town, it only makes sense to stay there.  And of course, if you were born in a big city, and you love city life, there's no reason to move!  There just isn't.

Of course, it's a good idea to see more of the world, so you don't wind up being a provincial hick - but it's entirely possible to do that and return to your hometown when you're done.  

I would argue that you're only a loser if you stay in your hometown if said hometown is a backwards shithole, and you are only staying there because you've screwed yourself out of options, or you don't have the gumption to make life decisions, and you're just succumbing to inertia.

I left my hometown, but I don't consider myself to be superior or more successful than others because I did so.  I left because there was no way for me to have a good life or be happy there.  I'm someone who needs sunshine and warmth.  I need opera houses and independent theaters and fancy restaurants and Anthropologie and Disneyland.  If I had stayed, I probably would have wound up drinking myself to death, and that's probably not an exaggeration.  Still to this day, when I see Facebook posts from people who stayed in my hometown, it's all like "That same tweaker from last week just took a shit on my front porch again" and "Dude, why do my neighbors keep coming to my house at 3:00am asking for Sudafed?" and pictures of storm damage.  Not the place for me and my family.

That being said, I think it is extremely important to have family nearby.  I would be so extraordinarily  happy if I had more family that lived close to me!  Especially now that I have a child.  It would be so nice to be able to call up a relative and say "Hey, can I drop Nadia off on Friday?  We're going to see a play" and then not have to worry about paying a sitter, child abuse, etc.  Or if I get a stomach virus and am incapacitated, it would be great to call up a relative and say "Hey, can you take Nadia out of here so she doesn't get sick or die from neglect while I spend all my time vomiting?" And Nadia would have the experience of growing up in an extended family, with picnics and birthday parties and shit.  

And those types of experiences are not just important for me - they're important for everyone.  Children were not meant to be raised in a bubble with no one but their parents to call family.  Of course, it can be done, and it can be done successfully, but it's hard, and not as rich.

So if you've made a decision to stay in your hometown, do not feel embarassed about it, or like you've failed at life.  Bottom line, if you are able to have the life you want in the place where you were born, then it's a really, really smart idea to stay there.  Why abandon your family and friends, just because?  Family is important.  Friends are important.  Moving for the sole purpose of making yourself seem more successful?  Not that important.  

Children's Programs and Parenting Skills

Lots of times when I'm watching Daniel Tiger or Sesame Street, I get the distinct impression that the shows are trying to coach me in how to be a proper parent.  (Note: being a good parent, according to kids' shows, generally means pretending that you've had an ice pick lobotomy.)

Here's the thing.  It's one thing for these shows to teach kids to count to ten, or to know their shapes or whatever.  These are reasonably simple, straightforward tasks that can easily be learned via puppet instruction.  But if you, as an adult, go to Stinky the Plant and Elmo for lessons on how to raise a child, your problems are deep and serious.  They are not the type of problems that can be solved with a song and dance routine, however cleverly crafted.

I don't find the parenting lessons insulting, exactly.  They don't make me angry.  On the contrary, I think the makers of the shows are well intentioned.  But it makes me feel depressed that there might be parents who need to be instructed in such basic matters, in such basic fashion, and that there are TV show producers who feel that they are the ones who need to provide this instruction.  

Phil Quotes

Phil is wonderful.  Here are some wonderful Phil quotes for your enjoyment.

"Bellingham is a very conservative town."

Me: "Are you telling me that more than one person here owns a private island?"

Phil: "It's not that big of a deal, Honey.  Lots of people own islands."

(To a man who wrongly accused me of letting my dog poo on his lawn)

"You need to stop harassing my wife, or I will take a shit on your lawn!"

Me: Do you think I'm wasting my brains by teaching yoga?

Phil: (laughs and laughs) I am not touching that question with a ten foot pole.

Me: What?  No, I won't get mad.  I just want to know what you think!

Phil: (goes into the kitchen and turns on the faucet) I can't hear you over the water!

Me: I just mean-

Phil: No, I still can't hear you!

(Driving past the multimillion dollar homes on the way to The Huntington)

"I bet all these people get really annoyed that cars drive past their houses all the time to get to The Huntington."

Only Phil has sympathy for the poor, poor rich people who have to deal with cars driving on the roads.