I can't decide if posting this is cheating, since I didn't write it for my blog in particular, but I guess it's no worse than posting a link to someone else's blog? So here it is: my grad school application essay. It feels a teeny bit pretentious to show it off, but I'm kind of proud of it, so...whatever.
Oh, and while I'm being self-conscious, I thought about taking out the school-specific details at the bottom, but then I didn't.
Anyway, enjoy.
---
When I assign the first paper in my future English 101 class, it will be on a current and controversial topic sure to elicit strong opinions from my students. This will encourage them to share their perspectives while giving me a snapshot of their writing abilities. But my favorite part of this assignment will come at the end of the semester, when I ask them to write a second paper on the same topic—except this time, they have to write it from the opposite point of view.
I can’t wait for the uproar when they learn that this is their final.
This assignment epitomizes what I find so glorious about writing. On a practical level, it requires a structured outline, thorough research, and the ability to present information in a logical progression. But this assignment is about more than just composing The Perfectly-Written Essay. It forces students to build an argument from scratch, and to learn how to use language to support an idea—even an idea they disagree with. In committing to the writing instead of only to the position, students learn the value of each and every word used to present a perspective. In using their writing to communicate to the world, students learn the power those words have, and the importance of having reasonable support for their ideas.
There comes a time in our lives when we have to figure out what we love and what we stand for. We have to account for ourselves, but in order to do so, we first have to understand ourselves. In college—right when we need it the most—we learn a beautifully structured method for thinking through an idea and supporting an opinion: expository writing. The classic essay format provides a way to identify the questions we are asking, and gives us the medium with which to answer them. But most of all, the essay calls for order in the form of a thesis. And when students are inspired to create and deliver a personal opinion by means of that thesis, they not only learn to write effectively, but also they also come to a better understanding of their own beliefs.
The unfortunate reality, however, is that college writing assignments are often a wasted effort. Working in the Concordia Writing Center for four years revealed to me that even the most diligent of students do not take their English Composition classes seriously simply because they are boring. The essay is established only as an arbitrary format for future homework assignments, and students walk away uninspired. And what a shame that is, because learning to write is the perfect platform for learning how to think critically. English Composition must not become obsolete, and I intend to be a part of its regeneration.
To do so, my idealism needs to be met with the reality of experience and the structure of a strong education. My attraction to the English department at the University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee lies in the department’s dedication to writers, evident in its cross-cultural, interdisciplinary studies as well as in the active support and involvement of the writing center. I look forward to the guidance of scholars with such diverse backgrounds and research interests, particularly Alice Gillam and her course “Teaching Writing as Process,” and Dennis Lynch’s experience as Director of Composition. I am also eager for the opportunity to hold a teaching assistantship, which is the ideal method of a hands-on education for my intended career as a professor of English. I hope to use my experience at UWM to reshape the way we write, and consequently, the way we think, one thesis at a time.
Today, the essay. Tomorrow, the world.
Saturday, December 21
Tuesday, December 3
the perils of a persuasive thesis
I'm good at selling myself.
Not like that. Shame on you.
As an English major, you practice over and over again picking an idea/conclusion and then finding ways to prove yourself right. That's the whole idea behind writing an essay: come up with a thesis, and use literature and/or various sources to support it. Demonstrate why you are arguing your point, and why other people should agree with you. Essentially, you're selling an idea. The more textual support your paper has, the better that idea sounds, and the more people will buy into it. You learn to see literature through certain lenses and to pick out quotes from other people in order to prove that you're not the only one with said idea.
And let's be realistic here: eventually, because this skill is practiced in terms of homework and grades, you learn to sell the idea long after you have stopped caring about it. I might have lost interest in Hamlet's hubris, but I have three more pages to write by tomorrow morning, so I'm going to keep at it. [1] There's a certain amount of shmoozing that goes on at this point, and you get really good at making broad connections and tying in loosely-relevant quotes. [2] It becomes part of what you do and how you think. I'm the kind of person now who hesitates to share an opinion without also giving at least two good reasons for having it, because I believe in writing strong and convincing theses. [3]
And sometimes I am really pleased about having this mentality. I am of the opinion that more people should have reasonable support for their perspectives, and that society would benefit from a little bit of research now and again. But the problem, I have found, is that I am too good at supporting an idea. So good, in fact, that I buy into my own arguments, simply because they are well-supported.
There's this recurring theme in my life: discovering a new and different job (that pays better, or has a "better" schedule). I pursue that thing by doing what I know, which is pitching myself as perfect for it because of XY&Z previous experiences or skills. [4] Resumes are more or less just a weird-looking works cited page. And while I'm trying to get there, I manage to convince myself that all the selling points about me are why I will love this job, and then one of two things happens:
And after all of this real-world adult nonsense, I'm asking myself the same question that keeps coming back to me: why aren't I doing this already?
I keep looking for ways to change my situation, and I keep trying to grab hold of options simply because they are there. I keep running away from what is right in front of me, because it's not "good enough." The conditions aren't perfect, and I have to make them perfect before I can go on. My mom calls this "if/then" thinking, and it's not really a productive way to live, because you spend your whole life waiting for something to work the way you think it should in order to do something that you want.
I don't love working for The Corporation. It's made me (more) cynical, if nothing else, and it's humbling to go to work every day and not have ways to express my intellect, my passion for thinking and relationships, my faith. And while it's not a terrible paycheck, it's not a good one, and we have bills to pay.
But for the present, it actually is offering me what I want: The freedom to come home and pursue my own goals. I have a flexible schedule, no homework, no problems to take home. My job even has benefits and vacation hours. So, I ask myself yet again, what's the problem? There's no glory, no intellectual high? Does there have to be? Is it not meaningful in the sense that I have a job at all? Am I in danger of wandering from my career path?
It's not that I can't pursue bigger or better options. But Real Jobs tend to want you for the semi-long term, and if I want to go to grad school, which starts in less than a year, the timing doesn't look so great. And until I know if/where I get accepted, I can't really make any plans. Once applications are submitted, I can stop stressing about grad school and start using my free time to--you guessed it--write more.
So new game plan? Keep on keepin' on. Reassess when I have an answer about school. Stop worrying and start making the most of what I actually have. And most of all, stop looking for answers in the wrong places, [7] starting with not buying in to my own sales pitch about me.
"I know he can get the job, Harry, but can he do the job?" [8]
And more importantly, should I?
--
[1] You also learn, eventually, to sell the idea by skimming the material for quotes instead of actually reading it. Not, of course, that I would ever have done this.
[2] I always wondered if professors just couldn't see through my bullshit, because I would get good grades on these papers. I'm beginning to think, however, that maybe they were grading my ability to bullshit in the first place.
[3] When it comes to serious stuff, anyway. In regular life I don't usually think about the things that come out of my mouth O_o
[4] I'm especially a fan of tying in stage management as great life experience for everything, which is ironic because I've never even done it in an actual professional capacity.
[5] Granted, the person asking was using a marketing tactic herself, but that's neither here nor there.
[6] See [3]
[7] If this were a different blog post, I would go on to explain that the answer is trust in God's design and knowing that I am loved and forgiven. And all of these things are true, but this wasn't the angle I was taking, because all of these things are already assumed and in place. At least,they are in my head.
[8] from Joe Versus the Volcano
Not like that. Shame on you.
As an English major, you practice over and over again picking an idea/conclusion and then finding ways to prove yourself right. That's the whole idea behind writing an essay: come up with a thesis, and use literature and/or various sources to support it. Demonstrate why you are arguing your point, and why other people should agree with you. Essentially, you're selling an idea. The more textual support your paper has, the better that idea sounds, and the more people will buy into it. You learn to see literature through certain lenses and to pick out quotes from other people in order to prove that you're not the only one with said idea.
And let's be realistic here: eventually, because this skill is practiced in terms of homework and grades, you learn to sell the idea long after you have stopped caring about it. I might have lost interest in Hamlet's hubris, but I have three more pages to write by tomorrow morning, so I'm going to keep at it. [1] There's a certain amount of shmoozing that goes on at this point, and you get really good at making broad connections and tying in loosely-relevant quotes. [2] It becomes part of what you do and how you think. I'm the kind of person now who hesitates to share an opinion without also giving at least two good reasons for having it, because I believe in writing strong and convincing theses. [3]
And sometimes I am really pleased about having this mentality. I am of the opinion that more people should have reasonable support for their perspectives, and that society would benefit from a little bit of research now and again. But the problem, I have found, is that I am too good at supporting an idea. So good, in fact, that I buy into my own arguments, simply because they are well-supported.
There's this recurring theme in my life: discovering a new and different job (that pays better, or has a "better" schedule). I pursue that thing by doing what I know, which is pitching myself as perfect for it because of XY&Z previous experiences or skills. [4] Resumes are more or less just a weird-looking works cited page. And while I'm trying to get there, I manage to convince myself that all the selling points about me are why I will love this job, and then one of two things happens:
- I don't get the job, and I feel all the feelings of rejection, dejection, depression, existentialism, frustration, etc, OR
- I do get the job, and I charge into it headlong, and at some point a few months down the road I realize that while I am completely capable of doing it, I don't love it like I thought I would. It doesn't change me or edify me in the ways that I had hoped. Plus, so far, these instances have involved work in addition to The Corporation, so while I (sometimes) make a little more money I also have less time to be Piera-y, which ends up making me crazier than ever.
And after all of this real-world adult nonsense, I'm asking myself the same question that keeps coming back to me: why aren't I doing this already?
I keep looking for ways to change my situation, and I keep trying to grab hold of options simply because they are there. I keep running away from what is right in front of me, because it's not "good enough." The conditions aren't perfect, and I have to make them perfect before I can go on. My mom calls this "if/then" thinking, and it's not really a productive way to live, because you spend your whole life waiting for something to work the way you think it should in order to do something that you want.
I don't love working for The Corporation. It's made me (more) cynical, if nothing else, and it's humbling to go to work every day and not have ways to express my intellect, my passion for thinking and relationships, my faith. And while it's not a terrible paycheck, it's not a good one, and we have bills to pay.
But for the present, it actually is offering me what I want: The freedom to come home and pursue my own goals. I have a flexible schedule, no homework, no problems to take home. My job even has benefits and vacation hours. So, I ask myself yet again, what's the problem? There's no glory, no intellectual high? Does there have to be? Is it not meaningful in the sense that I have a job at all? Am I in danger of wandering from my career path?
It's not that I can't pursue bigger or better options. But Real Jobs tend to want you for the semi-long term, and if I want to go to grad school, which starts in less than a year, the timing doesn't look so great. And until I know if/where I get accepted, I can't really make any plans. Once applications are submitted, I can stop stressing about grad school and start using my free time to--you guessed it--write more.
So new game plan? Keep on keepin' on. Reassess when I have an answer about school. Stop worrying and start making the most of what I actually have. And most of all, stop looking for answers in the wrong places, [7] starting with not buying in to my own sales pitch about me.
"I know he can get the job, Harry, but can he do the job?" [8]
And more importantly, should I?
--
[1] You also learn, eventually, to sell the idea by skimming the material for quotes instead of actually reading it. Not, of course, that I would ever have done this.
[2] I always wondered if professors just couldn't see through my bullshit, because I would get good grades on these papers. I'm beginning to think, however, that maybe they were grading my ability to bullshit in the first place.
[3] When it comes to serious stuff, anyway. In regular life I don't usually think about the things that come out of my mouth O_o
[4] I'm especially a fan of tying in stage management as great life experience for everything, which is ironic because I've never even done it in an actual professional capacity.
[5] Granted, the person asking was using a marketing tactic herself, but that's neither here nor there.
[6] See [3]
[7] If this were a different blog post, I would go on to explain that the answer is trust in God's design and knowing that I am loved and forgiven. And all of these things are true, but this wasn't the angle I was taking, because all of these things are already assumed and in place. At least,they are in my head.
[8] from Joe Versus the Volcano
Tuesday, November 19
is God telling me to ruin MY life?
I'm going to do it again: that thing where I link to another post because someone else said what I have said or have wanted to say. Only (naturally) they said it better, and more concisely. Because let's face it, I don't do concise.
Go ahead, ruin your life. I dare you.
... this post is everything I have been saying, to myself, to my husband, to my sister and brothers, to my friends.
You can't lose. You can't! There aren't "right decisions" in the freedom of the Gospel. We still commit sin, that's not what I mean--but if you think about it, nothing we do is untainted by our sinful human nature. Everything is affected by our self-serving attitudes. But when it comes to life decisions? When it comes to choosing a path, a career, a spouse... we spend so much time worrying about what is Right that we often end up not making decisions at all.
It's like Allison says: "if I’m living in honest pursuit of Truth, I believe I’ll find it."
I'm ridiculously worked up right now, for two reasons. First, because someone else thinks how I think, and is passionate about the steadfast presence of God. Because my friends have heard me say it enough that they really just need to hear it from someone else too.
But also? Because I feel like she is talking to me. Because right now I'm feeling inspired to Write (oh, to BE a Writer), to find a way to pursue teaching English between now and whenever-I-get-into-grad-school, and to stop barista-ing in order to pursue it.
I mean, let's face it. That's what I want to hear. And there's a fine line between taking a leap of faith for a specific purpose, and doing something irresponsible because I want to. And there's two of us, and I have to consider how my theories and philosophies and passionate ideals will change our life.
But damn. Right now, I'm ready to jump.
Go ahead, ruin your life. I dare you.
... this post is everything I have been saying, to myself, to my husband, to my sister and brothers, to my friends.
You can't lose. You can't! There aren't "right decisions" in the freedom of the Gospel. We still commit sin, that's not what I mean--but if you think about it, nothing we do is untainted by our sinful human nature. Everything is affected by our self-serving attitudes. But when it comes to life decisions? When it comes to choosing a path, a career, a spouse... we spend so much time worrying about what is Right that we often end up not making decisions at all.
It's like Allison says: "if I’m living in honest pursuit of Truth, I believe I’ll find it."
I'm ridiculously worked up right now, for two reasons. First, because someone else thinks how I think, and is passionate about the steadfast presence of God. Because my friends have heard me say it enough that they really just need to hear it from someone else too.
But also? Because I feel like she is talking to me. Because right now I'm feeling inspired to Write (oh, to BE a Writer), to find a way to pursue teaching English between now and whenever-I-get-into-grad-school, and to stop barista-ing in order to pursue it.
I mean, let's face it. That's what I want to hear. And there's a fine line between taking a leap of faith for a specific purpose, and doing something irresponsible because I want to. And there's two of us, and I have to consider how my theories and philosophies and passionate ideals will change our life.
But damn. Right now, I'm ready to jump.
Sunday, November 17
teleios and the time vortex: how Doctor Who shaped my faith
Part One: The Time Vortex
"People don't understand time. It's not what you think it is." --the DoctorWhen I fell in love with this man, I didn't expect it to shape so much of the way that I thought about life, and certainly not the way I thought about God or His presence in my life.
When you start traveling with the Doctor, you spend a lot of time being thoroughly confused. You experience it episode by episode, and for a lot of it, you really aren't sure what is going on. Who is this guy, and what is that telephone box thing (and why does it say "police"?) and why is he telling that blonde girl to run!, or saying "I'm so so sorry" to those aliens? [1] And once you kind of get the premise, you then have to wrap your mind around the concept of Time Travel, and how you can be in the past-but-actually-the-present, and watch the world exploding in the very-distant-future but still call your mom in 2005, and the whole thing is more than a little complicated. But slowly, the more you watch and the less you try to understand, the easier it becomes not only to follow the story, but also to comprehend the concepts and theories behind it. Time travel--at least in Doctor Who lore--doesn't confuse me as much as it did, because I sat back, shut up, and let it happen. And surprisingly, my brain eventually caught up with the rest of me. [2]
I am sure you're wondering what any of this has to do with God. So let me put Doctor Who on hold and catch you up to where I am.
Growing up, I was taught that God, who is omnipotent (all-powerful) and omniscient (all-knowing), has a plan for my life. He knows how many hairs I have on my head [3] and what I will be when I grow up (if that ever, you know, happens). Verses like Jeremiah 29:11 [4] are ingrained in my understanding of God: He has a plan for me, and that means He's taking care of me no matter what.
Alongside accepting that God Has A Plan, however, I also had the ingrained knowledge that we were given free will, and the ability to choose between good and evil. The fact that he gave us options [5] proves that we are allowed to think for ourselves. Being Lutheran meant that my salvation was not dependent on my choices [6], but mostly, in the practical sense, it just meant that that I had the freedom to make my own decisions.
But then high school happened, and the topic of free will vs predestination came into play. This was the first time I noticed the disparity between the two concepts: if God has a plan for me, does that mean I don't get a choice in what I do? Am I just following the script and having delusions of decision-making? But if I have free will, then how does it make sense that God has a plan for me? Unless God knows what I am going to decide (because omniscience) and then creates his plan around my decisions... but that would imply that it's not God's plan but rather my own. And most of all: if I do have free will, and God does have a plan, then what happens if I make the free-will decision to do something that's NOT in the plan? Won't that screw me over? Do I just keep muddling through, hoping that all my following decisions are the right ones, until I can get back on track? ...what happens if I don't ever get back on track?
It's all very confusing. And really stressful if you already have a hard time making decisions in the first place.
What college do I go to. What do I major in. Should I break up with my boyfriend. Should I go out with this other guy. What classes do I take next semester, and what classes do I give up in order to take them. The questions are endless, and it was through many lengthy discussions with my friend Kim that I (we) finally arrived at the conclusion/philosophy "you can't lose." It was based primarily on Romans 8:37-39 [7], and the idea that no matter what happens in life--which would logically include the decisions we make--God will still love us. We can't screw up past what He can fix. Obviously we shouldn't be going off and doing whatever we want, because that's dangerous and stupid, but in the end, even if we make mistakes, He's still got our back, and we still win (ie, have eternal salvation), no matter what.
How incredibly comforting. Trusting in this got me through most of college, because I was more than a conqueror, and God was looking out for me. The reassurance of God's unconditional love gave me a certain amount of peace--but it didn't answer my questions about His Plan. Even if my life happens according to God's will (which is good), I am still a puppet, and I don't want that. Even if I have the freedom to make my own decisions (which seems to be the case), I am at risk of screwing something up, and I don't want that either. Even if I am never going to "lose," none of this explains to me how it is possible. [8]
The thing is, predestination and free will have conflicting agendas. When one side says "you live your life according to God's will" and the other says "you have the freedom to make your own choices," there's basically no way for them to be resolved. In the timeline of our lives, there simply isn't room for both to be possible. We simultaneously want and reject both perspectives, but either way, we can't comprehend a way for the two theories to exist side by side. From where I am standing, I can only see the path of where I have been, and not the unknown of the future, and therefore, neither option seems plausible. Or even very desirable.
Enter the Doctor. [9] Specifically into the life of Sally Sparrow, who has no idea what's going on, and is thoroughly confused about how all the bizarre stuff that keeps happening to her is somehow connected. And while Sally is working out the complicated concept of Time Travel, Piera is flipping out because the Doctor just answered all of her questions in about 15 seconds.
"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff." [10]We--people, humans, non Time Lords--can only see the "strict progression of cause to effect." But what if, for example, we could step outside of our timeline and look at everything as a whole: the past, the present, and the future? Rose Tyler looked into the time vortex, and saw all of time and space--she took the words "bad wolf" and put them along her own timeline, leading herself to the very moment in which she looked into the time vortex and saw all of time and space. In that moment, she sees "everything. All that is, all that was, all that ever could be." She even knows that "everything must come to dust." [11]
… this … sounds familiar. Like someone else has said it before, maybe, you know, in Genesis? [12] Or Revelation? [13]
The human thought process can't fully comprehend that freedom of will can exist alongside an intelligent, active design--but that's because we're not GOD. Rose looked into the time vortex, and it nearly killed her. But the Doctor sees everything, all the time. He can step into it, and He can see it from the outside. [14] Our freedom to make decisions can exist alongside God's Plan, because we are on the inside, making decisions for the here and now. Those decisions are based on only what we know, which is basically comprised of what we have experienced in the past and what we can attempt to predict of the near future. And because those decisions are still within our own timeline, and we are not in control of it. But we don't have to be, because God is. And God is outside of time.
Take a minute to actually think about that.
God
is outside
of time.
God can have a Plan because He exists outside of our comprehension of how The Plan should work out. We may be trapped within the "time vortex" of cause-to-effect, but he sees the entire journey, start to finish, from outside of it. He also has the power (because omnipotence, plus being its Creator) to add to it, to allow or prevent obstacles, to shape our paths in the direction He wants us to go. We can't change the past and we can't predict the future, so we just hold on to the right now and hope it will all work out.
And the thing is--it will. Because God has a Plan, remember? A Plan for our welfare and not for evil; a Plan for hope and a future. A Plan that comes out of creating us, knowing us, loving us. At some point (and somewhat reluctantly, I might add), I became the obnoxious friend who always tells you that "everything happens for a reason." And at some later point (probably after watching "Blink"), I realized that I completely believe that to be true. Everything, both the good and the bad, has a place in The Big Picture of Things, and somehow, whether we realize it or not, it's all connected. God has created it, and is actively involved in it. He took the time to scatter "bad wolf" here and there in my life, in order to lead me to where I am right now, and in order to direct me toward my future. And I am looking forward to that future, because I am positive that it will be fanTAStic. [15]
---
[1] ...and how does he manage to be so attractive while he does it??
[2] Proof, by the way, that I am actually capable of doing this. Just not so great at doing it naturally.
[3] Luke 12:7 -- Why, even the hairs of your head are all numbered. Fear not; you are of more value than many sparrows.
[4] For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
[5] Genesis 2:15-17 -- The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.
[6] Ephesians 2:8-9 -- For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
[7] No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
[8] Does it really matter if I understand it? Okay, no. Not really. But I like having answers, and I don't like going along with a concept if I don't really get it. Hence, this entire post.
[9] And I am here issuing a massive spoiler alert -- although to be honest, if you haven't seen any of Doctor Who I'm not sure how much of this will make sense anyway.
[10] Doctor Who - "Blink" (series 3, episode 10) - btw that's also where the quote at the top is from. It just made for a better intro without the footnote ;)
[11] Doctor Who - "The Parting of the Ways" (series 1, episode 13)
[12] Genesis 3:19c -- ...for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.
[13] Revelation 1:8 -- "I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty."
[14] For the record, I am NOT trying to paint the Doctor as a representation of the one true God. There are parallels in the time vortex aspect, but the entities themselves are absolutely not the same. Just so we're clear.
[15] It's a 9th-Doctor-ism, in case you didn't read it in a Christopher Eccleston voice.
Tuesday, September 3
here, have a lame non-post
...because it's really kind of silly to just repost someone else's blog, but seriously, this one, Men and Women are Not Equal, speaks to my soul. plus it's a lot more straightforward than what i probably would have done.
Wednesday, August 7
I'm writing a book called "How to Make Enemies" ... let me know if you want an autographed copy
But therein, kids, lies the problem. The pursuit of Justice and Equality is never actually a reasonable one. It's always skewed by someone's agenda, someone's pride, or someone's real or imagined (but mostly imagined) suffering. It's far nobler to fight for a cause than to just look out for ourselves, but when we fight for a generalized cause, we tend to lose sight of ... well, reason. Intelligent, semi-objective, philosophical thought. All of it, out the window, because it's the idea that counts (right?), and not the specifics. [1]
So what got me so riled up that I decided to step out of my cave and make some enemies? Two things that will always provoke in me some ~~feelings: Doctor Who and Feminism.
I've been sitting on this rant since I read this article. Today, I read this one. And I'm already mad at my boss, so it's easy to sort of channel that anger into an I-don't-care-I'm-gonna-say-it-anyway-this-is-my-gorram-blog kind of post. You have been warned. It's not too late to turn back.
[Also, I have issued a Spoiler Alert for the rest of the post.]
Ladies and gentlemen (have you ever noticed that this very common phrase begins with "ladies"? Interesting.), I find this whole "the Doctor should be a woman!" rant to be quite disheartening. Maybe if the arguments were, I don't know, solid, I could get behind them. But when the premise of the argument is made with unsupported claims, they effectively make the people arguing them (and thus, the cause as a whole) look idiotic. (please see [1] again because it applies here too)
Kissell and Helmuth are opposed to having "yet another white British dude" [*] playing the Doctor for, as far as I can tell, two reasons:
a) the Doctor has thus far always played by British white guys, and clearly that's the sexist choice to portray men superior to women, and
b) because the show/Moffat portrays women as "sad and broken." [**]
...wait, what? Sad and broken? Have you even watched the show before, Elizabeth Lopatto?! Let's examine her argument for just a minute: "I'm fine with the next Doctor being a dude, as long as we get more interesting women and a more emotionally competent writer." [**]
I see two glaring problems with this sentence alone. The first is "more interesting women," and the second is "a more emotionally competent writer."
Lady, do you realize that the reason this show is so popular is the overwhelming amount of emotional connection viewers have with the characters and the story? "The Girl in the Fireplace" was the reason many of us fell in love with the Doctor in the first place, because of how much he cared about Reinette and how devastated he was that she died before he came back for her, even though he barely knew her. "Silence in the Library" and "Forest of the Dead," once you understand why, have one of the more tragic plot elements I've ever seen, and the kicker is that you don't even realize how tragic until well into season 6 (I'm not telling you if you don't know). "Amy's Choice" presents the question everyone is asking--Rory or the Doctor?--in a way that makes you sit on the edge of your seat and wonder which Amy will choose, because you sure as hell can't decide for yourself. I don't think the problem is that he isn't "emotionally competent." If it's just that you don't like the way he plays with your emotion, then don't watch the show.
And then--more interesting women? Because Clara, who jumped into the Doctor's entire timeline and rescued him without him even realizing it, and Rose, who absorbed the time vortex to defeat the Daleks, and Martha, who traveled the world to save the Doctor, while being hunted by tiny childlike weapon-aliens, aren't interesting enough? And how could I forget "abuse victim River Song, whose lives are stolen from her by the man she loves, for whom she later goes to jail for a crime she didn't commit; although placeholder/perfume model Amy Pond should get special mention for blandness." Yep, that's right, abuse victim River Song, who is so wounded and broken, except for the part where she stares down a Dalek until it cries for mercy, and how she has the Doctor wrapped around her finger and he doesn't even realize it. Because Amy Pond is a bland placeholder--bland?! really?? you couldn't find any other word? What about Donna, who saved the Doctor and the world and created the Doctor-Donna, and can't even remember it? If that's not "interesting" then I can't help you, Elizabeth. And if you don't like your characters to be "sad and broken" then stick to picture books, because I can think of no great work of literature that doesn't feature someone who isn't sad or broken in some way.
Honestly, it's not the cry for a female Doctor that bothers me. In fact, I think that would be quite the road to go down. From a literary perspective, or a philosophical one, or even from a "hey let's just mix things up!" perspective, it would be very cool if the Doctor was a woman. I'm just honestly so offended at the weak and ridiculous arguments being made for it to happen. It's evident that Laura Helmuth [**] isn't overly familiar with the show, based on the fact that she slips up and says "an actor playing Doctor Who" instead of "an actor playing the Doctor."
Of course, she also refers to Tim Minchin as a "dreamboat." [**] Do you see how her credibility might be plummeting?
Then again, why would Moffat make it clear that there could be a woman Doctor if he wasn't going to create one? [7] And what if the Doctor WAS played by a woman? I mean, "having a woman as the smartest, bravest person in the universe, being able to fix any problem, save the world with her wits, a magical vehicle, and boundless courage--who wouldn't want to watch that show?" [*] Sure, I would love to watch that show. It would be awesome. [8] But both Kissell and Helmuth make the observation that Moffat would obviously screw up the female Doctor, since "during the regeneration of Mels into River Song, after all, we were treated to such Moffaty gems as her 'focusing on a dress size,' weighing herself, and going shopping." [*] Because women don't do that? Ever? Wouldn't you, if you weren't a member of the insidious Patriarchy [9] and you transformed into a different body? I think (surprisingly!) Helmuth actually gets closer with her observation that "if Moffat writes us a female Twelve, I imagine she'll be just as sad and broken as the other women he's written." [**] That I actually agree with. And then inevitably, someone would complain that the Doctor was under too much pressure, and she never got the thanks she deserved. Someone else would argue that she was portrayed as too giving, too self-sacrificing, and her goodwill was being abused. Her maternal instinct would be subject to question--why does the fact that she's female mean that she has to take care of everyone? Is that like her role, just because she's a woman? Yet another indignant viewer would be upset that the Doctor's hard decisions made her look like the badguy, and how come she can't be better at saving everyone? Unless the argument is that a female Doctor would find a way to save the world without any casualties. In which case, I don't want to watch that show, because part of the beauty of it is the raw, realistic (well, sorta) element of "you can't win all the battles all the time." The Doctor has to make the hard decisions, and I don't think that should ever change.
I just ... I can't figure out what you want, Feminist Cause. I think it's power for all women, and to ensure that women are not portrayed in pop culture as inferior to men, but it doesn't seem like you're actually evaluating the story, or the characters' relationships, or the philosophy of the Doctor himself. The arguments you are making are sort of trickling through to sound like "I want a woman Doctor because there aren't enough women who do badass things in this show" (false) "and how come it's always weird rando British guys that no one has actually heard of until they were Doctors?" [10] In fact, you're so busy being upset about the fact that the title character is a man, that you're completely missing all the fantastic stuff women in this show are doing. And yeah, the characters are broken. Yeah, people get hurt, and the Doctor is a little bit of an island. But the Doctor doesn't change, not at his core, and we're used to him. It's the women of the show who keep it running, keep it interesting. It sounds like you want someone incapable of being wounded, someone with no sense of fashion, someone who is fearless and flawless and independent and perfect. But I think you would hate her twice as much as you hate that Twelve is a male Doctor.
But then again, I'm on my soapbox. Maybe I'm just not seeing reason.
---
[*] from "The Depressing, Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who's New Time Lord" (The Atlantic)
[**] from "The Next Doctor Should Be a Woman. You Should Care Even if You Don't Watch Doctor Who" (Slate.com)
[1] This applies to everything, including, mind you, a lot of Christian theology, which will sacrifice actual doctrine in order to support a cause like "evangelism" or "youth ministry." This is an entirely different rant but it was worth noting.
[2] Never mind that basically every woman I know wants to be a mystery ...
[3] Why do both of these authors refer to men as "dudes"? Are they trying to be insensitive to men in order to dole out some justice? Or something?
[4] He took that quote from some other blog, but if you read the article you can find it for yourself. This ain't no research paper, deal with it.
[5] Or that his "favorite doctor, Tennant," is also "another white guy." Just sayin.
[6] Merriam-Webster's first definition is "one that accompanies another: comrade, associate; also: one that keeps company with another."
[7] Maybe because it's an interesting fact for the Doctor Who trivia bank, like the fact that he has children. Or maybe because Moffat is going to change the Doctor into a woman or something, and wouldn't that cause an uproar (and make a lot of people feel really stupid).
[8] Arguably, I watch it every time I sit down to watch Doctor Who. But I think I must be watching a different show than everyone else ...
[9] That's HIS capitalization, by the way, and he didn't capitalize any of the terms he uses to refer to women. Someone explain this to me.
[10] Really, I just wanted to use the word "rando" because it makes me giggle.
So what got me so riled up that I decided to step out of my cave and make some enemies? Two things that will always provoke in me some ~~feelings: Doctor Who and Feminism.
I've been sitting on this rant since I read this article. Today, I read this one. And I'm already mad at my boss, so it's easy to sort of channel that anger into an I-don't-care-I'm-gonna-say-it-anyway-this-is-my-gorram-blog kind of post. You have been warned. It's not too late to turn back.
[Also, I have issued a Spoiler Alert for the rest of the post.]
Ladies and gentlemen (have you ever noticed that this very common phrase begins with "ladies"? Interesting.), I find this whole "the Doctor should be a woman!" rant to be quite disheartening. Maybe if the arguments were, I don't know, solid, I could get behind them. But when the premise of the argument is made with unsupported claims, they effectively make the people arguing them (and thus, the cause as a whole) look idiotic. (please see [1] again because it applies here too)
Kissell and Helmuth are opposed to having "yet another white British dude" [*] playing the Doctor for, as far as I can tell, two reasons:
a) the Doctor has thus far always played by British white guys, and clearly that's the sexist choice to portray men superior to women, and
b) because the show/Moffat portrays women as "sad and broken." [**]
...wait, what? Sad and broken? Have you even watched the show before, Elizabeth Lopatto?! Let's examine her argument for just a minute: "I'm fine with the next Doctor being a dude, as long as we get more interesting women and a more emotionally competent writer." [**]
I see two glaring problems with this sentence alone. The first is "more interesting women," and the second is "a more emotionally competent writer."
And then--more interesting women? Because Clara, who jumped into the Doctor's entire timeline and rescued him without him even realizing it, and Rose, who absorbed the time vortex to defeat the Daleks, and Martha, who traveled the world to save the Doctor, while being hunted by tiny childlike weapon-aliens, aren't interesting enough? And how could I forget "abuse victim River Song, whose lives are stolen from her by the man she loves, for whom she later goes to jail for a crime she didn't commit; although placeholder/perfume model Amy Pond should get special mention for blandness." Yep, that's right, abuse victim River Song, who is so wounded and broken, except for the part where she stares down a Dalek until it cries for mercy, and how she has the Doctor wrapped around her finger and he doesn't even realize it. Because Amy Pond is a bland placeholder--bland?! really?? you couldn't find any other word? What about Donna, who saved the Doctor and the world and created the Doctor-Donna, and can't even remember it? If that's not "interesting" then I can't help you, Elizabeth. And if you don't like your characters to be "sad and broken" then stick to picture books, because I can think of no great work of literature that doesn't feature someone who isn't sad or broken in some way.
Honestly, it's not the cry for a female Doctor that bothers me. In fact, I think that would be quite the road to go down. From a literary perspective, or a philosophical one, or even from a "hey let's just mix things up!" perspective, it would be very cool if the Doctor was a woman. I'm just honestly so offended at the weak and ridiculous arguments being made for it to happen. It's evident that Laura Helmuth [**] isn't overly familiar with the show, based on the fact that she slips up and says "an actor playing Doctor Who" instead of "an actor playing the Doctor."
Of course, she also refers to Tim Minchin as a "dreamboat." [**] Do you see how her credibility might be plummeting?
Ted B. Kissell [*] actually started to form an argument that might have made sense; one of the most compelling statements I've heard on the subject is his comment on "Moffat's handling of his female leads," which was that "River Song, Amy Pond, Clara Oswald--all of them were mysteries for the Doctor to solve, instead of simply people."
You know what, that's a fair point. [2] This one makes me think a little: does the Doctor just view his companions as mysteries to solve? I can see the argument about those three companions. But then, the Doctor also sort of treats everything as a mystery to solve--and what about Craig in "The Lodger"? He's a "dude" [3], plus, the only reason the Doctor moved in with him was the mystery on the second floor. So if we're arguing that the Doctor doesn't treat people as people, then we have to include...everyone. And that's an entirely different topic than the one at hand.
The other big point Kissell argues is the "structurally sexist" [4] element: "i.e., the power imbalance inherent in the relationship between the male Doctor and his usually female companion." Let us keep in mind that Ted Kissell is upset about the fact that "the insidious cultural marinade known as The Patriarchy has penetrated your brain," so no one let on to him that he's a part of it. [5] Seriously though--the superiority argument is confusing to me. The fact that the Doctor has companions doesn't really seem establish a hierarchy. The term "companion" is an accurate description, and I fail to see how it's insulting. [6] The "inherent" distinction is between Time Lords and humans, but that seems appropriate, doesn't it? Besides, the Doctor needs a companion. He goes a little crazy (and a little miserable) without one. And haven't we just gone over the part where various companions save the Doctor, the world, the universe, reality, etc? These are the kinds of arguments that strike me as really trying to create a problem. Companions are only "inferior" if you choose to perceive them as such, but I don't think that perception is necessarily supported by the actual plotlines, given the textual (episodial?) evidence that the companions are friends, traveling partners, and often heroes.You know what, that's a fair point. [2] This one makes me think a little: does the Doctor just view his companions as mysteries to solve? I can see the argument about those three companions. But then, the Doctor also sort of treats everything as a mystery to solve--and what about Craig in "The Lodger"? He's a "dude" [3], plus, the only reason the Doctor moved in with him was the mystery on the second floor. So if we're arguing that the Doctor doesn't treat people as people, then we have to include...everyone. And that's an entirely different topic than the one at hand.
Then again, why would Moffat make it clear that there could be a woman Doctor if he wasn't going to create one? [7] And what if the Doctor WAS played by a woman? I mean, "having a woman as the smartest, bravest person in the universe, being able to fix any problem, save the world with her wits, a magical vehicle, and boundless courage--who wouldn't want to watch that show?" [*] Sure, I would love to watch that show. It would be awesome. [8] But both Kissell and Helmuth make the observation that Moffat would obviously screw up the female Doctor, since "during the regeneration of Mels into River Song, after all, we were treated to such Moffaty gems as her 'focusing on a dress size,' weighing herself, and going shopping." [*] Because women don't do that? Ever? Wouldn't you, if you weren't a member of the insidious Patriarchy [9] and you transformed into a different body? I think (surprisingly!) Helmuth actually gets closer with her observation that "if Moffat writes us a female Twelve, I imagine she'll be just as sad and broken as the other women he's written." [**] That I actually agree with. And then inevitably, someone would complain that the Doctor was under too much pressure, and she never got the thanks she deserved. Someone else would argue that she was portrayed as too giving, too self-sacrificing, and her goodwill was being abused. Her maternal instinct would be subject to question--why does the fact that she's female mean that she has to take care of everyone? Is that like her role, just because she's a woman? Yet another indignant viewer would be upset that the Doctor's hard decisions made her look like the badguy, and how come she can't be better at saving everyone? Unless the argument is that a female Doctor would find a way to save the world without any casualties. In which case, I don't want to watch that show, because part of the beauty of it is the raw, realistic (well, sorta) element of "you can't win all the battles all the time." The Doctor has to make the hard decisions, and I don't think that should ever change.
I just ... I can't figure out what you want, Feminist Cause. I think it's power for all women, and to ensure that women are not portrayed in pop culture as inferior to men, but it doesn't seem like you're actually evaluating the story, or the characters' relationships, or the philosophy of the Doctor himself. The arguments you are making are sort of trickling through to sound like "I want a woman Doctor because there aren't enough women who do badass things in this show" (false) "and how come it's always weird rando British guys that no one has actually heard of until they were Doctors?" [10] In fact, you're so busy being upset about the fact that the title character is a man, that you're completely missing all the fantastic stuff women in this show are doing. And yeah, the characters are broken. Yeah, people get hurt, and the Doctor is a little bit of an island. But the Doctor doesn't change, not at his core, and we're used to him. It's the women of the show who keep it running, keep it interesting. It sounds like you want someone incapable of being wounded, someone with no sense of fashion, someone who is fearless and flawless and independent and perfect. But I think you would hate her twice as much as you hate that Twelve is a male Doctor.
But then again, I'm on my soapbox. Maybe I'm just not seeing reason.
---
[*] from "The Depressing, Disappointing Maleness of Doctor Who's New Time Lord" (The Atlantic)
[**] from "The Next Doctor Should Be a Woman. You Should Care Even if You Don't Watch Doctor Who" (Slate.com)
[1] This applies to everything, including, mind you, a lot of Christian theology, which will sacrifice actual doctrine in order to support a cause like "evangelism" or "youth ministry." This is an entirely different rant but it was worth noting.
[2] Never mind that basically every woman I know wants to be a mystery ...
[3] Why do both of these authors refer to men as "dudes"? Are they trying to be insensitive to men in order to dole out some justice? Or something?
[4] He took that quote from some other blog, but if you read the article you can find it for yourself. This ain't no research paper, deal with it.
[5] Or that his "favorite doctor, Tennant," is also "another white guy." Just sayin.
[6] Merriam-Webster's first definition is "one that accompanies another: comrade, associate; also: one that keeps company with another."
[7] Maybe because it's an interesting fact for the Doctor Who trivia bank, like the fact that he has children. Or maybe because Moffat is going to change the Doctor into a woman or something, and wouldn't that cause an uproar (and make a lot of people feel really stupid).
[8] Arguably, I watch it every time I sit down to watch Doctor Who. But I think I must be watching a different show than everyone else ...
[9] That's HIS capitalization, by the way, and he didn't capitalize any of the terms he uses to refer to women. Someone explain this to me.
[10] Really, I just wanted to use the word "rando" because it makes me giggle.
Tuesday, May 28
get a grip
I am, for the most part, of the opinion that people grow in little spurts, which occur as a result of an external cause (which is usually a "bad" experience, but I find that I learn the most through these in particular). I myself can look back and identify large changes and how they correlate to my chronological life: parents' divorce, starting college, breakup, breakup, etc. To be honest, while I usually dislike the event itself, in periods of stasis I find myself looking forward to these occurrences. That's why I enjoy school so much -- I am constantly finding things to think about, and these thoughts act as little catalysts for development. And I crave this development. Only when I am actively learning, academically or otherwise, do I feel that I am exercising the truest and best parts of my brain and my personality. The thrill of processing new ideas and information carries me through until I get the next hit, and I can sail through life high on inspiration and creativity.
Which is why, ultimately, I was so very upset about not getting into grad school. My reaction probably came across as pretty overdramatic, since it's not unusual not to be accepted the first time you apply places, and it's not like I can't apply again. But for me, it was more than just a delay in reaching my career. Grad school was going to give me another few years of intellectual high, and probably/hopefully give me that one last boost into "adulthood" that I've been waiting for. I couldn't tell you what it is that I'm going to learn or do that will make that happen, but I was (am?) pretty positive that a step or two remains between current Piera and useful-member-of-society-Piera. And grad school felt like my opportunity to reach that change, because it was moving on from barista-ing. I enjoy my job, but once the new-job thrill died down, Starbucks was just ... Starbucks. In some ways I'm jealous of the people who have found their calling in, as we say, "the industry." There's something to be said for contributing in tasty little ways to people's lives, and going home at the end of the day feeling fulfilled. But what I know is that it isn't MY calling, and it'll always make me restless and hungry for something more. Working there has given me plenty of time to observe society, but no way to respond to it. I have learned a lot of useful skills, but now I am just ... re-using those skills, and I don't know where or how to find new ones. I even put off getting promoted because I was positive that I would be moving on, and I didn't want to waste anyone's time by training me.
Anyway, as we all know, God usually has something in mind that is very different from what we expect. This time around, it was not going to grad school in the fall of 2013. And I could not for the life of me figure out WHY--what else was there to learn about this job? How else can I change, besides becoming a shift supervisor (which will only provide a quick intellectual buzz and then fade back into the status quo)? How am I supposed to go to this job every damn day and not worry that this is all I am good for?
Gradually, I figured it out. It took getting a second job, working on two shows (in two capacities), and going basically nonstop with barely enough time to sleep and/or shower for a couple of months before I did, but here I am. Realizing (again.) that some of the stuff my mom used to tell me is actually, in fact, great wisdom.
In high school, and when I was home from college, I would have this problem where I would over-commit. I had friends in different circles, and I hated to tell someone I couldn't do anything because I already had plans with someone else, because it felt like I was picking a favorite. So I would agree to all of it, and drive all over everywhere so I could make it work. [1] And every so often, it would really get to me, and I would be sick of everyone and just want some time for myself--which of course I realized too late, since I was supposed to be going somewhere and I didn't want to let anyone down by backing out. In these moments, my mom would tell me that I needed to stop letting everyone else dictate the course of my life. I, of course, would be furious that she thought I was such a pushover.
Well kids, here I am, nearly 25 years old and realizing how much of a pushover I am. Less so by people, I guess, although I still cave pretty quickly (especially depending on who it is). Mostly, however, it's like Deirdre also used to say: I am so good at adapting to my surroundings that I forget to be myself.
I've spent ...well, at the very least, the last 12 years or so letting life have its way with me. Occasionally I would put my foot down and Make A Change, but pretty much only for the glaringly-big things. In daily life, in the course of weeks and months and (apparently) the last year and a half, I just kind of go along with things, because that's how it goes and I can deal.
But the thing is, I can't deal. I've been going crazy and I have been waiting and waiting for something to change so I will be happy and -- just ... what?
It occurred to me--during tech week, I think, or shortly after--that it's my goram life, and maybe there are things I can't change right now, but there are definitely things that I can. I can't just sit around and wait for conditions to be perfect. [2] If I want things to be different, I need to change them. I got lucky--I got so lucky [3]--that I spent the last several years being literally presented with problems to deal with, and ideas to work on, and people to interact with. I got so comfortable with it that I never really learned how to ... well, self-motivate, I guess, although that phrase seems sort of trite and cliche. I was always jealous of the friends who just Get Shit Done because I never seem to have the time or the inclination to Do those things. And what I realized is ... why not? When people say "you have to make the time" I always respond with "I literally don't have any."
...but Piera. Why not.
Because I spend all of my energy waiting for something to cause me to move. And when nothing does, I find the closest most appealing activity that I can get my hands on, because clearly the magic of discovering a new thing signifies that it will change me. Obviously, this isn't working for me. I have so many things to write, so many books to read. I have let my intellect sort of wither and fade, because nothing external is pushing me to use it. And then I had the audacity to complain that I was losing myself -- because I kept looking for external forces to give me a reason to use them. I was bored, and I forgot to use the one resource I have always had: my own mind. [4]
I will not just be carried downstream anymore; I'm building a raft and I'm learning to steer. This is why I didn't get accepted to grad school: because I can't keep waiting for life to flow in the direction I want it to go. Some parts are necessary and unchangeable--I have a good job, and full-time hours, and I don't love it all the time but it's what I have and that's how it goes right now.But that job doesn't define me. But that job won't define me unless I let it. And I am very done letting it.
So this is my plan. I quit my second job. I turned down a stage managing offer. I claimed the desk in the new apartment and I will assign myself Office Hours, and I will Get Shit Done. Grad school apps, round two. Blogging. Reading. Catching up on my Greek. I even completed day one of my couch-to-5k program this afternoon. [5]
Sometimes, we have no control over life. I believe firmly that we are incapable of controlling it as a whole, because we are broken and human. We are, however, able to control how we react to it, learn from it, change because of it. It's easy for me to look at Big Scary Life Events and say well, we can't control what happens, we just have to learn how to deal. I'm good at that. But what I learned recently is that we also have no control over the fact that sometimes life is mundane. The Big Stuff, I accept as a challenge. I welcome challenge. The little stuff, however, I let take over. And I'm going to... stop letting it. It's going to take more self-discipline than I am used to exercising, because let's face it, the only reason I was so motivated in college was because grades were involved. Real life doesn't have grades. It just has me, being supremely disappointed in myself, which honestly has never been enough of a reason for change. [6] And I have a sneaking suspicion that starting to change this part of my life will create the groundwork for my alleged final level-up into "adulthood" (if not shove me into it altogether, but let's not get too excited).
So this is my plan, because it never gets easier. Hell, it never gets anywhere if you don't start trying.
---
[1] Well technically, I would make my mom drive me everywhere. Which is probably why she started telling me to cut it the hell out.
[2] My last post, but the body is weak, talks a lot about this already, but with less ... I don't know, revelation. That post was a recognition of the situation; this one is ... A Plan Of Sorts.
[3] Except I don't believe in luck, I believe in design, but it sounds sort of poetic here so I'll stick with it
[4] I get bonus points for saying Very Dramatic Things, right?
[5] It was pathetic. Just sayin.
[6] As aside here about stewardship, and how not using my talents for the glory of God is like burying them to "keep them safe," and I'm feeling very passionate in this post so it's coming out from a "I have to be good enough for myself" perspective when there's a whole lot of Jesus and grace and things actually involved. I'm just stating for the record that all of this falls under the category of "Already Assuming XY and Z"
Which is why, ultimately, I was so very upset about not getting into grad school. My reaction probably came across as pretty overdramatic, since it's not unusual not to be accepted the first time you apply places, and it's not like I can't apply again. But for me, it was more than just a delay in reaching my career. Grad school was going to give me another few years of intellectual high, and probably/hopefully give me that one last boost into "adulthood" that I've been waiting for. I couldn't tell you what it is that I'm going to learn or do that will make that happen, but I was (am?) pretty positive that a step or two remains between current Piera and useful-member-of-society-Piera. And grad school felt like my opportunity to reach that change, because it was moving on from barista-ing. I enjoy my job, but once the new-job thrill died down, Starbucks was just ... Starbucks. In some ways I'm jealous of the people who have found their calling in, as we say, "the industry." There's something to be said for contributing in tasty little ways to people's lives, and going home at the end of the day feeling fulfilled. But what I know is that it isn't MY calling, and it'll always make me restless and hungry for something more. Working there has given me plenty of time to observe society, but no way to respond to it. I have learned a lot of useful skills, but now I am just ... re-using those skills, and I don't know where or how to find new ones. I even put off getting promoted because I was positive that I would be moving on, and I didn't want to waste anyone's time by training me.
Anyway, as we all know, God usually has something in mind that is very different from what we expect. This time around, it was not going to grad school in the fall of 2013. And I could not for the life of me figure out WHY--what else was there to learn about this job? How else can I change, besides becoming a shift supervisor (which will only provide a quick intellectual buzz and then fade back into the status quo)? How am I supposed to go to this job every damn day and not worry that this is all I am good for?
Gradually, I figured it out. It took getting a second job, working on two shows (in two capacities), and going basically nonstop with barely enough time to sleep and/or shower for a couple of months before I did, but here I am. Realizing (again.) that some of the stuff my mom used to tell me is actually, in fact, great wisdom.
In high school, and when I was home from college, I would have this problem where I would over-commit. I had friends in different circles, and I hated to tell someone I couldn't do anything because I already had plans with someone else, because it felt like I was picking a favorite. So I would agree to all of it, and drive all over everywhere so I could make it work. [1] And every so often, it would really get to me, and I would be sick of everyone and just want some time for myself--which of course I realized too late, since I was supposed to be going somewhere and I didn't want to let anyone down by backing out. In these moments, my mom would tell me that I needed to stop letting everyone else dictate the course of my life. I, of course, would be furious that she thought I was such a pushover.
Well kids, here I am, nearly 25 years old and realizing how much of a pushover I am. Less so by people, I guess, although I still cave pretty quickly (especially depending on who it is). Mostly, however, it's like Deirdre also used to say: I am so good at adapting to my surroundings that I forget to be myself.
I've spent ...well, at the very least, the last 12 years or so letting life have its way with me. Occasionally I would put my foot down and Make A Change, but pretty much only for the glaringly-big things. In daily life, in the course of weeks and months and (apparently) the last year and a half, I just kind of go along with things, because that's how it goes and I can deal.
But the thing is, I can't deal. I've been going crazy and I have been waiting and waiting for something to change so I will be happy and -- just ... what?
It occurred to me--during tech week, I think, or shortly after--that it's my goram life, and maybe there are things I can't change right now, but there are definitely things that I can. I can't just sit around and wait for conditions to be perfect. [2] If I want things to be different, I need to change them. I got lucky--I got so lucky [3]--that I spent the last several years being literally presented with problems to deal with, and ideas to work on, and people to interact with. I got so comfortable with it that I never really learned how to ... well, self-motivate, I guess, although that phrase seems sort of trite and cliche. I was always jealous of the friends who just Get Shit Done because I never seem to have the time or the inclination to Do those things. And what I realized is ... why not? When people say "you have to make the time" I always respond with "I literally don't have any."
...but Piera. Why not.
Because I spend all of my energy waiting for something to cause me to move. And when nothing does, I find the closest most appealing activity that I can get my hands on, because clearly the magic of discovering a new thing signifies that it will change me. Obviously, this isn't working for me. I have so many things to write, so many books to read. I have let my intellect sort of wither and fade, because nothing external is pushing me to use it. And then I had the audacity to complain that I was losing myself -- because I kept looking for external forces to give me a reason to use them. I was bored, and I forgot to use the one resource I have always had: my own mind. [4]
I will not just be carried downstream anymore; I'm building a raft and I'm learning to steer. This is why I didn't get accepted to grad school: because I can't keep waiting for life to flow in the direction I want it to go. Some parts are necessary and unchangeable--I have a good job, and full-time hours, and I don't love it all the time but it's what I have and that's how it goes right now.
Sometimes, we have no control over life. I believe firmly that we are incapable of controlling it as a whole, because we are broken and human. We are, however, able to control how we react to it, learn from it, change because of it. It's easy for me to look at Big Scary Life Events and say well, we can't control what happens, we just have to learn how to deal. I'm good at that. But what I learned recently is that we also have no control over the fact that sometimes life is mundane. The Big Stuff, I accept as a challenge. I welcome challenge. The little stuff, however, I let take over. And I'm going to... stop letting it. It's going to take more self-discipline than I am used to exercising, because let's face it, the only reason I was so motivated in college was because grades were involved. Real life doesn't have grades. It just has me, being supremely disappointed in myself, which honestly has never been enough of a reason for change. [6] And I have a sneaking suspicion that starting to change this part of my life will create the groundwork for my alleged final level-up into "adulthood" (if not shove me into it altogether, but let's not get too excited).
So this is my plan, because it never gets easier. Hell, it never gets anywhere if you don't start trying.
---
[1] Well technically, I would make my mom drive me everywhere. Which is probably why she started telling me to cut it the hell out.
[2] My last post, but the body is weak, talks a lot about this already, but with less ... I don't know, revelation. That post was a recognition of the situation; this one is ... A Plan Of Sorts.
[3] Except I don't believe in luck, I believe in design, but it sounds sort of poetic here so I'll stick with it
[4] I get bonus points for saying Very Dramatic Things, right?
[5] It was pathetic. Just sayin.
[6] As aside here about stewardship, and how not using my talents for the glory of God is like burying them to "keep them safe," and I'm feeling very passionate in this post so it's coming out from a "I have to be good enough for myself" perspective when there's a whole lot of Jesus and grace and things actually involved. I'm just stating for the record that all of this falls under the category of "Already Assuming XY and Z"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)