Phraseology

I'm surprised that people still misuse the phrase '...another think coming', as in:

But if Dannai thinks that's going to stop him from doing everything in his power to make her his mate, the little witch has another thing coming.

I'm not reading the book that this blurb comes from, and a major part of the reason (besides the werewolves) is that it should read, 'If whoever thinks blah blah blah, then they have another THINK coming'. Not 'thing'. That doesn't make any sense! Someone thinks, they have another think! Think/think, see? It's not think/THING. That's just dumb.

Also, could we please deal with the whole 'could care less' debacle? The idea is that a person 'couldn't care less', as in could not possibly have any less interest in a person/situation than they do at the moment. (They are lying, of course, but that's dramatic irony, and a whole other misused issue.) When people say that they 'could care less' they are saying that they still have a certain level of caring and that it could be lower - i.e., THEY STILL CARE, when in fact they mean to say that they do not care at all any longer. 'COULDN'T care LESS.' That contraction is important, as it's the difference between a life of cool, detached sophistication and the sure fact that you'll be taking the lyin', cheatin' idiot back the minute they show up with puppy-dog eyes and a half-wilted flower. Don't be the doormat!

In conclusion:

If that lyin', cheatin' idiot thinks that Dannai could care less about his puppy-dog eyes and stupid flowers, he's got another think coming. That think, of course, is the concept that he can take his grocery-store rejects and shove 'em where the sun don't shine, because she COULDN'T care less about him and his redneck monster truck, having moved on to a life of cool, detached sophistication involving a yacht and a vaguely French accent. 

See? Now that's a book I'd read.

*

The War Rages

By which I mean, I continue to struggle through my Masters' Thesis (or dissertation if you're talkin' from the UK) on 'The (Children's) Theatre of War' (clever, yes?) - seriously, sometime in the last 15 years I completely lost my attention span. Writing an intelligent, well-argued, well-supported 15,000-word paper didn't used to be this HARD. I have given myself one more week to finish, have proofread, revise, print, bind, and mail this sucker off to my school to make sure it's there in time. And then I'll be able to go on and find that perfect job (or three), pay those student loans, pay back my parents, buy a car, buy a new computer, and move out and be an adult! (Oh, and finally give internet dating another try. We're planning a family cruise next year, and it would be AWESOME to not share a cabin with my parents. Again.)

In the meantime, and completely unrelated to the actual work I SHOULD be doing:

This really struck me today. Historically, I have been awful about eating right and exercising, but honestly - I am HORRIBLE about talking to myself right. It's a wonder I'm not (more of) a basket case. Surely, I can do three such simple things. I really think I can.

* * * * *

I've made banoffee pie for my family since I've been home from England, and for a family reunion the other day I was attempting to create a Banoffee Pie Cake. Due to an unforeseen cake-baking-and-removal-from-pan incident, I instead came up with Banoffee Trifle. (Still so British!) It was fabulous, so remind to write down the recipe here. Later, when I'm not trying to write about societal perceptions of war and children's theatre. (Unless people were eating banoffee pie while attending a piece of children's theatre about the effects of war... I should probably suggest that to somebody.)

* * * * *

I've been browsing some blogs this morning, and I found a very interesting string of posts on modesty. Check it out:

http://borrowedlight.blogspot.com/2012/08/on-modesty.html
http://brittanyjmolina.blogspot.com/2012/02/my-love-note-post-went-viral-what-my.html
http://momtheintern.blogspot.com/2012/02/modesty-and-accountability.html

I really like Sue, the first link, finding her often insightful and always very funny. I'm still processing what she says in that post - but more, I'm trying to understand the motivation behind the Friend story and the Primary lesson. (One of her commenters mentions that her three-year-old daughter was called up in front of the entire Primary and told to 'put a cardigan on' over her sleeveless dress - and I, for some reason, flashed to Beyonce 'Single Ladies (Put a Ring On It)'. Not the modesty connection most would hope for, I'm sure... but there are some aspects of this discussion that are just that ridiculous. More on that in a minute.)

The second story is linked from Sue's, a girl who was 'called out' by a boy a BYU for immodesty who took the whole thing as a joke and uploaded his note and a picture of her outfit, and it all went massively viral. The third link is a response to the BYU girl's story.

First off, to start in the middle - Brittany (BYU girl) really seems to have handled the whole thing well. She's positive and upbeat, and is very kind in her writing and speaking about BYU boy. Good for her. Poor BYU boy - chances are he really was just trying to be polite and helpful and not report her to the Honor Code Office. His tone is a tad self-righteous, and his timing (Valentine's Day) was TERRIBLE, but it is not an inherently mean note at all. The problem comes down to his motivation, and since (hopefully) no one will ever know who he was, we won't be able to ask.

The argument seems to be coming down to a couple of different points: 1) Train them young; 2) Girls are responsible for men's responses to them; and 3) Covering up as much as possible regardless of style, comfort, or personal discretion seems to be the way to go.

I really like Jenna's (third link) discussion on modesty - in essence, that modesty is about respecting yourself as a child of God. And... there you go. Modesty is about you, your behavior and perception of self, and your relationship with your Heavenly Father. There are all sorts of offshoots there, such as a discussion of how appearance and behavior can often motivate/inspire/empower one another, and there is truth to that. There's also the realization that modesty is also about helping other people to feel comfortable in your presence, which is also true. There are guidelines the Church gives on appropriate dress, and those are important to review and apply.

HOWEVER: I really don't think we can apply blanket standards to all people in all places of all ages. The thing I dislike most about the Friend story is that there is no context given, other than that the 4-year-old's birthday dress is sleeveless - is it too big? Do the armholes and neck gape and show the girl's sides and chest? Does it have spaghetti straps? I don't understand how someone decides a 4-yr-old wearing a cherry-print sundress is 'immodest' without a few mitigating factors. I agree with Sue - a little girl's shoulders are not sexual, and should not therefore be covered up for that reason. If there is another reason, let's talk about it. If your three-year-old is wearing a sleeveless dress to church that fits properly, covers up her torso, and doesn't have Satanic messages printed on it, I'd be more inclined to point out how cute she looks than go screaming for a cardigan. If the little girl sees her mother and the other sisters and older girls in the ward wearing comfortable, well-fitted (not too big, not too tight) outfits that are appropriate to their age and their temple status, I'd say she'd be fairly likely to be fine with dressing that way herself when she arrives at those various ages and temple status. People do change - that's the whole point of why we're here. OF COURSE we can adapt and adjust to different standards as we grow older and move into new situations. We're selling our children (and ourselves) very, very short to assume that everything has to be learned and locked in immediately. Lead by example; explain things; be practical as well as spiritual; stop judging and keep loving; and I'm thinking the kids will be all right.

I loved this point in the debate: the Victorians got all riled up over a glimpse of ankle or wrist because it was forbidden and all covered up. Times and fashions change (due at least to some extent by major societal events, such as wars and the resulting shortages) and we (thankfully) are no longer required to wear corsets, gloves, long sleeves and longer skirts all the time. Men (evidently) no longer go giddy over the turn of a (naked!) wrist because they're used to seeing it. This doesn't mean I'm advocating we all walk around naked so that everyone gets used to it, because, hello, pockets, but if the Victorians are anything to go by then making something 'forbidden' is not the way to keep it safe. When young women and young men are taught to value themselves and to value those around them as children of God, when they are taught to acknowledge similarities and to appreciate (but not obsess over) differences, physical and otherwise, when they are allowed to honestly discuss thoughts and feelings without insisting that anyone else be judged or dictated to because of differing personal choices... Well, we'd have a lot less of the problems that plague us today.

It is not fair for any woman to be told that she alone is responsible for a man's reaction to her appearance. This completely negates his ability to choose! Remember how the world tells us that you 'feel what you feel' and that those feelings (and by extension, thoughts) cannot be controlled? Baloney. No matter how powerful the feeling is that you're experiencing, you alone control the actions you take because of those feelings. Young men swept with a biological response to seeing a pretty girl allow their thoughts and actions to follow - or they choose to re-direct those thoughts, and the resulting actions, which in turn changes, turns off, or otherwise alleviates the feeling created by that biological urge. Face it - men (young, old, nearly dead) are going to have biological urges (hint: women do, too) so the key is in controlling them, not in shifting responsibility to someone else. Of course, girls can help the men with that control by not dressing in ways that imply a particular type of behavior, and they should out of consideration. However, in the end the responsibility for a young man's behavior rests with him, not with the top or leggings a girl is wearing. It really does come down to personal responsibility and recognizing the worth of the self (for everyone) - when we teach children and youth not to dress a certain way because of the response it may garner from someone else we are also teaching them to objectify themselves to an alarming degree. Basically, we just have to chill out, teach correct principles (and by 'correct principles' I do not mean inch allowances on sleeve- and hem-lines), and expect that most people we will encounter will behave as, well, people... and not depraved sex machines.

I just decided I'm not going to directly address, point 3, because... please.

On BYU Honor Code and Other Types of Established Standards: I think that one of the reasons that we are instructed to "Judge not, that ye be not judged" is that we are simply NOT QUALIFIED to judge. We don't know. We don't have the bigger picture. We cannot expect that other people come from the same backgrounds, situations, teachings and standards that we do - we cannot assume that we understand exactly what's going on. The problem with BYU Boy was not that he commented on Brittany's outfit, or that her clothes disturbed him - it was that he made an assumption about the application of Honor Code standards, her digression from them, and the fact that other people were bound to agree with him simply because he believed his interpretation to be accurate. He shifted blame for his reaction to Brittany onto her and her supposed inability to live the Honor Code because he did not want to acknowledge his responsibility to curb his own response and resulting thoughts, or take the opportunity to consult with someone who WAS qualified to 'judge'. HE ASSUMED HE WAS RIGHT. This is why we have to control our thoughts, actions, and by extension, our feelings - we cause problems when walk around doing things that we believe to be 'right' when there are checks in place to determine whether we are, in fact, 'right'. We very often judge others  vocally because we assume that people will agree with us, or in an attempt to persuade them to agree with us. BYU Boy's note made several incorrect assumptions, and it was for this that he was ridiculed across the Internet. If he had focused on his homework and forgotten about it, the whole circus wouldn't have happened. If he had counseled with someone on the Honor Code Board, the whole circus wouldn't have happened. If he had acknowledged to himself: 'Huh - something about that pretty girl is inducing a biological reaction. Interesting. It must be evidence that I am, in fact, a guy. I could ask her out, or I could give her a note that will probably make it less likely that she'll induce a biological reaction from me. That might be out of line, though - maybe I'll just go get a non-caffeinated beverage and meditate in front of a floor fan for a while instead...' The. Whole. Circus. Would. Not. Have. Happened.

I grant you that it's unlikely for youth and young adults to think things through quite this extensively. However, I do not think it's beyond the realm of possibility for us adults to teach them to TRY. And if we do, the clothing issues (real or imagined) are just not going to be that big a deal anymore.

That's my modest conclusion, anyway.

* * * * *

Follow-up notes: I had no idea the title of my post would apply to well to the whole post. Huh. I also had no idea I had so much to say about it.

- Just because I wrote all this down in a blog and was maybe slightly funny or a little bit clever does not mean I'm actually RIGHT. Just FYI.

- Also, I was thinking about doing a word count on this post, just because I count pretty much everything I  type these days, then realized I didn't want to know just how much work I could have been doing on my paper while I was getting this all out instead. *le sigh*

*

Puffy Face

In which we shall see: I get somewhat rant-y. And with good reason.

* * * * *

After a public spate of fairly vicious commentary about Ashley Judd's looks, particularly regarding the above photo, she posted a response - and it is fantastic. (Please, read the whole thing.)

When will we finally have had enough? When will we stop judging people for how they look RIGHT THIS MINUTE and start remembering who they actually ARE? We are damaging women, relationships, children, men, teenagers, our perception of ourselves, our view of the past and our view of the future, the very fabric of our society by our refusal to stop allowing the media to tell us what is attractive and what is not; to reject the overwhelmingly common belief that people are worth no more than what they look like. How is it that we continue to be so FOOLISH?

We must stop. We simply have to.

I've never thought much about Ashley Judd - I thought she was pretty, a good actress, interesting family, but that was about it. Now, after reading her letter, I respect and admire her so much - she's smart, clear-eyed, and responding in an articulate, appropriate, confident manner to a personal attack and serious issue. A friend and fellow blogger recently posted a very funny, satirical (or is she serious? You decide) write-up on our collective tendency towards jealousy, and I'm starting to see that she has a point. Is there any reason for malicious gossip and irresponsible 'journalism' other than jealousy? I don't think so - it's not like calling out someone's age or a perceived 'flaw' is in any way news.

It's interesting how often lately I've heard people reminding me that we must not judge others, and all the thinking I've been doing about the importance of not making assumptions. How can anyone look at the picture above and not see a beautiful woman? And if she looks different than she did a month (or a decade) ago, why doesn't anyone ask if there's a reason? (Have any of us NOT seen that illness can change a person's appearance?) And why isn't it OK/normal/accepted/appreciated that we change as we get older? The gleeful disregard for facts, healthy discussion, and common courtesy tells me that yes, these commenters and interviewers and 'reporters' are jealous - jealous, and invested in the false trope that we have allowed the media (and each other) to impose on our world that 'image is everything.'

IT'S NOT TRUE. We are all worth so much more than what we look like. Ashley Judd's measured response proves to me, for example, that she is much, much, more than just a pretty (puffy) face - and she shouldn't have needed to write about it for anyone to believe it.

"The insanity has to stop, because as focused on me as it appears to have been, it is about all girls and women. In fact, it’s about boys and men, too, who are equally objectified and ridiculed, according to heteronormative definitions of masculinity that deny the full and dynamic range of their personhood. It affects each and every one of us, in multiple and nefarious ways: our self-image, how we show up in our relationships and at work, our sense of our worth, value, and potential as human beings. Join in—and help change—the Conversation." - Ashley Judd  (If you haven't, read the article.)

*

The Hunger Games is Watching YOU

In which we shall see: First, a movie review. Second, some socio-political commentary (more on the socio, less on the political) with a healthy dose of self-flagellation. Seriously. (You never see a good flagellation these days.)

* * * * *

                                                              Picture from The Hollywood News

I'm not a huge fan of The Hunger Games trilogy - which is to say, I read and appreciated the books, but did not get particularly invested or Twilight-y about them. I think they've got some fascinating ideas and pertinent warnings, and that Suzanne Collins did an excellent job with the storytelling. They're also such a MASSIVE presence in the States that it was a bit of a surprise when the movie came out and I found that most of the people I know hadn't read and were even barely aware of the books, let alone the movie. (Most of my friends, to be realistic, probably fall into that 'between' zone that comes in the middle of 'teens'/'YA target audience' and 'older readers who've rediscovered/jumped on the YA bandwagon'.) After all the buzz and the generally good reviews that came with the opening weekend of the film, I decided to check it out. I wasn't really sure what to expect, as the books had been plenty disturbing on their own.* I headed over to a matinee with a friend who'd heard of but not read the books, and who asked (in his customary way) if I would 'sum up (the backstory) in a Tweet'. Surprisingly, I found that I could. This is one series that you don't need to have much context for (dystopian, autocratic government, yearly subjugation of population with fight-to-the-death reality TV) in order to follow along.

And I thought it was an excellent movie. (Although I thoroughly enjoyed this contrary review by someone who's opinion - and writing skills - I very much respect.) I liked the look of the majority of the movie, I thought several of the performances were excellent (although, Gale? Oh, dear. I hope Liam Hemsworth got at least some of the same acting genes and not just the 'bulk' genes that his brother got... fingers are crossed for the next movie). Even the shaky-cam didn't bother me after the first few minutes - I think I may have been desensitized by the Bourne films. Yes, it felt very true to the book, but in a way that acknowleged skillfully that a good movie adaptation is going to have to move and squeeze and cut some things in order to get the highly detailed world of the book onto the less-detailed (odd as that may sound) world on the big screen. No, it wasn't art, but there were some beautiful, effective shots; in part I think I appreciated the experience more because it was better than your typical summer popcorn flick. (I also think the music is pretty great.)

No, I didn't 'like' the movie, I wouldn't say I 'enjoyed' it - I was far too aware of the actual nature of the action and themes and content to enjoy it, and I am glad that I was engrossed in the experience without forgetting to be disturbed by it. I'm also glad that the movie wasn't more graphic - I read the books, after all, and I'm much 'happier' (if that's the right word) with my mental perception of the killings than I would be with seeing them acted out. Again, I was plenty disturbed already. Any more, and I would have shut off from all of it completely. I like that it wasn't glossy enough to lump me with the Romans cheering for the gladiators, and not 'gritty' or realistic enough to try to convince me it was reality TV or a documentary. For me, the balance was good, and I appreciated that.

However...

* * * * *

You ever have one of those moments when you realize you've been completely, stupidly naive? The older I get, the more they seem to happen - which in a way is a good thing, because it means you're really THINKING about things. I was shocked to hear, in a few different articles, about people who have been Tweeting their disappointment over the casting for a few of the parts in The Hunger Games; specifically, using black actors for the parts of Rue, Thresh, and Cinna. Bottom line, of course, is that these Tweeters are stupid. They're not complaining about lack of talent, they're complaining about skin color - and a few of them go on to sniffily try to justify their complaints by wondering if the movie production team actually read the book. The book, The Hunger Games, in which Rue and Thresh are described BY THE AUTHOR as having 'dark brown skin.' (Cinna, incidentally, is not given a biological - racial? Skin-based? description, so anyone complaining about the movie casting messing with the book is, again, just plain stupid.)

A few weeks ago I had a conversation with a friend of mine about an interview with Morgan Freeman that was making the rounds in which he says the key to ending racism is to 'stop talking about it'.** I agreed with him, and told my friend that I didn't think racism was such a problem anymore because the younger generation had grown up knowing better - or at least not knowing that it was an issue; that it WASN'T an issue because kids today didn't know to talk about it as if it were something that needed to be solved. People are people now, I argued - skin color is just a fact and not a point of concern. She disagreed with me. I was surprised then, but I'm not now. Now, I'm horrified and appalled and more than a little disgusted with those who think the movie was 'ruined' because the 'producer[s made] all the good characters black.'

First, I'm honestly disgusted that people would feel this way, regardless of how the characters were described in the book. (None of the Tweeters seem to be upset that blue-eyed English rose Jennifer Lawrence, described in the book with straight black hair and olive skin, which generally brings to mind Hispanic, Mediterranean, or Native American genotypes, was cast as Katniss - I'm not particularly upset, as I think she did a fine job with the part.) I don't understand how anyone can think that skin color affects talent or story-telling ability, I really don't. (In fact, I thought the main scene with Rue was the most emotionally effective - I cried - in the entire film. That little girl was fantastic.) Really, movie or book or job or guy sitting next to you on the bus - I don't understand how people can feel this way. I've understood that racism has to be taught; I'm shocked, but have to acknowledge that somehow, people are still teaching it. How is this possible?!?

A. Dor. A. Ble.

 Second, I am truly mystified as to WHY anyone who does have that particular belief would blog, Tweet, or publicly talk about it. I understand and accept that people are entitled to their own beliefs, repugnant as they may be to the general population, but you have to be a complete moron to express a bigoted perception in the Internet age and not know that others are going to pick it up, pass it on, and flail you alive. How can you NOT know that you are being racist, a bigot? And if you do know, why would you SAY it?!? I just don't get it. Seriously. You are as foolish and self-deceptive as those in Suzanne Collins' books who watch The Hunger Games for fun and entertainment. Of course the world is watching you. That is what the Internet IS.

So - I recommend the movie. I recommend the books. I'm going to go read them again, and think a little harder about what we don't want the world to turn out to be. I don't know what the answer is, the way to stop people teaching others to be racist - but at least now I'm more aware, now I will think about what I can do (since I've become a little less naive) - like blog, maybe - to try to make sure the world doesn't get stupider. Not on my watch.

Falling turtles ahoy! Pay attention.

Cyd





* It really is a credit to an author to have written a series of books that are socially and politcally relevant, full of unlikeable and completely disturbing content, and still totally compelling. (The Twilight books, for example, are two out of three, AND Collins is a better writer. Sorry, Stephenie.)

** The link is essentially a summary of the interview - there are other, more complete, versions.

*

The Little Big Stuff (I NEED -YOUR- HELP)

I have a dilemma.

It's nothing huge, don't worry... but don't you hate how you agonize over the small things, when you can make major decisions in a couple of blinks? (Or maybe you don't. You probably think the big stuff over for a reasonable amount of time, and then make a well-thought-out decision. This is why I'm coming to you for help.)

The sitch is this: I play the piano for Relief Society. From the very first day I stepped in I've been asking to get the weekly hymns in advance so that I can practice them (so as not to suck). (Sorry for saying 'suck' in a church-y post.) No one seems to plan the hymns in advance (there is a music coordinator, but I haven't seen her at RS for months. I think she's been having some health/mobility issues). Here's the problem: the sitch is making me crazy.

I TOLD you it was nothing huge.

I love the hymns. They are actually a lot harder to play than you might expect, and they're even harder to play when you're trying to follow a conductor while a bunch of people are singing along to what you're playing (or in my case, trying frantically to play). No one will let me know in advance what hymns to look at (at least, not without -me- pulling -their- teeth), they just say 'Oh, you pick - anything you like' two minutes before the meeting starts. So here's my dilemma: How do I tell the teachers and/or RS Presidency that I am not 'down with this' without sounding preachy, petty, whiny, and/or self-righteous? (Point one: It may not be possible, as I could very well be one of all of these things. Unfortunately. Point two: My RS Pres is pretty blog-saavy, and may check in here before I actually decide what to do. She's cool, though, and may have some good suggestions. Hi, Naomi! You rock!)

I want to help build the kingdom, and I don't want to criticize. I want to be positive and helpful, not all growly and finger-pointy. I also want to define some acceptable limits so that I don't chew down my back teeth. (This is a very dental-adjacent post, for some reason.) So, at the moment I'm thinking of a letter, something like this:

"Dear wonderful RS teachers:

Thank you so much for your love and work on the lessons! I think you might be missing an opportunity, though, and I'd like to share it with you. The hymns we sing in Relief Society are a chance to both set the mood for your lesson and wrap it up/support it on the way out. I, the pianist, have a very limited repetoire of hymns that I can play well, and I depend on getting a little notice in order to practice them so that I can help your lessons.

Here's the opportunity: I'm playing as a volunteer, not because it's a calling - I haven't been blessed or set apart to have any particular insight into what you'll be teaching. I'm also a student looking at an extremely busy second term. However, I am very willing to do what I can to practice whatever hymns will best speak for your lessons - otherwise, I'm afraid I'm going to have to give you a list of the songs I actually can play (I think there's about 10) and we'll have to choose from those the day of if there isn't something picked out at least a couple of days ahead of time. You've all been very kind about mentioning how well I play - trust me, I cringe over every wrong note. If I can't practice, I can't improve, and I just don't have time this term to learn ALL the hymns! I want to help, I really do, and a hymn that 1) supports your lesson and 2) helps the sisters learn and become familiar with a wide range of hymns (also known as 'Scripture') can only be a good thing.

I know our Music Coordinator has been dealing with other things and hasn't been around, so I'll make this request one more time. Could you please get me two hymns that you'd like sung with your lesson by the Wednesday before you teach? (Or, do like Amy Hunt did the week before last and give me the song numbers the week before in church! It was awesome.) I will make every effort to practice. I may not be perfect, but I'll feel a lot better about the effort - and that much less stress means I'll be able to enjoy your lessons even more. I do hope you don't mind my asking! If this is too much pressure for you, I understand and I'll get you that list of hymns.

Thank you, ladies -

Charisse"

* * * * *

So, what do you think? Am I really as obnoxious as I'm starting to suspect I am? There's something of a tendency over here to expect other people in the Church to 'take care of' things (and with some validity: I am playing, after all) and I don't want to enable that any more. IT'S SUCH A SMALL STUPID THING, I KNOW,  and I am almost as frustrated by the fact that I'm frustrated about it as I am frustrated about the initial... frustration. Sheesh. Do I send (well, Facebook Message) this letter (or some version of it)? Do I shut up and start meditation exercises, and learn two news hymns a week? Do I draw hymn numbers out of a hat and play those, regardless of the lesson topic? (I... actually really like that last one. Hmmm.)

Please help me not go postal on my sweet Relief Society sisters and the generally pretty cool Relief Society presidency. Help me to sharetheloooooove and maketheworldabetterplaaaaaace, instead.

Especially not over 'hymn choice.' Over pornography, smoking in the bathroom*, or the ward Christmas party, sure. Not the hymns.

Thanks. I'll be in the corner, chewing on my fingernails in order to give my molars a break.

Weigh in!**

* Not that anyone I know has ever done this. Particularly not at church. Or during a Ward Council meeting. Allegedly.

** That means 'please comment' and GUIDE MEEEEEEE.

Pedestrian Woes

It's actually something of a relief to know it's not just me.

* * * * *

Also: Zombie, or Not? You decide.

*

Bonus (not Added, Just Bonus) Post: Grammar Alert!

As a matter of fact (not actual fact, just fact) I really could care less about this. A WHOLE LOT less. I am one of those nerds who would rather chew aluminum foil than listen to someone use the non-word* 'irregardless'.

You Sound Ridiculous: 7 Misused Expressions

I feel better now.

And you should watch this:



Although I gotta say, I kind of like the idea of an inflatable hover-fort.




* I am SO HAPPY to have a word for something that is not a word, even if it resembles one (in the strictest sense).

Fashion History Horror Story

Did you know that nearly everything women wear regularly was first worn by men? It's true. Lace, tights, earrings, makeup, high-heeled shoes (the brassiere is pretty much the only exception). How times have changed... now it seems that men are taking their fashion cues from women.

I speak, of course, of the evil that is "skinny jeans".

For about the last hundred years most men would rather run naked through the street than wear tights, and yet every other twenty-something you see these days (OK, "I" see - admittedly, London might be a little different trend-wise than where you're at... SO BE WARNED, IT'S COMING) has got his legs strapped into painted-on denim. Can male jeggings be far behind? My eyes are shuddering just thinking about it. Skinny jeans don't actually help anyone - they look OK on a very few women, but that's because those women have "ideal" figures anyway. They don't hide what ought to be hidden, they don't lengthen, they don't support, they have no societal productivity. They're just mean. Indifferent, since they're jeans, but still mean by default.

So when did men decide this was a good look to emulate? At best, a man in skinny jeans is some dude looking for his doublet and sword, at worst he's doing a flamingo impression or resembling a chain of really hefty sausage links (depending on which end of the 'build' range he's inhabiting). Jeans are supposed to be our 'comfort' clothes, that item in your closet that goes with anything and makes you look and feel good. It's impossible to look or feel good about a piece of clothing with a built-in InstaWedgie (patent pending).

I do have to admire the ingenuity with which some men have managed to avoid the IW and simultaneously create an even more unflattering silhouette than the skinny jean - I speak, of course, of the unholy union between skinny jeans and saggy skater's pants (culturally translated as 'skater's trou' over here, 'across the pond'). I'm pretty sure somebody sacrificed a goat for this trend, because how else can you explain men wearing something that gives them cankles from their feet to their thighs AND makes them look like they've accidentally fallen into their big sister's denim mini? There's not a woman alive who wouldn't run shrieking from the dressing room after seeing that devilish combination obliterating her body. But they're slouching all over the streets of London (not moving very quickly, natch, since you can't walk fast when your crotch seam is linked at your kneecaps); defiantly slouching, I say, AND upping the fashion ante by displaying above the belt loops no more boxer shorts - oh, no, the new thing for Today's Guy to wear with his barely-hanging-from-his-hipbone hybrid female-repellent jeans are printed briefs.

There's no justification for that.

None.

Everyone knows zebra-patterned tighties went out with the '80's! And good riddance, I say!

I think it's time to start some kind of Crimes Against Fashion Intervention Group - MY EYES ARE BURNING, and I'm getting a lot of whiplash from turning my head away from vomit-and-laugh-inducing 'couture'. And don't even try to tell me these guys are getting dates... The future of our society is at stake here, people.

Something must be done - and if that 'something' is "Mumuus For Men", well, I'm all for it.



*** I was going to include pictures, just to emphasize the horror, but... I couldn't do it. Your imagination will not be worse than reality, trust me.

(Civilized) Ranting About Rating

I had an interesting movie experience last night - I saw how a PG-13 film is made.

Back in 2006 (sheesh, that long ago?) a sweet, quirky movie came out called "Penelope". It is about a girl who is the victim of a family curse and comes equipped with smarts, charm, great hair (extensions), and the nose of a pig. It also features a scruffy, greasy-haired, emo-enabled James McAvoy (still swoon-worthy, though - and ironically playing an American while most of the movie was shot in London. Great accent). In the States, at least, the movie was rated PG, which meant I was guilt-free when taking my niece to a showing while on a girls' day out.

Yesterday, I pulled up what is evidently a British version of the movie - it's longer by at least a few minutes, since there were scenes I'd never seen before. One of those scenes involved a rude gesture, one with the aftermath of a family member's infidelity. Others were sprinkled with a few more (relatively mild, but still) swear words. There was nothing there that was massively offensive (especially if you watch prime-time TV) and some of the additions were interesting expansions on the characters, which I liked. The thing that really stood out to me was that I could absolutely see how the cuts from yesterday's version to get it to the in-the-American-theaters (and on DVD) version made it so distinctly a PG movie instead of PG-13. (Now, versus almost 5 years ago, the longer version would probably actually rate a PG, but it's very clear how things were thematically cut.)

So, swear words, rude gestures, thematic issues that had no bearing whatsoever on the story being told were all the things that were cut out to make a good, clean movie. The movie didn't suffer from not being "real" - it's a movie. It wasn't ever real anyway. In the end the editing focused on the plot and not on interesting distractions. This certainly can't be the only movie that would benefit from that kind of focus - and I mean 'benefit' in a literal sense.

There was an article in the Deseret News recently that talked about the dearth of PG and G-rated movies. The author writes that in the years from 1995 to 2011, there were "...more than 4,300 PG-13 and R-rated movies making an average of $29 million compared with almost 1,200 PG and G flicks that make an average of $38.4 million per show." Granted, there were far fewer of them made, but they're averaging almost 10 million more per movie than those with darker ratings! I might be crazy, but I would think that clean, family-friendly shows that cost less to make (since you don't tend to be blowing things up and such) and have a higher average return would be a good investment. At a guess, I figure you'd need at least another thousand PG or G movies before you started skewing the average... and it's going to take another several years in which we'll see many, many more PG-13 and R before we hit that thousand. Just think - spend the money you would have used to make one crappy, formulaic blood-and-guts action movie to make two or three smarter, funnier (or sadder) movies that parents and kids can see and talk about together, and you're practically guaranteed an extra 20-30 million before you've even started.

Surely I'm not the only person to have figured this out - come on, Hollywood, we don't need sex and violence and bad language. (We've got the news for that.) We need good storytelling and new ways to see ourselves and the ones we love, interesting ways to talk about people and ideas. Yes, you can do all this with the 'reality' of sensuality and obscenity and violent behavior - but Ima gonna call you out, Hollywood, and tell you to lay off the trash. I'm better than that, smarter than that, and so is most of the rest of your audience. We don't NEED any of that junk.

So stop trying to sell it to us!

Thank you.

Just a Minute, Hair

Dear Hairstylists of the World:

When I walk into your salon, it is with the expectation that I will walk out looking different. Not "suddenly supermodel" different, because if I didn't have a grasp on reality I would be cutting my own hair with garden shears, but a new look that is other than the one I am sporting. I suppose there are some who go in for a "trim" meaning "maintenance" in the sense of "keep my hair looking like it did three weeks ago", but that is not me. It's just hair. It grows (or you buy more). I'm not precious about it, and I expect that you will believe and listen to me when I tell you things like "layers", "texture", "movement", and "I've had it all different lengths, so I'm not worried about going shorter or looking a little funky. In fact, that would be great". These seem to me to be words that fit into your vocabularies. Also, when you ask me questions it would be helpful if you would listen to the answers, as that would save me quite a bit of frustration later when you've "styled" my hair in ways that don't suit. If I say one side seems/looks a little longer than the other side, please do something about it - you can pull on it all you like, but I'm the one who lives with it and looks at it every day, and if I say it looks longer than it does. A little obnoxious, perhaps - but I'm the one who's an expert on my hair. You've known me for five minutes and will forget my face and head as soon as I leave, so kindly pay attention in the meantime.

Your tip and my return business rely on it.

Think about it -

Me

HAHAHAHAHA....  but true.

P.S. I wonder if there are YouTube tutorials on how to cut your own hair...  I bet there are. You can find anything on YouTube. And I could use the tip.

Winter Onederland

It's snowing.

The good kind of snow is falling; the fat, puffy flakes that land intermittently with no breeze and almost-warm air between them for visibility. It's snowing at just the right time, too - on the short walk home from the train station after successfully making the trip from downtown. The streets are so slick two girls (women? early twenties, by my guess) are pulling each other up and down the road on an old-fashioned, tall-runnered sled. All it needed was a Shetland pony and some jingle bells. Fortunately, no one clears the sidewalks so there is enough fluffy powder to allow for some traction. It's lovely, truly, the kind of snowfall you actually want to be out strolling through and rarely ever see. it's the epitome of "white Christmas" snow.

I blame Charles Dickens.

My research packet for the play "A Christmas Carol" mentions boldly that Dickens is the man who saved Christmas - in reality, of course, he's only just the guy who gave us our long-standing visual perception of Christmas.

I suppose I should blame the volcano.

When Dickens was a child there was a volcanic eruption halfway around the world that disrupted weather patterns for years. One result was snow on Christmas or Christmas Eve in England four times (three?) before Chuck was 10 years old, though only twice in the next 50 years*. The correlation was set, and when in 1834 the intrepid author with financial difficulties and a large family to support churned out his little Christmas ghost story in a desperate attempt to stave off bankruptcy, he, possibly inadvertently, condensed the old 12 days' celebrations into one festive evening, cocooned in an atmosphere one historian deemed "coziness" and circumscribed by gently falling snow. The first Christmas card was sent a week after the book was published, and ever since we have been taught that the ideal holiday includes frozen precipitation and an idyllic "white Christmas".

Thanks a lot, CD - I hope you're happy.

Friends are stranded in airports and stuck in cities and train stations all over Europe thanks to the snow. London is woefully unprepared to deal with the weather, despite this being the third year running with storms and dropping temperatures over the holiday. I blame the radio stations - If they'd just stop playing "I'm Dreaming of a White Christmas" maybe the Universe wouldn't be listening so closely, you know? I suppose it's not really Charles Dickens' fault, though I have to wonder if it would have killed him to set his story in some lovely tropical locale instead.

Overheard: "I'm so excited for the snow! It might be a white Christmas this year!"

"Just like the last two... It'll sure make it hard for people to get out and visit family if it keeps snowing, since they don't clear the roads."

"Well, OK, but at least it'll be pretty!"

Sure. My five-minute walk from the station was certainly pretty. And now that I've had it, I fervently wish that the snow will stop falling, melt, and let everyone out so they can be with friends and family on Christmas. That's my kind of winter wonderland!

In the end, I suppose blame will have to lie with the volcano. Thanks a lot, Eyjafjallajokull**. Only four (or so) more Christmases like this to go... Next time, put a cork in it, wouldja?

* These particular facts may or may not be completely accurate.

** I owe you an umlaut***.

*** And another one.

An Open Letter (That Is Not Likely To Be Read By The Pertinent Individuals)

So. Here it is.

Remember when I told you, oh, last summer, that I wouldn't be chasing after you, trying to pin you down anymore? That still applies. You're three-for-three on flaking out on invitations I've made to you that you've accepted, then blown off. I've moved a ways past "shame on me" status here - and I'm pretty sure that all your "we need to get together" and "I owe you a date" talk is just a lot of hot air. Texting does not a relationship (of any sort) make, and I never signed up to be your Lonely Hearts Cruise Director in the first place. (Oh, and recognizing to whom you are speaking AND spelling her name correctly - FAIL - are, oddly, important in a friendship. FYI.) As far as I can tell, we're not anything to each other anymore, so this is not a breakup. This is a me-growing-up (ha) and-removing-myself-from-whatever-outer-darkness place I have on your priority list. I'm not faulting you (much), it's your list - I'm faulting myself for realizing that "I don't believe you" feeling has been the hallmark of our interactions and for allowing pseudo-flirtation and empty promises to stand in place of real intent and action. My bad. I'm not heartbroken or anything - there are no country-music songs being written in my head this week - and we'll never actually have this conversation simply because I don't believe you've ever thought about any of this. You'll probably miss me, but you'll get over it - I know I'll miss you, but then, I've had a lot of practice.

Oh, and you, yes, you - the one over there sitting on your broken-legged Bar Stool of Superiority - GET OVER YOURSELF. Doing things in an accepted and established way is not food for scorn just because it wasn't your idea in the first place. Most people (that I've talked to, anyway) actually think it's a good policy to research a text (i.e., read it) and base a plan of action on that, rather than on the hazy vision floating around inside the heads of crazy persons. In a related note, I DO know how to read, and to listen and retain information - skills you seem to be seriously lacking. I get that you don't like me - I don't understand why you came to that conclusion, but hey, I can accept your decision. What I do not accept is your determination to condescend to and purposefully misunderstand me, to make accusations for which you have no basis, and to hold me responsible for situations over which I have no authority. Grow up. Make at least some attempt to act in the professional manner that your position requires. Communicate (effectively, please) even if you don't want to, and either OWN UP or SHUT UP. Please note that it is entirely likely that we will be having some version of this conversation in real life. Should be fun for everybody!

Talk about your falling turtles,

Cyd

P.S. Note to self: What is it with you and idiot guys? Get a grip, get some therapy, or both! Also, It's probably not the BEST idea to blog about these kinds of things late at night. Remember how we talked (at length) about impulse control? Try applying it, -K-?

P.P.S. Whatever, self. I'm on a roll. Better to hope that this translates to RL motivation and empowerment!

P.P.P.S. In the end, I got into grad school in London and will not have to deal with these people (others like them, no doubt, but not these specifically) for much longer. Win-win (for me).

P.P.P.P.S. Separate grad school post to follow!

Autumn Falling

I like my hair.

I've been trying to find something to blog about (I seriously have been attempting to get that promised video of the teepee and the quilts posted - SO CUTE - and it has NOT uploaded. Grrr) and it's been pretty foggy. Not literally - I was out walking in the beeyoutiful fall sunshine today (sorry, all you rained-out West-coasters) and the fog was all mental. Here's what I realized: I really dislike "crushing" on someone because it makes me all emotional and out of control and stupid, but it's easier to feel alive and sparkly and mentally active if you've got some outside source of energy feeding you. I HATE feeling addicted to someone (so not EVER trying drugs or alcohol), and I really am bitter about the apparent truth that chemistry really can be one-sided. Or two-thirds-sided, if I'm being optimistic. So why is that? How can love/infatuation/attraction be such a complete downer and yet still be the thing that makes life interesting and exciting? There just HAS to be some other way.

In the meantime, at least, I really do like my hair.

Modern Methods of Communication

1. Facebook chat.
2. Facebook Wall post.
3. Facebook message (i.e., Facebook email)
4. Actual email
5. My blog (both email and blog addresses are on my Facebook profile)
6. Text
7. Phone call
8. Online phone book (for street address in order to visit)
9. Actual phone book (how many people with my last name do you REALLY think live in your zip code, anyway?)
10. Mutual friend number one - to pass message, give address, etc...
11. Mutual friends 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7... up to 15 or so that actually have my phone number and would be happy to emulate #10
12. Billboard (farfetched, I know, but do-able)
13. Random encounter
14. (Insert additonal methods here...)

Effective options: 1 - 11
Options "tried": 1, 7
Option that "succeeded": 13

Your response: "I couldn't get a hold of you" "I really tried" "You didn't respond on Facebook that one time when we were chatting, or something" "I'm sure I called and left messages"

"I missed you" "I really wanted to spend time with you, I did"

...

My response: "BITE ME."




P.S. If you say you're going to call, call. Don't be an ass. Also, listen to me - if I say I'm going to do something (like call you) and you agree, I'm going to do it. Don't jerk me around once I do. Of course, this is all rhetorical "save a little trouble for the next girl" (thank you, Carrie) advice... See above, RE: "My response".

Once again...

It seems to me that most of what I'm doing lately is linking to other things - I'll try to get something nice and rant-y up here soon.




In the meantime - link! I think this post has great points and describes some terrific principles... there are things here I think I can apply right away in relationships. Hmmm...

(ETA: I haven't read this yet, but I want to, so I'm linking it here so I can find it easily later. Feel free to tell me what you think about it!)


Also, days to marathon: 37
Days to potential mental breakdown: 1 or (approximately) 15

A Brief Rant

I was heading for an escalator yesterday, and just in front of me there was a small family that included a father who was manuevering a stroller onto the escalator, in spite of the nearby sign that clearly read "NO STROLLERS". I was a little irritated at this blatant disregard for safety, especially as there was also a set of elevators nearby - and a little more irritated to find I couldn't pass the family since the stroller didn't leave any room. The family continued down a second escalator, and I was once again unable to pass them... The mother and an older child, maybe three years old, were several steps ahead of the stroller, and the mother stepped off the escalator a few steps ahead of her daughter. She turned back just in time to see the little girl watch her own feet slide up the grill at the bottom of the stairs, rather than stepping over it and off the escalator. She immediately began shouting at the child: "Don't you ever do that again!" etc... a display which I assume derived from her concern for the child's safety. In the meantime, of course, the father and the infant in the stroller (resting at a precarious angle on two wheels) were just a few feet above them. It was with no small difficulty that I refrained from pointing out to the mother the hypocrisy of her shout to her daughter - both by example, and the fact that she didn't keep hold of the girl's hand while on the moving staircase so as to help her off at the bottom.

I'm here to tell you: "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't actually work. It also proves to the viewing public that you probably shouldn't have procreated in the first place. Sheesh.