1)Sheldon, from "The Big Bang Theory" - examples:
A)He has "bus pants". So? I used to have a "bus coat" that protected me from bus germs. Have you ever BEEN on a bus? Filthy.
B) He has a "spot" on the couch. So? So do most people. Most people just don't have the guts to kick people ouf of their spots.
C) While trying to make date conversation (with Leonard's date Stephanie) he proposes the topic "Alternate history: How would the Civil War have been different if Abraham Lincoln were a robot?". If someone ever proposed this topic to me on a date, I would propose marriage to him, immediately, and we would spend our long, fascinating lives together.
D) He chastises Penny for sleeping on the couch incorrectly, because she faces away from the door, making herself vulnerable to people breaking into the apartment. Ummm....he's absolutely right. Everyone knows that you don't sleep facing away from the door. How COULD you sleep facing away from the door? Is that even possible to do for a full night?
2)Lisbeth Salander from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series - examples:
A)She is quiet and introverted. So? Lots of people are quiet and introverted. It doesn't mean she's "weird" or that she has Asperger's. So she doesn't go around with a fake smile on her face all day. So? She's not in a Miss America pageant....so yeah...
B)She has her own moral compass, and understands that morality and the law are not the same thing. Ummmm...that's called "being an adult" and "having a moral compass". As an adult, you are supposed to be able to think for yourself and determine the difference between right and wrong ON YOUR OWN. You aren't SUPPOSED to just accept that if it's illegal it's bad, and if it's legal it's good. Otherwise we would still have legal wife beatings and brown people would be banned from public restrooms.
C)She wears punk clothes, is skinny and short, and dyes her hair black. Uh, don't most girls go through this phase at one point or another? Hmmm...maybe not in Sweden? Because it's really not so strange here in America.
D) She is a computer hacking genius. Well good for her! That makes her smart and skilled, but not "weird" or "crazy".
E) She tried to kill her father. Well, good for her! He just beat her mother so badly that she had permanent brain damage. What would you do in a situation like that? Probably the same exact thing - most of us would. How was she supposed to protect herself and her family,when the police were unable/unwilling to restrain him or help her? Since no one was willing to save her, she had to save herself. Not strange.
3)Jacob from "House Rules".
His social skills coach tells him that on his date to the school dance, he's supposed to ask questions like "What colleges are you visiting?" and avoid topics like "the farm in TN where researchers can study bodies in different stages of decay". Um, really? Because I would much rather be on a date with the "dead body farm guy" then the "What's your major going to be?" guy.
4)Mike Tyson biting the ear of Evander Holyfield.
So? They were fighting. The point is to win, yes?
5)The mad wife from "Jane Eyre".
If my husband locked me in a room with a drunk and wouldn't let me out, I'd probably get violent too. I may even try to set the place on fire. And I would be angry if he started courting the governess under my nose, while I was locked up with the drunk. I don't feel her actions are all that irrational. In fact, I almost wrote a novel from the mad wife's point of view, and then discovered that it had already been done. :(
Those are just a few. I had some other ones, but I forgot them.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Following My Bliss Like a Dirty Hippie
Fair warning: this blog won't be that funny. Unless you find my existential angst funny.
So after much thought, I think I've decided to go to yoga teacher training, and become a yoga teacher. I would specialize in restorative yoga and maybe chair yoga as well. I've been doing yoga for years now, and it makes me happy, and I think a career in yoga would make me happier still. So, here are my decision making lists:
Reasons Why I Am Not Suited to an Office Job
1)the constant shoe wearing
2)I dislike being bossed around and taking orders. Actually, "dislike" is a pretty weak term for my feelings regarding subservience. Unless you are God, you don't get to boss me around, because you are not superior to me. I feel I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions, organizing my own work day, and generally handling my business. I fully admit that I have a somewhat immature resentment of human authority figures, but in all honesty, I have no desire to remedy this character flaw. Instead, I just want to be my own boss.
Do you see why this is a problem for me, since I work in an office environment?
3) I hate customer service. This is not to be confused with hating people. I generally like people. But not when I have to serve them, and especially when I have to serve them in ways that don't matter at all in the grand scheme of things.
4)I'm a "big picture" person. Office work requires excessive attention to mundane details. It makes me want to jam a fork in my eye to relieve the tedium.
5)Office chit-chat - not a fan.
6) Offices are bland, horribly dull places with white walls, excessive air conditioning, ugly gray machinery, constant phone ringing, monochromatic color palettes, and ugly carpets. It's the kind of environment that is only conducive to depression and/or self mutilation.
7) Office equipment and cubicles are designed for people of average size, and those of us who are not average sized are essentially told on a daily basis that we should just fuck off and join a traveling freak show already.
Basically, I just don't have the temperament to sit in an office all day doing boring things.
Reasons Why I Should Be a Yoga Instructor:
1)I am passionate about yoga, particularly bringing it to underserved populations, like people in wheelchairs, the elderly and the obese. I think I would be really good at that.
2)No shoes required!
3)I can be my own boss and make my own schedule!
4)I love yoga studios. I love the high, airy ceilings, the beautiful paint colors that range from crisp, sky blues to rich, deep reds and oranges. I love the smooth wooden floors and the large, clean windows. I even love the smells of patchouli and lavender that are, you know, everywhere. This environment is conducive to things like happiness, relaxation and calm.
5)I like the idea of helping people with anxiety problems. Restorative yoga is one of the best ways to deal with excessive anxiety - I know, because it certainly helped me.
6)As a yoga instructor, I would get to travel to attend retreats and trainings. Sometimes to really cool places like Bali and Hawaii. (A lot seem to be in Thailand, as well, but of course I would never go to Thailand. No trip to Thailand ever goes well. It's always diarrhea, injuries and unjust imprisonment. But that's another story.)
7) It would really cut down on my own stress levels, which are always too high.
8) It would benefit my health as well.
9) When I have kids, I can easily arrange my schedule to accommodate them.
10) Maybe someday I can renovate my garage and turn it into my own little yoga studio! I would decorate it like a Persian harem with big Oriental rugs and plush pillows and swords mounted on the walls and filmy scarves draped all over everything! OR, I would do a totally Zen-Japanese garden style studio with lots of minimalist flat surfaces, and like, a bonsai tree in the corner! So fantastic! I would make a beautiful sanctuary for my clients, where they could come and just be happy and free and relaxed for a while.
So yeah, we shall see. A lot of my plans have fizzled out lately, so lets hope this one works out. Because I'm running out of ideas.
So after much thought, I think I've decided to go to yoga teacher training, and become a yoga teacher. I would specialize in restorative yoga and maybe chair yoga as well. I've been doing yoga for years now, and it makes me happy, and I think a career in yoga would make me happier still. So, here are my decision making lists:
Reasons Why I Am Not Suited to an Office Job
1)the constant shoe wearing
2)I dislike being bossed around and taking orders. Actually, "dislike" is a pretty weak term for my feelings regarding subservience. Unless you are God, you don't get to boss me around, because you are not superior to me. I feel I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions, organizing my own work day, and generally handling my business. I fully admit that I have a somewhat immature resentment of human authority figures, but in all honesty, I have no desire to remedy this character flaw. Instead, I just want to be my own boss.
Do you see why this is a problem for me, since I work in an office environment?
3) I hate customer service. This is not to be confused with hating people. I generally like people. But not when I have to serve them, and especially when I have to serve them in ways that don't matter at all in the grand scheme of things.
4)I'm a "big picture" person. Office work requires excessive attention to mundane details. It makes me want to jam a fork in my eye to relieve the tedium.
5)Office chit-chat - not a fan.
6) Offices are bland, horribly dull places with white walls, excessive air conditioning, ugly gray machinery, constant phone ringing, monochromatic color palettes, and ugly carpets. It's the kind of environment that is only conducive to depression and/or self mutilation.
7) Office equipment and cubicles are designed for people of average size, and those of us who are not average sized are essentially told on a daily basis that we should just fuck off and join a traveling freak show already.
Basically, I just don't have the temperament to sit in an office all day doing boring things.
Reasons Why I Should Be a Yoga Instructor:
1)I am passionate about yoga, particularly bringing it to underserved populations, like people in wheelchairs, the elderly and the obese. I think I would be really good at that.
2)No shoes required!
3)I can be my own boss and make my own schedule!
4)I love yoga studios. I love the high, airy ceilings, the beautiful paint colors that range from crisp, sky blues to rich, deep reds and oranges. I love the smooth wooden floors and the large, clean windows. I even love the smells of patchouli and lavender that are, you know, everywhere. This environment is conducive to things like happiness, relaxation and calm.
5)I like the idea of helping people with anxiety problems. Restorative yoga is one of the best ways to deal with excessive anxiety - I know, because it certainly helped me.
6)As a yoga instructor, I would get to travel to attend retreats and trainings. Sometimes to really cool places like Bali and Hawaii. (A lot seem to be in Thailand, as well, but of course I would never go to Thailand. No trip to Thailand ever goes well. It's always diarrhea, injuries and unjust imprisonment. But that's another story.)
7) It would really cut down on my own stress levels, which are always too high.
8) It would benefit my health as well.
9) When I have kids, I can easily arrange my schedule to accommodate them.
10) Maybe someday I can renovate my garage and turn it into my own little yoga studio! I would decorate it like a Persian harem with big Oriental rugs and plush pillows and swords mounted on the walls and filmy scarves draped all over everything! OR, I would do a totally Zen-Japanese garden style studio with lots of minimalist flat surfaces, and like, a bonsai tree in the corner! So fantastic! I would make a beautiful sanctuary for my clients, where they could come and just be happy and free and relaxed for a while.
So yeah, we shall see. A lot of my plans have fizzled out lately, so lets hope this one works out. Because I'm running out of ideas.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Battle Hymn of the House Cat Mother
There are many different "types" of mothers. As Phil and I get older, I feel more and more like I should be having babies NOW, and so I have to start thinking about what type of mother I want to be. This is harder than it sounds.
I certainly know what kind of mother I don't want to be. I don't want to be abusive or neglectful. I don't want to be a mean awful bitch. I don't want to be one of those permissive "friend" moms who give their kids liquor and weed because "experimenting is healthy" and "it's better for them to do it at home, where I know they're safe". (I see these kinds of shoddy reasonings simply as rationalizations for lazy parenting. Just admit that you're lazy and don't want the job of "parent". It's more honorable than trying to slap some sketchily drawn up ideology onto it.) I don't want to be one of those sickly sweet moms who makes you feel like you're drowning in maple syrup by saying things like "Angels are the sunshine that bring smiles to our hearts" or "There are no stupid questions".
But knowing what I don't want to be is only half the battle. I have to know what I DO want to be. The problem is, what I would like to be is a "perfect" mom. The problem is "perfect" moms have to be EVERYTHING. They have to be strong, yet kind. Independent, yet willing to sacrifice everything for their children. They have to supportive and nurturing. They have to be good at keeping things sanitized, and they have to attend all their kids' events and they have to puree organic baby food and help them with their homework.
I'm not cut out to be a "perfect" mom. I am strong and kind, but my kindness is often hidden, and I'm not always good at expressing it. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING for my children. A lot, but not all. I'm very bad at comforting. Ask anyone I've tried to comfort. I would only be supportive if I thought my kids were making good decisions. If I felt they were making bad decisions, I could not stand by and let it happen. A lot of parents feel that they should allow their children to make their own mistakes, and I see their points, but I myself intend to prevent my children from making as many mistakes as I can, at least until they're 21 and are safely out of the "retard" phase of psychological development. I hate watching sporting events and school concerts. No matter how much I want to, I will never be a "perfect" mom. I don't have what it takes.
So I did what no doubt you all expected me to do. I started reading parenting books to try to find the best strategies for raising children. For instance, I highly recommend "Nurtureshock" if you are a parent or are considering having children. Mind blowing! I read "My Life in 23 Yoga Poses" to learn how to be an enlightened, intellectual mother, and realized that I'm not cut out for Seattle-Bohemian-Bourgeouis parenting either. I would never send my kids to a co-op school where they play make-believe all day in unwashed dress up clothes. Ewww.
But I did find one type of motherhood that I feel I can achieve. And I found it in the most horrifying of all places. That's right. "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom".
To be a "tiger mom" or "Chinese mother" (the author uses the terms interchangeably) you need the following skills: 1) An ability to suppress your tender emotions 2)Obsessive personality traits 3)A knowledge that patronizing children and treating them like cute little monsters does nothing to encourage their development. 4) A mean streak 5) A fierce, fanatical love that will do anything - ANYTHING - to make sure your loved ones are happy and successful. Even if it means they hate you in the short term. You aren't trying to win their friendship. You're trying to maintain their respect for you. 6) Knowledge that your kids aren't as psychologically fragile as American society makes them out to be. They can work just as hard as adults can; harder even because they have more energy.
I have all of these traits. Which is not to say that I am 100% suited to the tiger mom role. For instance, I don't know that I could ever punish my child for coming in second in an essay contest. Nor do I think I could punish my children for writing a bad eulogy for their dead grandmother. When it comes to things like that, I know that I don't have what it takes.
But could I make my kid practice violin 3 hours a day? Could I painstakingly write pages and pages of practice homework for them to do, drilling them to make sure they know their vocabulary and times tables backwards and forwards? Could I make SURE that they enter kindergarten knowing how to read, play an instrument, speak rudimentary French and do basic math? You bet I could. It would be harder for me NOT to do those things. Psycho? Perhaps. Will my kids hate me? Absolutely. But they will also be successful, and fully aware of the fact that they are capable of accomplishing anything with the tools I have given them.
I'm not saying I'm going to be a full on tiger mom. As I said, I don't have what it takes. I don't honestly think I could reject a card my kids made for me for my birthday because they didn't put any effort into it, nor would I drag them to music stores for practice sessions while we are on vacation. But it's the parenting style that best suits my natural abilities, frankly. So maybe the compromise is to be a "house cat" mom. Not quite as vicious as the tiger, but of the same family of animals/mothers. As long as I don't wind up being a "guppy" mom or a "hamster" mom, I'll be satisfied.
But then again, I said I was going to be really strict with my puppy too. My soft, sappy, hidden heart is my downfall.
I certainly know what kind of mother I don't want to be. I don't want to be abusive or neglectful. I don't want to be a mean awful bitch. I don't want to be one of those permissive "friend" moms who give their kids liquor and weed because "experimenting is healthy" and "it's better for them to do it at home, where I know they're safe". (I see these kinds of shoddy reasonings simply as rationalizations for lazy parenting. Just admit that you're lazy and don't want the job of "parent". It's more honorable than trying to slap some sketchily drawn up ideology onto it.) I don't want to be one of those sickly sweet moms who makes you feel like you're drowning in maple syrup by saying things like "Angels are the sunshine that bring smiles to our hearts" or "There are no stupid questions".
But knowing what I don't want to be is only half the battle. I have to know what I DO want to be. The problem is, what I would like to be is a "perfect" mom. The problem is "perfect" moms have to be EVERYTHING. They have to be strong, yet kind. Independent, yet willing to sacrifice everything for their children. They have to supportive and nurturing. They have to be good at keeping things sanitized, and they have to attend all their kids' events and they have to puree organic baby food and help them with their homework.
I'm not cut out to be a "perfect" mom. I am strong and kind, but my kindness is often hidden, and I'm not always good at expressing it. Quite frankly, I wouldn't be willing to sacrifice EVERYTHING for my children. A lot, but not all. I'm very bad at comforting. Ask anyone I've tried to comfort. I would only be supportive if I thought my kids were making good decisions. If I felt they were making bad decisions, I could not stand by and let it happen. A lot of parents feel that they should allow their children to make their own mistakes, and I see their points, but I myself intend to prevent my children from making as many mistakes as I can, at least until they're 21 and are safely out of the "retard" phase of psychological development. I hate watching sporting events and school concerts. No matter how much I want to, I will never be a "perfect" mom. I don't have what it takes.
So I did what no doubt you all expected me to do. I started reading parenting books to try to find the best strategies for raising children. For instance, I highly recommend "Nurtureshock" if you are a parent or are considering having children. Mind blowing! I read "My Life in 23 Yoga Poses" to learn how to be an enlightened, intellectual mother, and realized that I'm not cut out for Seattle-Bohemian-Bourgeouis parenting either. I would never send my kids to a co-op school where they play make-believe all day in unwashed dress up clothes. Ewww.
But I did find one type of motherhood that I feel I can achieve. And I found it in the most horrifying of all places. That's right. "Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom".
To be a "tiger mom" or "Chinese mother" (the author uses the terms interchangeably) you need the following skills: 1) An ability to suppress your tender emotions 2)Obsessive personality traits 3)A knowledge that patronizing children and treating them like cute little monsters does nothing to encourage their development. 4) A mean streak 5) A fierce, fanatical love that will do anything - ANYTHING - to make sure your loved ones are happy and successful. Even if it means they hate you in the short term. You aren't trying to win their friendship. You're trying to maintain their respect for you. 6) Knowledge that your kids aren't as psychologically fragile as American society makes them out to be. They can work just as hard as adults can; harder even because they have more energy.
I have all of these traits. Which is not to say that I am 100% suited to the tiger mom role. For instance, I don't know that I could ever punish my child for coming in second in an essay contest. Nor do I think I could punish my children for writing a bad eulogy for their dead grandmother. When it comes to things like that, I know that I don't have what it takes.
But could I make my kid practice violin 3 hours a day? Could I painstakingly write pages and pages of practice homework for them to do, drilling them to make sure they know their vocabulary and times tables backwards and forwards? Could I make SURE that they enter kindergarten knowing how to read, play an instrument, speak rudimentary French and do basic math? You bet I could. It would be harder for me NOT to do those things. Psycho? Perhaps. Will my kids hate me? Absolutely. But they will also be successful, and fully aware of the fact that they are capable of accomplishing anything with the tools I have given them.
I'm not saying I'm going to be a full on tiger mom. As I said, I don't have what it takes. I don't honestly think I could reject a card my kids made for me for my birthday because they didn't put any effort into it, nor would I drag them to music stores for practice sessions while we are on vacation. But it's the parenting style that best suits my natural abilities, frankly. So maybe the compromise is to be a "house cat" mom. Not quite as vicious as the tiger, but of the same family of animals/mothers. As long as I don't wind up being a "guppy" mom or a "hamster" mom, I'll be satisfied.
But then again, I said I was going to be really strict with my puppy too. My soft, sappy, hidden heart is my downfall.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
These Things Don't Bother Me, But Seem To Bother A Lot Of Other People
1) Steroid use by professional athletes.
I honestly don't understand why anyone cares. The point is for the athletes to be the best they can be, and to win, yes? So why shouldn't they take advantage of a resource that enables them to be the best? And the arguments against steroid use are so irrational! Here they are:
a) "It's not fair to the athletes who don't use steroids." This is ridiculous. The athletes who don't use steroids are making a choice. They make this choice because they don't care as much about winning as their steroid using coworkers, plain and simple. If they were truly fierce competitors, they would enhance their strength and speed by any means necessary.
Besides, the concept if "fair" and "fairness" is retarded. Is it "fair" that I was born short, and female with bad eyesight, thereby guaranteeing that I will never play for the NBA? No it isn't "fair" but I don't sit around crying about it. Life is not about making things "fair", it's about making use of your particular set of advantages. And EVERYONE has a set of advantages. I was born into a poor family. Do I demand that everyone else also be poor, so that things are "fair"? No. I realize that I have some advantages that other people do not, and I make use of those.
An athlete who does not use steroids is simply denying herself access to one of her most powerful resources. And she is also denying sports fans of a much better show. Because from what I understand, the most exciting sports events are ones in which people accomplish almost superhuman feats of strength and stamina and skill. Not the ones where the entire game is average in the name of "fairness".
"Fairness" is a concept developed by those who are bitter about not winning.
b) "Steroids are bad for you." Well, the claims that steroids are bad for you are wildly exaggerated. If you do your research, more people die per year from smoking weed. Yes. Steroids are safer than weed, statistically speaking. Yes, if used in excess they can have negative side effects, but many many people use them - way more than you would think - and you aren't constantly being attacked by "roid ragers" every time you go to the gym, right? No. You aren't.
c) "It's not fair that these young punks are able to break records of famous athletes from the past because of steroid use. It's not fair dagnabbit!" Well that's like saying "It's not fair that these youngsters can write term papers on a computer instead of by hand! Back in the day, we had to sharpen pencils and such! It's not fair!" Or "It's not fair that these youngsters can get on a plane and fly off to Italy. Back in the day, travelers had to go by boat and it took seven years. It's not fair!". Technology changes things. The world moves on. We now have the technology to build stronger, faster people. Deal with it.
2)I don't understand why women get angry when someone calls them "ma'am". Supposedly it makes them feel old. But the fact of the matter is, "Ma'am" is a term of respect, and it has nothing to do with how old you are. I get called "ma'am" every once in a while, and I happen to know I don't look like an old lady. Don't be so senstive, you weird women. It's not like she called you "Old Cow" or something.
3) Living in Southern California, people complain a lot about drivers slowing down to look at accidents. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it though. It's human nature. You want to see where the danger is - it's a biological imperitive. "How bad is it? Can I avoid it? Is the situation being handled? Is it someone I know?" You may not actively ask these questions to yourself, but it's there in your DNA. Your primitive-woman self senses danger in the environment and needs to assess the damage and its impacts upon you and those in your den (car).
Also, even if I'm way off base here, it's still good to slow down when there's an accident, simply for safety reasons. I mean, a person with a head injury could just wander out into traffic, dizzy and disoriented. You could plow into one of the stopped cars, or flatten your tires on broken glass and debris. Lots of stuff can happen if you don't slow your pace.
4)Breast feeding in public doesn't bother me in the slightest. I agree wiht the Puritans. When a breast is being used to feed an infant, it doesn't count as a sex organ. It becomes, for the duration of the feeding, something along the lines of a plate, or bottle or fork. A feeding utensil, is what I'm getting at here. It honestly baffles me that anyone cares. It's not gross - I've seen breast feeding lots of times. And it's just a breast, for crying out loud. Most people have them. Not a secret.
5)Insider trading doesn't bother me at all. This goes back to my whole spiel about "fairness". Life isn't fair. Some people live in fancy towns and others live in third world country shacks. Some people are born smart and some are born stupid. Some people have access to clean water and some don't.
So I ask, should a person not act on her "inside" knowledge of the stock market, simply because others don't have access to this knowledge? Should she stop using clean water because others don't have access to it? I suppose that's a touching show of solidarity, but it helps absolutely no one. Your efforts would be better served by doing some insider trading and devoting the money you earn to a water-providing charity of some kind.
I don't mean to sound callous. Of course I think that everyone in the world deserves access to clean water, adequate housing and such. But denying yourself these comforts doesn't help those who do without them. USE your advantages to help them, by all means. But the goal should be to elevate them to a level of comfort, rather than sinking yourself to a level of discomfort.
6) Telemarketers don't bother me at all either. People always complain that they interrupt their dinner time, which is nonsense. First of all, families haven't eaten dinner together at a table regularly since the 1970s. Nowadays, it's pretty much Christmas and Thanksgiving and if you come from a very traditional background, maybe Sunday dinners. That's it. And even if you are eating at the table with your family, it's not like it's difficult to just not answer the phone during dinner, if it's such a big deal to you. But even if you do answer the phone and it's a telemarketer interrupting your beef Wellington or whatever people in the 1970s ate at the table, it's not exactly difficult to say a firm, polite "No, thank you" and hang up the phone.
Telemarketers don't CHOOSE this profession. Something obviously went wrong in their lives, and this is the only legal way they can make a living. Cut them some slack! Show some compassion! I'm not saying you have to buy whatever they're selling, but come on! There's not need to be rude to the poor woman.
7)A lot of people thing that it's wrong to break up with someone via letter. They think it's chicken. They're right that it's chicken, but they're wrong that it's a bad thing to do. Think of it this way - If you break up with someone in person, what will happen? The person will cry and probably beg you to change your mind, or maybe get angry and hit you or whatever. It will be a big, horrible scene that neither of you will ever forget. Maybe you'll even be persuaded to give it another try, simply to quell the distress of your "was" ex-boyfriend. That's not going to be a good relationship, because he'll always know that your heart isn't in it, and you are just humoring him. But even if you stay strong and stick to your guns, the girl you dump has the unbearable curse of having to remember her undignified crying and blubbering.
If you break up with someone by letter, that person has time to digest it, grieve privately, and put a brave face on the next time she runs into her ex. She maintains her dignity. She won't have to remember behaving like some screeching fish wife, sniveling onto the steering wheel, snarling with pain and rage. She'll eat some McDonald's, listen to "Pretty Hate Machine" and "X Ray Specs" albums on a loop for a month and move on.
I'm not saying a letter is BETTER, necessarily. I mean both ways are going to suck for the person being dumped. I'm just saying it's not necessarily WRONG to do it by letter either.
That being said, there is a disclaimer: It is not acceptable to break up with someone via text message, IM, or Facebook message. These media are for casual messages only, and using them to initiate a break up is disrespectful to the person you're dumping. What you're saying by breaking up via IM is: "This relationship was as important to me as arranging a night out with the girls" or "This relationship was as important to me as this picture that my friend took of my that night I was really wasted".
8)Arrogance doesn't often bother me. As I always say "It's ok to be arrogant as long as you're right". Sometimes arrogance is justified. If you are the best, there's no point in pretending that you're not. I'm not saying you should be obnoxious about it, but you shouldn't lie either. If you're pretty, don't pretend you think you're ugly. I mean, don't be rude to ugly girls or anything! But it's ok to acknowledge your strengths as well as your weaknesses. False modesty, on the other hand, annoys the crap out of me.
Anyway, I have a bunch more, but need to eat dinner now. Maybe I'll do a "part 2" at some point.
And for the record, I don't use steroids, or engage in insider trading or breast feed in public. I simply don't judge others who do.
I honestly don't understand why anyone cares. The point is for the athletes to be the best they can be, and to win, yes? So why shouldn't they take advantage of a resource that enables them to be the best? And the arguments against steroid use are so irrational! Here they are:
a) "It's not fair to the athletes who don't use steroids." This is ridiculous. The athletes who don't use steroids are making a choice. They make this choice because they don't care as much about winning as their steroid using coworkers, plain and simple. If they were truly fierce competitors, they would enhance their strength and speed by any means necessary.
Besides, the concept if "fair" and "fairness" is retarded. Is it "fair" that I was born short, and female with bad eyesight, thereby guaranteeing that I will never play for the NBA? No it isn't "fair" but I don't sit around crying about it. Life is not about making things "fair", it's about making use of your particular set of advantages. And EVERYONE has a set of advantages. I was born into a poor family. Do I demand that everyone else also be poor, so that things are "fair"? No. I realize that I have some advantages that other people do not, and I make use of those.
An athlete who does not use steroids is simply denying herself access to one of her most powerful resources. And she is also denying sports fans of a much better show. Because from what I understand, the most exciting sports events are ones in which people accomplish almost superhuman feats of strength and stamina and skill. Not the ones where the entire game is average in the name of "fairness".
"Fairness" is a concept developed by those who are bitter about not winning.
b) "Steroids are bad for you." Well, the claims that steroids are bad for you are wildly exaggerated. If you do your research, more people die per year from smoking weed. Yes. Steroids are safer than weed, statistically speaking. Yes, if used in excess they can have negative side effects, but many many people use them - way more than you would think - and you aren't constantly being attacked by "roid ragers" every time you go to the gym, right? No. You aren't.
c) "It's not fair that these young punks are able to break records of famous athletes from the past because of steroid use. It's not fair dagnabbit!" Well that's like saying "It's not fair that these youngsters can write term papers on a computer instead of by hand! Back in the day, we had to sharpen pencils and such! It's not fair!" Or "It's not fair that these youngsters can get on a plane and fly off to Italy. Back in the day, travelers had to go by boat and it took seven years. It's not fair!". Technology changes things. The world moves on. We now have the technology to build stronger, faster people. Deal with it.
2)I don't understand why women get angry when someone calls them "ma'am". Supposedly it makes them feel old. But the fact of the matter is, "Ma'am" is a term of respect, and it has nothing to do with how old you are. I get called "ma'am" every once in a while, and I happen to know I don't look like an old lady. Don't be so senstive, you weird women. It's not like she called you "Old Cow" or something.
3) Living in Southern California, people complain a lot about drivers slowing down to look at accidents. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with it though. It's human nature. You want to see where the danger is - it's a biological imperitive. "How bad is it? Can I avoid it? Is the situation being handled? Is it someone I know?" You may not actively ask these questions to yourself, but it's there in your DNA. Your primitive-woman self senses danger in the environment and needs to assess the damage and its impacts upon you and those in your den (car).
Also, even if I'm way off base here, it's still good to slow down when there's an accident, simply for safety reasons. I mean, a person with a head injury could just wander out into traffic, dizzy and disoriented. You could plow into one of the stopped cars, or flatten your tires on broken glass and debris. Lots of stuff can happen if you don't slow your pace.
4)Breast feeding in public doesn't bother me in the slightest. I agree wiht the Puritans. When a breast is being used to feed an infant, it doesn't count as a sex organ. It becomes, for the duration of the feeding, something along the lines of a plate, or bottle or fork. A feeding utensil, is what I'm getting at here. It honestly baffles me that anyone cares. It's not gross - I've seen breast feeding lots of times. And it's just a breast, for crying out loud. Most people have them. Not a secret.
5)Insider trading doesn't bother me at all. This goes back to my whole spiel about "fairness". Life isn't fair. Some people live in fancy towns and others live in third world country shacks. Some people are born smart and some are born stupid. Some people have access to clean water and some don't.
So I ask, should a person not act on her "inside" knowledge of the stock market, simply because others don't have access to this knowledge? Should she stop using clean water because others don't have access to it? I suppose that's a touching show of solidarity, but it helps absolutely no one. Your efforts would be better served by doing some insider trading and devoting the money you earn to a water-providing charity of some kind.
I don't mean to sound callous. Of course I think that everyone in the world deserves access to clean water, adequate housing and such. But denying yourself these comforts doesn't help those who do without them. USE your advantages to help them, by all means. But the goal should be to elevate them to a level of comfort, rather than sinking yourself to a level of discomfort.
6) Telemarketers don't bother me at all either. People always complain that they interrupt their dinner time, which is nonsense. First of all, families haven't eaten dinner together at a table regularly since the 1970s. Nowadays, it's pretty much Christmas and Thanksgiving and if you come from a very traditional background, maybe Sunday dinners. That's it. And even if you are eating at the table with your family, it's not like it's difficult to just not answer the phone during dinner, if it's such a big deal to you. But even if you do answer the phone and it's a telemarketer interrupting your beef Wellington or whatever people in the 1970s ate at the table, it's not exactly difficult to say a firm, polite "No, thank you" and hang up the phone.
Telemarketers don't CHOOSE this profession. Something obviously went wrong in their lives, and this is the only legal way they can make a living. Cut them some slack! Show some compassion! I'm not saying you have to buy whatever they're selling, but come on! There's not need to be rude to the poor woman.
7)A lot of people thing that it's wrong to break up with someone via letter. They think it's chicken. They're right that it's chicken, but they're wrong that it's a bad thing to do. Think of it this way - If you break up with someone in person, what will happen? The person will cry and probably beg you to change your mind, or maybe get angry and hit you or whatever. It will be a big, horrible scene that neither of you will ever forget. Maybe you'll even be persuaded to give it another try, simply to quell the distress of your "was" ex-boyfriend. That's not going to be a good relationship, because he'll always know that your heart isn't in it, and you are just humoring him. But even if you stay strong and stick to your guns, the girl you dump has the unbearable curse of having to remember her undignified crying and blubbering.
If you break up with someone by letter, that person has time to digest it, grieve privately, and put a brave face on the next time she runs into her ex. She maintains her dignity. She won't have to remember behaving like some screeching fish wife, sniveling onto the steering wheel, snarling with pain and rage. She'll eat some McDonald's, listen to "Pretty Hate Machine" and "X Ray Specs" albums on a loop for a month and move on.
I'm not saying a letter is BETTER, necessarily. I mean both ways are going to suck for the person being dumped. I'm just saying it's not necessarily WRONG to do it by letter either.
That being said, there is a disclaimer: It is not acceptable to break up with someone via text message, IM, or Facebook message. These media are for casual messages only, and using them to initiate a break up is disrespectful to the person you're dumping. What you're saying by breaking up via IM is: "This relationship was as important to me as arranging a night out with the girls" or "This relationship was as important to me as this picture that my friend took of my that night I was really wasted".
8)Arrogance doesn't often bother me. As I always say "It's ok to be arrogant as long as you're right". Sometimes arrogance is justified. If you are the best, there's no point in pretending that you're not. I'm not saying you should be obnoxious about it, but you shouldn't lie either. If you're pretty, don't pretend you think you're ugly. I mean, don't be rude to ugly girls or anything! But it's ok to acknowledge your strengths as well as your weaknesses. False modesty, on the other hand, annoys the crap out of me.
Anyway, I have a bunch more, but need to eat dinner now. Maybe I'll do a "part 2" at some point.
And for the record, I don't use steroids, or engage in insider trading or breast feed in public. I simply don't judge others who do.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Dana Solves the North Korean Situation
Every once in a while someone will convince me to try Korean food. I always state clearly that I don't enjoy Korean food, but they will always say "Oh you just haven't had it at THIS particular restaurant, or done THIS special way", and I'm sure to like it if I just give it a chance. And it's always the same.
First off, I'm a vegetarian, so maybe they do meat just fantastically and I truly am missing out, but the vegetarian experience is horrifyingly disgusting. Here's how it goes:
You come in and look at the menu. Because you're a vegetarian, there is only one thing on the menu you can have, and that is the tofu hot pot. The ingredients sound innocuous enough; tofu, vegetables, noodles in broth. "How bad can it be?" you ask yourself. So you order it.
While you are waiting, they bring out like 13 little dishes of various foods. These are your appetizers, and they give them to you whether you ask for them or not. They are all different colors and textures, and it looks just delightful. But then you start tasting them.
THEY ARE ALL JUST PICKLES.
I suppose that's fantastic if you like pickles. But I hate pickles. And that's all it is. Pickled carrots and pickled cabbage and all kinds of stuff soaked in pickle juice. The first few you try will just amuse you. You'll say "haha so many pickles! But that's ok, there are still 32 things left to try. I'm sure some of them will be good". But as you try your 8th and 9th dishes, suddenly you're not laughing anymore. Suddenly your stomach is turning from all the nasty pickles you just ingested, and you worry that there's no end in sight. You lift your hand heavily to the 10th dish, fingers shaking ever so slightly, because you know, YOU KNOW, in that deep down part of you that this is going nowhere good. And sure enough, the last dishes are also pickles.
Now you're angry. Where is your meal? You did not sign up for a giant plate of pickles. Now your stomach is upset and you may vomit and your tofu hot pot is taking forever.
But they do bring it out. To get the pickle taste out of your mouth you dig in immediately, but it's boiling magma hot, so you can't eat too much yet. Just enough to determine that it is blissfully free of pickle juice.
You wait the 20 minutes or so that it takes to ice down your tongue burns and then you begin. What you taste is this: boiled, unseasoned vegetables, uncooked, unseasoned tofu, and some kind of super spicy broth. I don't mean spicy like Indian spicy, where it's hot but intensely flavorful and wonderful. It's just hot. All you taste is burning. Burning and boiled vegetables and uncooked tofu.
Are these people high? Who eats that? This is why North Koreans are so easily kept under government control, I am convinced. With no good food to look forward to, they have no hope for their futures. Let's say their country was liberated. Great. They're still stuck eating pickles and unseasoned lava.
This is my plan to liberate North Korea. We open up an offshore restaurant. On some island off the coast of North Korea. And we cook those people some real food. No pickling spices in sight. We give them flavors that are sort of familiar, like gourmet Chinese food and sushi, but we do it WELL. No proselytizing. No criticizing the government of North Korea. We simply allow them to eat there and send them back home. After all, we don't want to get them in trouble. We provide the food free of charge of course.
Well those North Koreans will go home with full, satisfied bellies, knowing that something good just came to them, NOT courtesy of the "Great Leader". They'll realize that life can be something better, something different. The seed of revolt will be planted. And that's all it will take. Probably.
First off, I'm a vegetarian, so maybe they do meat just fantastically and I truly am missing out, but the vegetarian experience is horrifyingly disgusting. Here's how it goes:
You come in and look at the menu. Because you're a vegetarian, there is only one thing on the menu you can have, and that is the tofu hot pot. The ingredients sound innocuous enough; tofu, vegetables, noodles in broth. "How bad can it be?" you ask yourself. So you order it.
While you are waiting, they bring out like 13 little dishes of various foods. These are your appetizers, and they give them to you whether you ask for them or not. They are all different colors and textures, and it looks just delightful. But then you start tasting them.
THEY ARE ALL JUST PICKLES.
I suppose that's fantastic if you like pickles. But I hate pickles. And that's all it is. Pickled carrots and pickled cabbage and all kinds of stuff soaked in pickle juice. The first few you try will just amuse you. You'll say "haha so many pickles! But that's ok, there are still 32 things left to try. I'm sure some of them will be good". But as you try your 8th and 9th dishes, suddenly you're not laughing anymore. Suddenly your stomach is turning from all the nasty pickles you just ingested, and you worry that there's no end in sight. You lift your hand heavily to the 10th dish, fingers shaking ever so slightly, because you know, YOU KNOW, in that deep down part of you that this is going nowhere good. And sure enough, the last dishes are also pickles.
Now you're angry. Where is your meal? You did not sign up for a giant plate of pickles. Now your stomach is upset and you may vomit and your tofu hot pot is taking forever.
But they do bring it out. To get the pickle taste out of your mouth you dig in immediately, but it's boiling magma hot, so you can't eat too much yet. Just enough to determine that it is blissfully free of pickle juice.
You wait the 20 minutes or so that it takes to ice down your tongue burns and then you begin. What you taste is this: boiled, unseasoned vegetables, uncooked, unseasoned tofu, and some kind of super spicy broth. I don't mean spicy like Indian spicy, where it's hot but intensely flavorful and wonderful. It's just hot. All you taste is burning. Burning and boiled vegetables and uncooked tofu.
Are these people high? Who eats that? This is why North Koreans are so easily kept under government control, I am convinced. With no good food to look forward to, they have no hope for their futures. Let's say their country was liberated. Great. They're still stuck eating pickles and unseasoned lava.
This is my plan to liberate North Korea. We open up an offshore restaurant. On some island off the coast of North Korea. And we cook those people some real food. No pickling spices in sight. We give them flavors that are sort of familiar, like gourmet Chinese food and sushi, but we do it WELL. No proselytizing. No criticizing the government of North Korea. We simply allow them to eat there and send them back home. After all, we don't want to get them in trouble. We provide the food free of charge of course.
Well those North Koreans will go home with full, satisfied bellies, knowing that something good just came to them, NOT courtesy of the "Great Leader". They'll realize that life can be something better, something different. The seed of revolt will be planted. And that's all it will take. Probably.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
"The Memory Keeper's Daughter" or, "The Giant Book of Overreactions"
For those of you who have not read "The Memory Keeper's Daughter", here is the plot. A couple gives birth to twins. The girl has Down's Syndrome, the boy does not. The father gives the Down's Syndrome kid away to a nurse, who raises the child as her own. The father tells the mother that the Down's Syndrome baby died. Shenanigans ensue.
I thought the plot sounded pretty interesting, so I read it, only to find myself hating most of the characters or being bored by most of the characters or both. Mostly what bothered me about this book though is how everyone overreacts to everything throughout the whole book. Here is a list of the most egregious overreactions.
1) Faking the Down's Syndrome baby's death.
Look, I get that having a baby with Down's Syndrome is bound to be upsetting. And I KIND of understand why he wanted to give it away, though that is not how I personally would handle the situation. But to pretend that she died? To let your wife think her baby is dead? To have funeral for the baby and tell everyone that the baby died? This is the first, seminal overreaction in a book that is essentially filled with people making mountains our of molehills.
2)The mother sinking into a twenty year depression over the baby's death.
Again, losing a baby must be devastating. But the mother didn't even know she was carrying twins. So it's not like she was expecting and planning for this baby, only to have her hopes and dreams dashed. She got a healthy baby boy out of the deal.
I'm not saying she shouldn't be sad, of course she should! But she sinks into a twenty year quagmire of depression over the situation, which in my opinion is unreasonable. Yes, losing a baby is sad, but it died at birth and she wasn't expecting it anyway. Essentially she just had a miscarriage. Which is sad. But not "I'm going to drink myself stupid and mope and ruin everyone's happiness for the next twenty years" sad.
3)The father/son drama.
The healthy son was supposed to be some kind of guitar virtuoso. The dad gave the son what to me sounded like very measured, reasonable advice. Essentially his advice was "Pursue music if that is your dream, but keep your options open, because music isn't a stable career choice". Not exactly "knock it off with that faggy music shit, you worthless squirt". Actually he was pretty supportive overall. But the son's reaction was basically "My dad doesn't love me. My dad hates me and can't accept me for who I am. Screw you dad! I'm gonna get high and destroy all your photography stuff". Overreaction.
4)The son's reaction to getting into Julliard.
The son eventually gets into Julliard. He tells his father. His father says "Good job son. I'm so proud of you". The son, in the biggest overreaction in the entire book, storms out of the house, STEALS A CAR, drives off and then GETS ARRESTED FOR SHOPLIFTING. Yes. Because his dad told him congratulations for getting into Julliard, which apparently was very confusing and upsetting to him.
5)The dad's reaction to the son's arrest.
When the parents come to bail the son out of jail (he was arrested for the aforementioned car theft and shoplifting) the dad sternly tells the son that he can come home, but there will be consequences. (Basically he will be grounded, have extra chores etc.) To which the son, predictably, responds by shouting something like "You can't stop me from playing the guitar!! Why can't you accept me for who I am?" though the father didn't say the son couldn't bring up the guitar. But that's not the biggest overreaction in this scene.
After the irritating son's outburst the father says "I'm sorry I failed you both" and storms out of the jail. But that's not all.
HE MOVES OUT OF THE HOUSE AND LEAVES HIS WIFE.
Really? OK, yes the marriage had problems. And yes, his son is a total d-bag, to the point where he would probably rather have Down's Syndrom girl around, because at least she's really sweet and nice through the whole book, unlike his ungrateful horror of a son. But why is this what makes him move out? Not his wife's cheating. Not the fact that his son hates him for no reason. This just makes no sense to me.
So yeah. The whole book is full of strange overreactions perpetrated by boring people. I recommend the book if you like separated at birth type stories and aren't at all annoyed by the above depictions of irrationality, and feel like those types of reactions make sense.
I thought the plot sounded pretty interesting, so I read it, only to find myself hating most of the characters or being bored by most of the characters or both. Mostly what bothered me about this book though is how everyone overreacts to everything throughout the whole book. Here is a list of the most egregious overreactions.
1) Faking the Down's Syndrome baby's death.
Look, I get that having a baby with Down's Syndrome is bound to be upsetting. And I KIND of understand why he wanted to give it away, though that is not how I personally would handle the situation. But to pretend that she died? To let your wife think her baby is dead? To have funeral for the baby and tell everyone that the baby died? This is the first, seminal overreaction in a book that is essentially filled with people making mountains our of molehills.
2)The mother sinking into a twenty year depression over the baby's death.
Again, losing a baby must be devastating. But the mother didn't even know she was carrying twins. So it's not like she was expecting and planning for this baby, only to have her hopes and dreams dashed. She got a healthy baby boy out of the deal.
I'm not saying she shouldn't be sad, of course she should! But she sinks into a twenty year quagmire of depression over the situation, which in my opinion is unreasonable. Yes, losing a baby is sad, but it died at birth and she wasn't expecting it anyway. Essentially she just had a miscarriage. Which is sad. But not "I'm going to drink myself stupid and mope and ruin everyone's happiness for the next twenty years" sad.
3)The father/son drama.
The healthy son was supposed to be some kind of guitar virtuoso. The dad gave the son what to me sounded like very measured, reasonable advice. Essentially his advice was "Pursue music if that is your dream, but keep your options open, because music isn't a stable career choice". Not exactly "knock it off with that faggy music shit, you worthless squirt". Actually he was pretty supportive overall. But the son's reaction was basically "My dad doesn't love me. My dad hates me and can't accept me for who I am. Screw you dad! I'm gonna get high and destroy all your photography stuff". Overreaction.
4)The son's reaction to getting into Julliard.
The son eventually gets into Julliard. He tells his father. His father says "Good job son. I'm so proud of you". The son, in the biggest overreaction in the entire book, storms out of the house, STEALS A CAR, drives off and then GETS ARRESTED FOR SHOPLIFTING. Yes. Because his dad told him congratulations for getting into Julliard, which apparently was very confusing and upsetting to him.
5)The dad's reaction to the son's arrest.
When the parents come to bail the son out of jail (he was arrested for the aforementioned car theft and shoplifting) the dad sternly tells the son that he can come home, but there will be consequences. (Basically he will be grounded, have extra chores etc.) To which the son, predictably, responds by shouting something like "You can't stop me from playing the guitar!! Why can't you accept me for who I am?" though the father didn't say the son couldn't bring up the guitar. But that's not the biggest overreaction in this scene.
After the irritating son's outburst the father says "I'm sorry I failed you both" and storms out of the jail. But that's not all.
HE MOVES OUT OF THE HOUSE AND LEAVES HIS WIFE.
Really? OK, yes the marriage had problems. And yes, his son is a total d-bag, to the point where he would probably rather have Down's Syndrom girl around, because at least she's really sweet and nice through the whole book, unlike his ungrateful horror of a son. But why is this what makes him move out? Not his wife's cheating. Not the fact that his son hates him for no reason. This just makes no sense to me.
So yeah. The whole book is full of strange overreactions perpetrated by boring people. I recommend the book if you like separated at birth type stories and aren't at all annoyed by the above depictions of irrationality, and feel like those types of reactions make sense.
Sunday, March 13, 2011
In Defense of Repressing Your Emotions
I'm not very good at discussing my feelings, unless those feelings are annoyance, boredom, hunger, or amusement. Anything more weighty than that makes me feel uncomfortable. In fact, a lot of the time I'm not even truly aware of what I'm feeling or why. This is a source of great bafflement to poor Phillip, who can sometimes tell that I'm upset, which upsets him, but I'm completely unable to explain why I am upset without a lengthy process of self examination. I'm not doing the "chick" thing where I say nothing is wrong when something is definitely wrong. I honestly don't know why I feel unhappy until I sit and think about it for a long time. I have to be quiet and alone to determine the cause of my distress; I rarely know or can explain it before that.
Phil wants me to talk about my feelings, but that's difficult for me, since I'm so out of touch with mine most of the time. It requires a lot of effort for me. Other people don't have this problem though. I see people emoting all over each other all the time, with seemingly no effort or thought or shame. And here is where I come to my point. I don't believe that these promiscuous emoters are more emotionally healthy than me. I don't think their way is better than mine. Here is why.
You've frequently heard me discuss "The Biggest Loser" as an example of over-emoting. They cry through the whole dang show, over things that seem silly to an objective viewer. But "The Biggest Loser" is only one example of this over-emoting. Any talk show is a good example too. For instance, let's take "Jerry Springer". Those people have no trouble expressing their emotions. They may not be eloquent or witty, but they know what they're feeling and know how they wish to express it. But would we say that the guests on Jerry Springer are going through a cathartic, therapeutic process? Do the guests on Jerry Springer feel better about themselves and their situations when the show is over, and their venting is complete? I would wager that they do not.
But we don't need to go to a talk show as extreme as "Jerry Springer". What about a "more classy" talk show, like "Maury Povich"? They don't fight on "Maury", and they keep their clothes on at all times, so that must be better, right? No, no it isn't. The women sit and cry and cry because they can't locate their baby daddy, no matter how many men they force into paternity testing. Sometimes Maury Povich locates the father and sometimes he doesn't. But either way, the woman should feel better right? Because she expressed her emotions and cried and "got it all out there". Being open and honest is always helpful right?
I submit that it is not better. The woman is still promiscuous, her baby still has a reluctant, irreponsible father at best, and now everyone in the country knows that she had to have 8 men tested to determine the father of her child. I would state that these problems are just as horrifying after the woman has expressed her feelings and cried. Discussing your distress doesn't make the causes of the distress disappear. Now you just have a new problem - dealing with the shame of degrading yourself on television.
Another example of people expressing their emotions is the show "Cops". The people on "Cops" express their emotions a lot too. If they feel angry, they hit someone. If they feel lonely, they hire a prostitute. If they are bored, they make mischief. They never repress their emotions, or stifle themselves. So these must be the most psychologically healthy, enlightened people in the world right?
No. Obviously not.
Let's move away from TV examples. I'm sure many would say that TV emotions don't count, as they are often faked or enhanced to increase ratings, etc. But many also argue that in real life, people shouldn't repress their emotions either. They say that holding it all in will hurt you emotionally, and turn you into a neurotic, twitchy person. Whereas expressing all your emotions leads to openness, honesty, and free spiritedness. Let's explore why this is retarded.
Let's say I can't stand someone. For argument's sake we'll call her Jasmine. I can't stand Jasmine, but I have to deal with her on an almost daily basis. Let's say she's my coworker or a family member. Someone I can't avoid. Well, if I'm in the "expressing my emotions" camp, of course I will notify Jasmine that I don't like her. I will do this verbally and with my actions. I will make snotty comments about her, mocking her appearance, telling her to shut up whenever she talks, making fun of her foibles and generally being horrible to her. What's wrong with that? I don't want to repress myself after all. That would be dishonest. It's wrong and hypocritical to pretend to like someone when you don't, right? So I make a miserable working and/or home environment for Jasmine. Of course, our other coworkers and/or family members have to get involved and take sides. Maybe they think I'm totally out of line and they turn against me. Or maybe they agree with me and we all gang up on Jasmine because we hate her so much. We all discuss our emotions freely, telling each other exactly what we think of each other and why.
But let's say I'm a person who sees nothing wrong with repressing my emotions. This is what happens. I see Jasmine and she annoys the crap out of me. I ignore it and keep my feelings to myself. The workplace/home environment is perhaps strained from time to time, but overall everyone gets along and there's not much drama.
Which environment is healthier? Where would you rather live/work?
Also, it's important to remember that not all your feelings are valid. I know that is close to blasphemy for some people; who believe that there "are no good or bad feelings" but there are. There definitely are. You should be ashamed for having some of your feelings, and so should I. Here is an example: I once knew a girl who applied for a management position at her company. She was not hired. They hired another person instead. Well, the girl decided that the person who was hired was now her mortal enemy, and she unleashed a totally irrational barrage of hatred upon the new manager. That is an irrational, bad feeling and she should have been ashamed of it, rather than "expressing" it all over the place.
Have you ever felt happy seeing an asshole get punched in the face? Have you ever decided that you hate someone simply because you're jealous of her? Have you ever been angry at someone who didn't deserve it? Of course! We are all guilty of having irrational, bad feelings from time to time. But I maintain that these feelings should be repressed, not expressed.
This applies to memoirs as well. I understand that it can be therapeutic to write about your life, especially any bad experiences you might have had. But think what you're doing to others in the meantime. You are depressing all your readers with your horrible story, and you're badmouthing people in a format that makes it impossible for them to defend themselves. Yes, you have expressed your emotions. Yes, you might even feel better for a while. But you have only added to the world's misery by spreading your internal misery all over the place like an oil spill. I'm not suggesting that you need to be positive and perky all the time - I would be the wrong person to take that stance - I'm just saying you don't need to express every emotion you have without regard to how it will affect others.
Phil wants me to talk about my feelings, but that's difficult for me, since I'm so out of touch with mine most of the time. It requires a lot of effort for me. Other people don't have this problem though. I see people emoting all over each other all the time, with seemingly no effort or thought or shame. And here is where I come to my point. I don't believe that these promiscuous emoters are more emotionally healthy than me. I don't think their way is better than mine. Here is why.
You've frequently heard me discuss "The Biggest Loser" as an example of over-emoting. They cry through the whole dang show, over things that seem silly to an objective viewer. But "The Biggest Loser" is only one example of this over-emoting. Any talk show is a good example too. For instance, let's take "Jerry Springer". Those people have no trouble expressing their emotions. They may not be eloquent or witty, but they know what they're feeling and know how they wish to express it. But would we say that the guests on Jerry Springer are going through a cathartic, therapeutic process? Do the guests on Jerry Springer feel better about themselves and their situations when the show is over, and their venting is complete? I would wager that they do not.
But we don't need to go to a talk show as extreme as "Jerry Springer". What about a "more classy" talk show, like "Maury Povich"? They don't fight on "Maury", and they keep their clothes on at all times, so that must be better, right? No, no it isn't. The women sit and cry and cry because they can't locate their baby daddy, no matter how many men they force into paternity testing. Sometimes Maury Povich locates the father and sometimes he doesn't. But either way, the woman should feel better right? Because she expressed her emotions and cried and "got it all out there". Being open and honest is always helpful right?
I submit that it is not better. The woman is still promiscuous, her baby still has a reluctant, irreponsible father at best, and now everyone in the country knows that she had to have 8 men tested to determine the father of her child. I would state that these problems are just as horrifying after the woman has expressed her feelings and cried. Discussing your distress doesn't make the causes of the distress disappear. Now you just have a new problem - dealing with the shame of degrading yourself on television.
Another example of people expressing their emotions is the show "Cops". The people on "Cops" express their emotions a lot too. If they feel angry, they hit someone. If they feel lonely, they hire a prostitute. If they are bored, they make mischief. They never repress their emotions, or stifle themselves. So these must be the most psychologically healthy, enlightened people in the world right?
No. Obviously not.
Let's move away from TV examples. I'm sure many would say that TV emotions don't count, as they are often faked or enhanced to increase ratings, etc. But many also argue that in real life, people shouldn't repress their emotions either. They say that holding it all in will hurt you emotionally, and turn you into a neurotic, twitchy person. Whereas expressing all your emotions leads to openness, honesty, and free spiritedness. Let's explore why this is retarded.
Let's say I can't stand someone. For argument's sake we'll call her Jasmine. I can't stand Jasmine, but I have to deal with her on an almost daily basis. Let's say she's my coworker or a family member. Someone I can't avoid. Well, if I'm in the "expressing my emotions" camp, of course I will notify Jasmine that I don't like her. I will do this verbally and with my actions. I will make snotty comments about her, mocking her appearance, telling her to shut up whenever she talks, making fun of her foibles and generally being horrible to her. What's wrong with that? I don't want to repress myself after all. That would be dishonest. It's wrong and hypocritical to pretend to like someone when you don't, right? So I make a miserable working and/or home environment for Jasmine. Of course, our other coworkers and/or family members have to get involved and take sides. Maybe they think I'm totally out of line and they turn against me. Or maybe they agree with me and we all gang up on Jasmine because we hate her so much. We all discuss our emotions freely, telling each other exactly what we think of each other and why.
But let's say I'm a person who sees nothing wrong with repressing my emotions. This is what happens. I see Jasmine and she annoys the crap out of me. I ignore it and keep my feelings to myself. The workplace/home environment is perhaps strained from time to time, but overall everyone gets along and there's not much drama.
Which environment is healthier? Where would you rather live/work?
Also, it's important to remember that not all your feelings are valid. I know that is close to blasphemy for some people; who believe that there "are no good or bad feelings" but there are. There definitely are. You should be ashamed for having some of your feelings, and so should I. Here is an example: I once knew a girl who applied for a management position at her company. She was not hired. They hired another person instead. Well, the girl decided that the person who was hired was now her mortal enemy, and she unleashed a totally irrational barrage of hatred upon the new manager. That is an irrational, bad feeling and she should have been ashamed of it, rather than "expressing" it all over the place.
Have you ever felt happy seeing an asshole get punched in the face? Have you ever decided that you hate someone simply because you're jealous of her? Have you ever been angry at someone who didn't deserve it? Of course! We are all guilty of having irrational, bad feelings from time to time. But I maintain that these feelings should be repressed, not expressed.
This applies to memoirs as well. I understand that it can be therapeutic to write about your life, especially any bad experiences you might have had. But think what you're doing to others in the meantime. You are depressing all your readers with your horrible story, and you're badmouthing people in a format that makes it impossible for them to defend themselves. Yes, you have expressed your emotions. Yes, you might even feel better for a while. But you have only added to the world's misery by spreading your internal misery all over the place like an oil spill. I'm not suggesting that you need to be positive and perky all the time - I would be the wrong person to take that stance - I'm just saying you don't need to express every emotion you have without regard to how it will affect others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)