I got married!
Almost a year ago!
But still!
It's pretty sweet!
Are you my mummy?
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Sunday, September 9, 2012
The Times, They Are A-Changing'
Incidentally, while I've made a stylistic choice to capitalize every single word in my post titles, even at those times when it's incorrect, sometimes it annoys me. And yet, I carry on.
Anyway.
I'm leaving archaeology. I got a new job in IT/usergroup support and business analysis at a nonprofit, which I start the Monday after tomorrow. I'm getting a fancy pedicure this week to celebrate no longer having to hike 10 miles each day in order to bring in a paycheck. I will no longer add a new writing credit to my resume on a bimonthly basis, but I'm ok with that. I'm excited for this change. And excited to have health insurance again.
More importantly, I'm really excited to move on to something new, a position that is composed of things I've already done a lot of and am good at, things I've already done a little of and am good at, and things I've wanted to do and think I would be good at. I'm at my best in jobs that pay me to know things, and I'm excited to have new things it's my job to know. This new place also has a small staff, which I'm hugely in favor of in my working environment.
In other news, SBT recently bought a new car and a SuperPass. I bought 5-Packs for both Winter Park and Copper. We will be weekend warriors this winter. I hear Fraser is a nice place to stay. SBT is going to teach me how to ski this year.
SBT and I are also moving to [hopefully] a townhouse in the semi-'burbs as soon as we find the right place, at which time we will bring his kitties to live with us and go about making our residence appear inhabited by adults rather than college students [i would really love to have a bathroom with color-coordinated towels.].
I am now a person who wears skinny jeans. And pencil skirts. And ballet flats. I will find my classy 28-year-old adult style if it kills me. Now that my work wardrobe no longer consists primarily of Carharts, wifebeaters, and bandannas, this should happen.
Well, that's about it. I feel as though many things have changed in the last few months, which they have, I suppose, but mostly I'm excited for all the changes coming up. I'm not sure how to adequately express how much I want to be a normal adult person right now, and all of these things are conspiring to make me that. So I'm happy.
Oh, also, we're getting married.
--PSYCH!
Anyway.
I'm leaving archaeology. I got a new job in IT/usergroup support and business analysis at a nonprofit, which I start the Monday after tomorrow. I'm getting a fancy pedicure this week to celebrate no longer having to hike 10 miles each day in order to bring in a paycheck. I will no longer add a new writing credit to my resume on a bimonthly basis, but I'm ok with that. I'm excited for this change. And excited to have health insurance again.
More importantly, I'm really excited to move on to something new, a position that is composed of things I've already done a lot of and am good at, things I've already done a little of and am good at, and things I've wanted to do and think I would be good at. I'm at my best in jobs that pay me to know things, and I'm excited to have new things it's my job to know. This new place also has a small staff, which I'm hugely in favor of in my working environment.
In other news, SBT recently bought a new car and a SuperPass. I bought 5-Packs for both Winter Park and Copper. We will be weekend warriors this winter. I hear Fraser is a nice place to stay. SBT is going to teach me how to ski this year.
SBT and I are also moving to [hopefully] a townhouse in the semi-'burbs as soon as we find the right place, at which time we will bring his kitties to live with us and go about making our residence appear inhabited by adults rather than college students [i would really love to have a bathroom with color-coordinated towels.].
I am now a person who wears skinny jeans. And pencil skirts. And ballet flats. I will find my classy 28-year-old adult style if it kills me. Now that my work wardrobe no longer consists primarily of Carharts, wifebeaters, and bandannas, this should happen.
Well, that's about it. I feel as though many things have changed in the last few months, which they have, I suppose, but mostly I'm excited for all the changes coming up. I'm not sure how to adequately express how much I want to be a normal adult person right now, and all of these things are conspiring to make me that. So I'm happy.
Oh, also, we're getting married.
--PSYCH!
Thursday, May 3, 2012
One Mistake Men Make When Dealing With Women
There is a Cracked article that I read and felt the need to respond to. It is called 3 Mistakes Women Make When Dealing With Men and it can be found right here. The article has three points, obviously, and here they are, word for word:
3. Playing Hard To Get Is A Good Idea
2. Guys Are All About "Negging"
1. Being Slutty Is Empowering
I'm not even going to go there on #1. It should go without saying that I'm exhausted to death of men instructing women on how they should handle their sexuality; I'm not going to beat that particular dead horse, because it's just not worth my time. I'm not particularly interested in your slut-shaming, thanks.
I do, however, want to offer my own One Mistake Men Make When Dealing With Women, and it is this:
1. Sometimes, She's Just Not Interested
Without a doubt, the number one problem I used to have with dudes [i don't have problems with dudes in the same way anymore because i just see the one dude now] is dealing with the kind of dude who, apparently, wrote this column [gladstone, i generally enjoy your columns, and i enjoyed this one, but let me offer you this constructive criticism, which i am blogging rather than emailing you because you, rightly, don't care what random people on the internet think about your columns. but, i am a lady, so, maybe you should care a little. you arrogant comedy writer. calm down, i'm taken.].
Specifically, the kind of dude who has a combination of the thoughts expressed in numbers 2 and 3 in his head while he approaches women in public places. Specifically, a guy who 1) sincerely believes that a majority of single women play hard to get, and 2) has not realized that the advice to women offered re: negging also applies to dudes.
I can't tell you how many times I've inadvertently ended up talking to a dude for far longer than I would have chosen, had they not approached me while I was trapped on a bar stool and unable to walk away without looking like one of those "bitches" Dudes like to complain about. I have spent many minutes politely but disinterestedly responding to their inordinately dull conversation attempts, all the while wondering how it was that every guy in a ski town hadn't noticed that he wasn't the only person who'd moved there specifically to ski every day.
I once spent over an hour rejecting a Dude, telling him in no uncertain terms that not only did I not want to have a beer with him, I never wanted to see him again. Seriously, those were my exact words. "I don't want to go out with you again. I don't want to sleep with you again. I never want to see you again."
And none of it worked. He would not fucking listen to me; he kept yammering on about how you never know where you're going to find someone you connect with and you should give it a chance and he kept using the word "aspect" in ways that made no sense.
I mean, if you're going to complain about how women are always playing hard to get and why don't they just say what they mean, maybe you should give them the benefit of the doubt when they do say what they mean. How are women supposed to win at your silly little dating game when we're assumed to be playing hard to get no matter what we say?
If I was mean to these guys, I was a total bitch; if I was nice, I was leading them on. WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME?
I will tell you right now that when a woman says what she means to a Dude, there's a good chance he won't believe her. There's a good chance that he's so wrapped up in himself and how awesome he is that it's never occurred to him that a chick wouldn't want to talk to and/or date him. When she tells you she never wants to see you again, maybe she really never wants to see you again, and she's not playing hard to get--you're just really boring and can't seem to figure out that women just want to be treated like goddamn people instead of mysterious puzzles that require codewords and guidebooks.
Maybe pause to consider that you might not be the catch you think you are, and not every woman in the world is falling over herself to date you. Think about it.
Then try to find one who does want to date you, because there are plenty of that kind of woman out there. Stop wasting your time on the ones who just wanted to have a drink with their friends.
3. Playing Hard To Get Is A Good Idea
2. Guys Are All About "Negging"
1. Being Slutty Is Empowering
I'm not even going to go there on #1. It should go without saying that I'm exhausted to death of men instructing women on how they should handle their sexuality; I'm not going to beat that particular dead horse, because it's just not worth my time. I'm not particularly interested in your slut-shaming, thanks.
I do, however, want to offer my own One Mistake Men Make When Dealing With Women, and it is this:
1. Sometimes, She's Just Not Interested
Without a doubt, the number one problem I used to have with dudes [i don't have problems with dudes in the same way anymore because i just see the one dude now] is dealing with the kind of dude who, apparently, wrote this column [gladstone, i generally enjoy your columns, and i enjoyed this one, but let me offer you this constructive criticism, which i am blogging rather than emailing you because you, rightly, don't care what random people on the internet think about your columns. but, i am a lady, so, maybe you should care a little. you arrogant comedy writer. calm down, i'm taken.].
Specifically, the kind of dude who has a combination of the thoughts expressed in numbers 2 and 3 in his head while he approaches women in public places. Specifically, a guy who 1) sincerely believes that a majority of single women play hard to get, and 2) has not realized that the advice to women offered re: negging also applies to dudes.
I can't tell you how many times I've inadvertently ended up talking to a dude for far longer than I would have chosen, had they not approached me while I was trapped on a bar stool and unable to walk away without looking like one of those "bitches" Dudes like to complain about. I have spent many minutes politely but disinterestedly responding to their inordinately dull conversation attempts, all the while wondering how it was that every guy in a ski town hadn't noticed that he wasn't the only person who'd moved there specifically to ski every day.
I once spent over an hour rejecting a Dude, telling him in no uncertain terms that not only did I not want to have a beer with him, I never wanted to see him again. Seriously, those were my exact words. "I don't want to go out with you again. I don't want to sleep with you again. I never want to see you again."
And none of it worked. He would not fucking listen to me; he kept yammering on about how you never know where you're going to find someone you connect with and you should give it a chance and he kept using the word "aspect" in ways that made no sense.
I mean, if you're going to complain about how women are always playing hard to get and why don't they just say what they mean, maybe you should give them the benefit of the doubt when they do say what they mean. How are women supposed to win at your silly little dating game when we're assumed to be playing hard to get no matter what we say?
If I was mean to these guys, I was a total bitch; if I was nice, I was leading them on. WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM ME?
I will tell you right now that when a woman says what she means to a Dude, there's a good chance he won't believe her. There's a good chance that he's so wrapped up in himself and how awesome he is that it's never occurred to him that a chick wouldn't want to talk to and/or date him. When she tells you she never wants to see you again, maybe she really never wants to see you again, and she's not playing hard to get--you're just really boring and can't seem to figure out that women just want to be treated like goddamn people instead of mysterious puzzles that require codewords and guidebooks.
Maybe pause to consider that you might not be the catch you think you are, and not every woman in the world is falling over herself to date you. Think about it.
Then try to find one who does want to date you, because there are plenty of that kind of woman out there. Stop wasting your time on the ones who just wanted to have a drink with their friends.
Wednesday, April 25, 2012
On Heresy in the 16th Century
From The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir (emphasis mine):
It's always something, isn't it?
*I began a search for something blaming feminism for the downfall of society, in order to quote it, but I couldn't take reading anything long enough to find a pertinent quote. Google it. It's not hard to find something.
To Henry, and men like him, heresy was a poison that threatened the very foundations of the superstructure of Church and State as one body politic. It encouraged disaffection among the lower classes, challenged the divinely appointed order of things, and -- worst of all -- meant eternal damnation for those who succumbed to its lure. In sum, it represented every evil that could be manifested in a well-ordered world, and must therefore be eradicated.In the 16th century, we had religious heresy threatening the foundations of society. In the 21st, we have feminism*.
It's always something, isn't it?
*I began a search for something blaming feminism for the downfall of society, in order to quote it, but I couldn't take reading anything long enough to find a pertinent quote. Google it. It's not hard to find something.
Monday, April 23, 2012
On 16th-Century Sexual Gender Roles
I'm currently reading The Six Wives of Henry VIII by Alison Weir. I'm reading it because I'm a nerd and I love Tudor history.
Let's be honest: I also have a crush on Henry VIII. I would have 'succumbed' to his 'charms' and immediately 'relinquished' my 'virtue' had I been present in his court--rather like Mary Boleyn, actually. I could never have behaved as Anne Boleyn did.
Anyway. The book is brilliant, as per usual for Alison Weir, and also relevant to our times (is history ever not relevant to our times?).
Julian Norman, in Ched Evans conviction: the vitriol after the verdict, discusses rape culture in the context of rampant victim-blaming surrounding a case in which the rapist was convicted, no less:
The trouble is, nobody will admit it in these terms. And the terms are important, because they are reflective of the 16th century.
When husbands were unfaithful to their wives in the 16th century, as Henry VIII was, for example, the wives were expected to look the other way; it was just what men did, of course! Queen Katherine, when Henry takes mistresses, he doesn't mean any slight against you, he just can't contain his virile masculinity.
On the other hand, Mary Boleyn, if only you'd been as strong as your sister you could have resisted his virile masculinity; you gave up your virtue too easily and every nobleman in Europe has now had a chance to "ride" you. Shame on you.
Is this really where we are--still? Stuck in the 16th century?
Let's be honest: I also have a crush on Henry VIII. I would have 'succumbed' to his 'charms' and immediately 'relinquished' my 'virtue' had I been present in his court--rather like Mary Boleyn, actually. I could never have behaved as Anne Boleyn did.
Anyway. The book is brilliant, as per usual for Alison Weir, and also relevant to our times (is history ever not relevant to our times?).
Julian Norman, in Ched Evans conviction: the vitriol after the verdict, discusses rape culture in the context of rampant victim-blaming surrounding a case in which the rapist was convicted, no less:
Part of it can be found in a hypersexualised masculinity which dictates that "real" men are permanently, gaggingly up for it and that it is for the woman to keep her virtue intact.Is there anyone who will still deny the truth of this statement?
The trouble is, nobody will admit it in these terms. And the terms are important, because they are reflective of the 16th century.
When husbands were unfaithful to their wives in the 16th century, as Henry VIII was, for example, the wives were expected to look the other way; it was just what men did, of course! Queen Katherine, when Henry takes mistresses, he doesn't mean any slight against you, he just can't contain his virile masculinity.
On the other hand, Mary Boleyn, if only you'd been as strong as your sister you could have resisted his virile masculinity; you gave up your virtue too easily and every nobleman in Europe has now had a chance to "ride" you. Shame on you.
Is this really where we are--still? Stuck in the 16th century?
Friday, April 20, 2012
On Catholic Fantasy Novels: Part II
[Part I]
Why are these novels terrifying? Well.
There's a point to be made about the daydream quality of these books; they're essentially to Bud Macfarlane, Jr. what Twilight is to Stephenie Meyer--by which I mean, of course, that he wrote the books about the kind of magical Catholic world he must lie awake at night pondering and yearning for.
A world in which, when Y2k crashes society and everything is reset, all the gays and Muslims and atheists and Democrats and feminists etc. either die in the first wave after the crash or see the error of their ways and become god-fearing Catholics or never existed at all.
A world in which, when God stops time and reveals committed sins to each individual in a personal but world-wide Judgement, the people who refuse to accept God's love and forgiveness kill each other rapidly, leaving the saintly to form a Catholic society in which everyone has a farm* and stops in the fields to pray the Angelus when the church bells ring at noon, and everyone does not include gays or Muslims or atheists or Democrats or feminists etc., because either they died or repented or never existed at all.
My point, it is this: I am creeped out by Mr. Macfarlane's picture of a perfect world, because there is no place for me in it.
I don't care what perfect world Catholics dream about--so long as it's on their own time, and not steadfastly creeping its way into the laws of my country.
Did you get that? It is also MY country.
There is no place for me in Catholic Paradise, and it would appear, when considering certain laws recently passed, that it is preferable for me to actually cease living rather than find myself out of place in a Catholic Paradise.
Do I need to clarify that I strongly disagree?
*Bud Macfarlane, Jr., appears to absolutely despise technology. The downfall of society, simpler times, all of that--I guess.
Why are these novels terrifying? Well.
There's a point to be made about the daydream quality of these books; they're essentially to Bud Macfarlane, Jr. what Twilight is to Stephenie Meyer--by which I mean, of course, that he wrote the books about the kind of magical Catholic world he must lie awake at night pondering and yearning for.
A world in which, when Y2k crashes society and everything is reset, all the gays and Muslims and atheists and Democrats and feminists etc. either die in the first wave after the crash or see the error of their ways and become god-fearing Catholics or never existed at all.
A world in which, when God stops time and reveals committed sins to each individual in a personal but world-wide Judgement, the people who refuse to accept God's love and forgiveness kill each other rapidly, leaving the saintly to form a Catholic society in which everyone has a farm* and stops in the fields to pray the Angelus when the church bells ring at noon, and everyone does not include gays or Muslims or atheists or Democrats or feminists etc., because either they died or repented or never existed at all.
My point, it is this: I am creeped out by Mr. Macfarlane's picture of a perfect world, because there is no place for me in it.
I don't care what perfect world Catholics dream about--so long as it's on their own time, and not steadfastly creeping its way into the laws of my country.
Did you get that? It is also MY country.
There is no place for me in Catholic Paradise, and it would appear, when considering certain laws recently passed, that it is preferable for me to actually cease living rather than find myself out of place in a Catholic Paradise.
Do I need to clarify that I strongly disagree?
*Bud Macfarlane, Jr., appears to absolutely despise technology. The downfall of society, simpler times, all of that--I guess.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)