I know she can GET the job, Harry, but can she DO the job?

I have always thought that making first-or-second-year college students pick a major was a little ridiculous. How on earth is someone supposed to know, at age 18, what they want to do with their lives? [1] I cannot tell you how many people I talked to in my senior year who decided that they didn't want to be an education or business or psych major, but they only had one more semester and changing their minds would mean more time and money spent at school. And yes, I know that (thankfully!) many employers are just looking for a degree in general, nevermind what that degree is in, and no (just for the record), I'm not saying that getting a degree isn't worthwhile (although see [1] and a probable future post for more thoughts on this), but the point is: that's a hell of a lot of pressure to put on someone fresh out of high school, who--thanks to senior year and an unrealistic sense of self-assurance--thinks they actually know what it is that they want to do.

Like me, for example. I knew exactly what I was doing with my life (note the rueful shake of the head). I never even changed my major, because I knew before going to college that I was going to get my English degree, and then go on to grad school to study Composition And Rhetoric, and then become a tenured English professor and teach college freshmen How To Write and have a book-lined office with a comfy swivel chair and be that crazy blue-haired professor who changed students' lives on the regular.

Confession: I had no idea what "rhetoric" actually was (something Aristotle something), and now after a year and a half of grad school I might be able to explain it to you. Same applies for "tenure." I have also learned (in a mere 3 semesters of teaching) that I'll settle for making sure my students remember to bring a pencil to class, and convincing them that teachers DO actually notice when you use 12.5 point font (and that it just makes you look desperate when I've told you seventeen times that there isn't actually a page requirement). [2]

--anyway the point is, being an English Composition professor just made the most sense. Writing has always been pretty easy for me (which is why I would wait until the night before to do it...), and I care about reaching students at the early-adult-stages because that's the time when most people deal with/go through a lot of pretty significant life changes. I certainly did. And you'd think (maybe) that the fact that literally all of my other plans had changed would have indicated to me that I should rethink the English Prof one--but no, I'm stubborn, and it was the one thing I was determined to hold on to. Going To Grad School was the reason I turned down a promotion at The Corporation (at least three different times), why I only half-heartedly looked for better-paying (and more enjoyable) jobs, why I spent my summers trying to study for the damned GRE and write up application essays instead of doing the thing that has always been waiting (patiently) on the sidelines for me to notice it. I was thoroughly devastated when I didn't get accepted on my first round of applications (surely the magna-cum-laude-with-honors and a talent for writing would up my chances of a killer statement of purpose?!) but then not getting accepted just became a challenge that I had to take on, which I did, because I knew that I could if I just tried a little harder.

Not once did I stop to think whether or not that was what I really wanted to do.

The summer before I started school was the first time I gave myself a break, took The Pressure Of Everything Else off, and allowed myself to take my writing seriously. After all, I had the time, and no other commitments, and I might as well make the most of my summer before I moved on with my "real" life. And then I wrote more that summer than I've ever written, and it was messy and mostly awful and that project has been temporarily shelved, but it underscored the thing I've always known and pretended not to: I want to write fiction. My heart has always been in the young adult fantasy shelves, with the stories about girl heroes and adventures, with magic and romance and learning about life and relationships and yourself. But then grad school happened, and there I was, doing what I'd worked so hard to do and trying (only somewhat successfully) not to be miserable while doing it.

This is a post about Making and Changing Plans (she explained), but allow me to take a small detour to talk a little bit about whining. The thing is, it's so hard to explain where I am with school without looking like I'm just pathetically complaining about having relatively-demanding responsibilities. On the one hand, my problems are directly related to the combination of the objective, widely-accepted stress about grad school and my own struggle with anxiety. Being a graduate student is all-consuming: you wake up in the morning thinking about the work you have to do, and frequently just doing your chores feels like reprieve. [3] But I also never feel like I am doing as much as I should, and I never reach a point where I can look at my to-do list and say "yep, crossed everything off for today." And because I'm teaching, I have the weight of the education of 48 students on my heart, and the constant feeling of failure when it comes to providing meaningful feedback on their work (which only about a third of them will read anyway), as well as managing my interpersonal anxiety when it comes to overly-confident-and-cocky students (or, worse, the totally non-confident students, when my Big Sister Function kicks on and it's all I can do not to hug them while they're crying). It's little wonder that I'll take my victories in the form of pencil-equipped students on a daily basis.

But that's only one side of it. The other side comes directly from the fact that I can't seem to stop from talking about how hard of a struggle this is. And that's the really upsetting thing about grad school: it consistently makes me feel like a failure, like I am the kind of person who would rather be doing anything other than the work she's supposed to be doing. It makes me genuinely concerned that I am lazy and/or incompetent, that I am bad at sticking things out, that I can't handle actual responsibility (so much for motherhood) and I'm never going to be happy because all I want to do is watch Netflix and color--and that all of this is my fault, because I'm useless. Personal life history and character references will probably (hopefully) prove otherwise, but grad school makes it hard for me to even know who I am anymore, and between weeks 1 and 15, sometimes it's literally all I can do to have a good solid cry on the couch (or the floor, or the shower, you know, wherever). [4]

For those of you who have asked me about school and gotten the overly-dramatic time-for-a-paxil answer, this is why. And then I hear myself say (again) how it's really challenging and how rough of a time I've had, and then I hate myself for whining about all of this, again, and then I shut up because methinks the lady doth protest too much.

And thus I return to my main point, which is that having plans is fine, and being the kind of person who pursues her goals is fine, but what we often forget to tell ourselves is that we need to take time to consider what it is we actually want to do, and whether our Well-Made Plans are really getting us there.

Last semester I had to decide whether to turn in an application to renew my teaching assistantship, as well as one to the Creative Writing department to Continue My Education and get a PhD (because regardless of the fact that The Plan had always been a PhD in comp/rhet, getting a PhD in general was still acceptable). It's such a good opportunity, everyone said, and it would be silly not to at least apply because you can always decide not to go later. And even if none of UWM's fiction writing classes will specifically help you with what you want to write, you can still benefit from the classes, because writing and sharing your work will always help you improve, won't it?

I am not ARGUING that with you, Harry. [5]

But for the first time (that I can think of anyway), I made an active decision not to act on something that I could have. I nervously took some deep breaths as December deadlines passed me by. Filling out some forms? No big deal. [6] But what was a big deal was realizing that even taking that step--even pretending that I would decide later--meant that there was a really good chance that I would make myself do it. Because, damn it all, I'm not a quitter! I'm not someone who flakes out on Serious And Important Life Goals! I am not someone who just gives up on her dreams!

Not arguing that with you, Harry. But just because I can get the job--and maybe, even if I CAN do the job--it doesn't mean that I have to.

Now (almost 10 years after Making Plans) I finally, actually, know what I want.

I want to write novels and raise a family. I want to go to a job that allows me to actually cross items off my to-do list, a job that I don't need in order to feel fulfilled, and I want to leave everything there when I come home. I want to read ALL of the books and learn not to feel like I'm disappointing anyone (myself included/especially) for not Being Productive every waking moment. I don't mind hard work, and I don't mind challenges. But if I'm going to face those, no matter what, they might as well be hard work and challenges on the road to doing the things I'm actually interested in.

So, long story short (much too late, they chorused): I'm about to hit the ground limping with my final semester of grad school. [7] I'm really, really overwhelmed by it (I have to write my thesis and teach a totally new class, not to mention ignore the noisy conflict of senioritis and highest-grad-school-stakes-so-far), and I could use your prayers, because I'm already a couple of emotional meltdowns in and the semester hasn't even started yet. But if Joe can jump into a volcano, and if Addie can leave the castle to find the cure for the Gray Death [8], then I can (probably) (hopefully) make it through the next 3.5 months.

And then?

I guess we'll find out.

---
[1] Not to mention the fact that we tell them to go directly to college, do not pass go, do not collect any money for having a full time job to grow up a little and figure out what you want out of life (because you certainly won't be making enough money to pay for college, to the collected dismay of the older generations) -- but that's for a different post.

[2] For the record, blue hair washes out right away and looks terrible with my complexion, and besides, I don't even like to own books.

[3] If that doesn't capture the sense for you, I don't know what will.

[4] For my Catholic friends out there: how do I nominate my husband for sainthood?

[5] This, the title, and the images are from the movie Joe versus the Volcano, which if you haven't seen yet you absolutely should.

[6] Sending in creative writing samples and actually getting accepted to the program? Much bigger deal. All things considered, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have gotten accepted anyway (realistic observation, not self-depreciation). But that's not actually the point, so this got footnoted instead.

[7] I've considered quitting, but Aaron has convinced me that I should have something to show for all the work I've done (emotional and otherwise), so I guess I'll at least give it a shot. See [4].

[8] Bonus points if you know what this is from -- looking at you, Minte.

Rhetoric, Anxiety, and the Apology I'm (Supposed To Be) Living Without

It's been a while.

Mostly, I blame grad school--there really isn't time to do much outside of schoolwork. And summer is always much crazier than I expect it to be, and any writing I did was working on my novel (which I have since decided I need to shelve and ponder for a while because of reasons).

But the time away has given me a chance to think about the point of having a blog in the first place. I can certainly tell you what I do with it: sometimes I vent, occasionally I post an article I find interesting, and once in a great while I just like to update the virtual community about the goings-on in my life. But somewhere under all of that I know what this is really for--and I try to pretend I'm not avoiding it.

When I created this blog in 2011, it was because I was sick of not saying what I thought, sick of hiding from the things that I think and believe and care about. I was fresh out of college and everything was new and different and I decided: this is it. This is my space to think out loud. I'm going to create a blog that people have to choose to read, and it's not my fault if they don't agree, and if they don't care enough to hear me out and respect my perspective then that says more about them and the true nature of our relationship than it does about me.

That determination lasted for about three posts, and then I moved on to "I loved this book" and "ooh look at this interesting article I read." And now, years later, I'm still hiding.

Some of you may know, or have guessed, but it's not really a secret: I deal with a lot of anxiety. I've been told by a professional (but just one, so take that as you will), that I rank in the 93rd percentile for the amount of anxiety I have. (That means, she explained to a mathematically-challenged Piera, that only 7 percent of the population has more anxiety than I do.) That's... well, that's a lot of anxiety. I've lived with it for long enough that I don't always notice it, and teaching myself TO notice it has been the real challenge, but it's been getting better. Mostly. But it doesn't help me much when it comes to being honest with people about what I think. It's to the point now that a lot of the time I try to figure out how to say as much of what I mean in as little words as possible, because I can't believe that anyone would want to hear me talk long enough for me to get to what I'm actually trying to say. Mostly, that belief just shuts me up--I can't think fast enough, can't get to my main point fast enough, so it's probably better just to say nothing at all.

You might be wondering what I'm talking about. If you've made it this far (see my disbelief, above), then rest assured that I'll get to the point. Eventually. Probably.

It's hard, I have discovered, to exist as a practicing Christian in largely non-Christian environments. So hard, in fact, that a few people have been surprised to discover that I am a Christian. Someone told me once that they appreciated the way that I went about being one, because I didn't shove it in people's faces. In a certain sense, I was quite pleased to hear this, because I have little patience for people (Christians and non-Christians alike) who aggressively shove their beliefs in the faces of others. Underneath that initial pleasure, however, was the sinking feeling of failure, of being lukewarm. What does it say about my faith if I hold it so close to my heart that it surprises people to discover it there? And (more importantly) what does it say about God and what it means to have this faith--especially one that, as too few of you know, I hold at the very core of every way that I understand the world?

People (Christians and non-Christians alike) have an increasing tendency to make declarative statements about their beliefs, without considering (a) whether that statement truly aligns with and represents their "worldview" or theology, or (b) how they sound while making these broad, generalized comments. I have tried for my entire life to avoid doing either of these things. When non-Christians do them, I feel a vague sense of "that's not fair," because if I were to voice my beliefs about a particular topic, it would be generally written off as being preachy and obnoxious (and ain't nobody got time for that). But the thing is, when Christians make ignorant or abrasive comments, it makes me annoyed, nearly to the point of angry. Sometimes it's a matter of theology, and by theology I mean that what they are saying is not what the Bible actually says or means. Sometimes, even if their theology is correct, said Christian comes across as just generally being a loudmouthed jerk. Either way, Christianity, Christ, and the faith are all sorely misrepresented.

Before half of you who are reading this explode into a kind of frenzied alarm about my theological values, let me add this: I am not saying that Christians shouldn't advocate for their beliefs when those beliefs are fully grounded in what God has told us through his Word. I'm also not saying that those beliefs will be welcomed by the world, or that we should amend our beliefs so that they will be accepted by everyone. I'm not saying this at all. Both Jesus and Paul, among others (okay, like everyone in the Bible), make it perfectly clear that what we have to say is not going to be popular, and that is part of the challenge we face while we are still on earth. But there is a difference between holding firm to what you believe and being belligerent or rude about those beliefs.

In Paul's letter to the Colossians, he writes: "Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him." [1]

Paul's not telling the Colossians (or us) to "say things that people want to hear." But he is explaining that as children of God, it's our job to live in a way that demonstrates the love and peace of Christ Jesus.

But, because this post is really about me and my issues (hashtag selfie...!), Paul also doesn't say "hide the truth, defend your pride, keep your mouth shut so you don't cause any conflict." And this is my daily struggle. This is the battle I continue to lose.

I'm so jealous of the people who seem to find it easy to state their beliefs on any given topic. Many of them even do it gracefully, in a way that people listen and accept that while they may have a different view, that person is entitled to those beliefs. Some of them have told me that I just need to "care less about what people think," which might have some value, but then again, might not be a value that I can fit into who I am. And besides I've spent too many years being told, by different people and in different ways, that what I have to say is only valid so long as it doesn't run contrary to what the other person is saying. Most of the time, in my effort to be humble, I give up on expressing myself in order to validate the other person (which, I should add, is more out of cowardice than actual humility). And now, here I am, trying to exist as an adult (ha!) with many people who don't share my beliefs or my faith, and with whom I am trying to maintain various types of relationships.

The problem, I have realized, is that there are so few people that I actually trust to hear me out, to let me hold the shrew-stone [2] long enough to make sense of my "divided mind" [3] and get to some kind of point. It's hard for me to accept that I take a while to process my thoughts. I like to think I have a quick wit, generally speaking, but when it comes to things I care about, things that matter, things that have to come from the very protected core of who I am--it might take hours, or days, or years. I might never say it, no matter how much I need to, no matter how much I want you to hear it. Because I'm afraid. I'm afraid of losing you, afraid of inviting an argument, afraid of damaging your feelings, afraid that I might have any kind of effect on you at all, and that you might resent me for it.

But even in those moments when I get over myself, when I truly believe that the things I have to say might be more important than either of our feelings, I am faced with the paralyzing fear that I will say the wrong thing. At the core of it all, I'm a writer. Words matter. And if I haven't had the time to draft and reflect and revise, then I'm not ready to tell you. And conversations move so fast, and you're almost done with your beer, or I have to get to class, and my ideas are exploding like fireworks and I can't pull the shells together fast enough to even hand you a piece of shrapnel as we walk away from each other. And anyway, even if I was a little faster, I might hand you the wrong piece, something out of context that doesn't really say what it's supposed to mean.

It's better to stay quiet. It's safer. I can't fuck anything up that way.


I've been writing this post in my head for years. I've started it twice and walked away from it. Right now I'm working on my third version of this draft, and I'm still fighting the urge to tuck it away somewhere, to not say anything at all and certainly not share this post on any kind of social media. This is my problem, my particular dramatic emotional issue. No one really needs to know about it.

Why do we blog, anyway? Why do we tweet, or repost, or share pictures about our lives? Do we really think our mostly-unregulated circles of kind-of-but-not-actually-"friends" care about what we have to say? Do we really think we'll make some kind of impression on anyone? Do we want to? Do we care?

I care. I care too much. I care about the person who's upset that I used the word "fuck" just now (and in a post about Jesus, too!). I care about the person who's caught up on my having a faith that's not even supposed to be widely accepted. I care about the people who are going to leave a comment to be supportive, to tell me that they care, that they think I have worthwhile things to say. I care too much, but I don't think any of that matters. I don't think I'm doing this for you. I think I'm writing because I have to, because it's eating at me from inside and if I don't start writing, don't start sharing in some capacity, don't take my rants out from behind my shower curtain and make them in some way public, I'm going to drive myself mad.

Peter tells us to "live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God." [4] That's why I started writing: because I am a free servant of God, and because's he's given me a capacity to write. He planted all these fireworks, and he's going to keep setting them off. I don't know if I'll ever know whether I'm affecting you. I don't think that's the point. I have to trust in the freedom I'm given, and trust that he wouldn't set me loose on the world if he didn't think it was a good idea. I have been saved by grace, through faith, [5] and that faith sets me free--free from fear and from the constant pressure I put on myself to be perfect.

Living without apology is the single most difficult thing I have ever tried to do. And it might never get any easier. But since I have the hope of Christ "as a sure and steadfast anchor of the soul" [6] --what have I got to lose?

---
[1] Colossians 3:12-17
[2] it's a Redwall reference. basically everyone has to shut up while the person with the stone says what they have to say.
[3] in Greek, the word "anxious" translates most literally as "drawn in opposite directions" or "divided into parts." See here for more details.
[4] 1 Peter 2:16
[5] Ephesians 2:8
[6] Hebrews 6:19a

"If you have to ask, then that’s your answer."

Warning - NSFSA (not safe for some audiences ... you know who you are)

This article, "Fuck Yes or No," pretty much says what I've been trying to say for forever. Manson and I have some different fundamental beliefs about sex [1], but other than that, we're more or less on the same page. I've been concerned for years with the all-too-common relationship approach of "this is good enough for now" or "I just don't want to be alone" -- if we're friends, you've probably heard my opinions about this firsthand. They might even have been directed at you. What I never feel I convey, however, is that it's so sad to hear people give terrible excuses for staying with someone they shouldn't be with. Not because I'm a hopeless, sunshine-and-unicorns-romantic [2], but because it reveals that people I care about don't think they're worth something/-one incredible.

You're worth it. Waiting for that person is worth it. I know, I know, it's easy for me to say because I have my person--but allow me to remind you that we fought for it. And the road wasn't always wonderful. [3] And before that happened, I came up with a lot of reasons to stay with other people when deep down I knew they were bad ones. Reasons, that is. Because ultimately, the Law of Fuck Yes or No doesn't say "this person is terrible and you should leave them"--it supports the idea that two people have to connect.

That being said, I want to comment on the two problems Manson observes at the end of his post. Ultimately they both sum up to "the problem is you." I mean, that's pretty much the argument he makes in general: if you're not happy, it's your responsibility to consider why, and what you're doing or not doing to cause it. And to some extent--yes. You're the only one responsible for your choices and actions. But I want to add that just because one person realized they weren't happy and needed to pursue something else doesn't mean that the other person was somehow screwing it up. Manson's Two Problems make it sound like if you aren't connecting with someone, it's your own fault, and I don't think that's true. I know some really incredible people who haven't met their person yet. I've witnessed seemingly-happy relationships blow up out of nowhere. Sure, everyone can use some self-examination and -improvement, and sure, sometimes your lack of self-actualization can prevent others from seeing who you really are, or bring about the end of a relationship. But not always.

Sometimes you just have to have the chance to meet the right person. Sometimes what seems like a "fault" on one side or another is really just a disconnect that wasn't very evident to one or both parties. Sometimes people just up and leave for "no reason" (essentially, because they're not saying Fuck Yes) and can't give a good explanation as to why. Usually I end up asking these questions: if the person you are interested in doesn't see how great you are, do you really want to try to establish a relationship with them? Do you really want to be with someone who doesn't care about you enough to work through their issues with you? [5]

I guess I'm just trying to cover both sides. You can't generalize and say that you've missed your chance because of something you did or didn't do. You also can't generalize and say that you're perfect and anyone who doesn't realize that is a loser. The point Manson is making--and that I am agreeing with--is that relationships are about connection. If you have to ask whether you are connecting, there's a good chance you aren't. If attempting to connect with someone is harder than it is successful ... maybe neither of you are saying Fuck Yes.

---
[1] primarily the whole "not doing it before you're married" thing
[2] I mean... I am. but that's not the point here.
[3] I'd love to tell you the story sometime. Because I love to tell the story. Although if you're reading this, there's a good chance you know it already and really have no desire to hear it again.
[4] They usually work in the course of a semi-objective, rational discussion. They're not quite as effective right after the breakup, but then, I'm not really great at being comforting. I do like sad movies and wine and ice cream, so maybe we could compromise with those?

countdown

I think it finally hit me that my life is changing again, and I'm sort of in backpedal mode. No, I'm not pregnant. But I am starting grad school in September, and I am instructing two sections of English 101 in addition to taking my actual graduate courses (and still barista-ing on the side!) and basically, two weeks from now I will be trading in life as I know it so I can start all over again.

This was always part of my 'plan' [1], but it's hard to accept that I am, in fact, actually going back to school and actually getting hands-on, with-guidance practice/experience for the thing that I want to do as my career. I don't know how to be excited about that, because it's not even really ... real. It's like this pretend on-paper thing that's happening and it's all sort of still vague and overwhelming. Plus, the thought of actually teaching and being responsible for not one but two entire classes is just ... I mean, it's terrifying. Exciting, but terrifying. And I know in the back of my head that I really just have to--you know, show up, and go through the motions, and try not to stress out about how it's not going at all how I planned, and we'll all get through it together, but for the right-now, while I have the time to be thinking about it, it's sort of looming overhead as this big, all-consuming unknown thing.

And the weirdest part is that right now, I'm looking at the time I have before the four (count 'em, four) orientations before school starts, and I'm thinking, maybe I shouldn't have done this in the first place. I feel like I just started to figure my shit out. I somehow magically jumped the hurdle of "getting my ass in gear" and I have been faithfully writing, working out, and reading the Bible. Like, pretty much every day, or in a comfortably-alternating pattern. [2] I am creating, rather than finding, a balance of work/social life/Piera time. I've stopped stressing out quite so much about the times when I decide to do something relaxing, because it's occurred to me that it's actually good for me to let myself chill out for a while (who knew). In some ways I feel that I have a lot more on my mental/emotional plate than I have in a while, but in other ways, I feel a lot more at peace with myself in general. And I'm excited about it, and about being generally positive and happy, and I'm not ready to give it up yet! I just freakin got here!

Two weeks. Two weeks and three weekends of actually being the way I've been trying to be for the last three years: content. And that's already slipping away because the list of "things I have GOT to do before school starts" is growing--things like my proofreading gig, and having to actually research and decide on (and pay for....) my own health insurance, and cleaning/organizing my study (and finding a desk to put in it, which is really the most important part), and changing my facebook settings so that students can't see my stuff, and making sure I have some quality time with the sibs before they leave for school again, and buying things like nice pants and shoes maybe? and I already have upcoming weekend plans, and ... suddenly I don't even have my two weeks anymore, and I'm careening down the slippery slope into the future.

Don't get me wrong: I absolutely would not take it back. I can't wait to be back in school. I like me the best when I am in school--I love constantly learning, constantly writing, constantly being presented with new ideas and new ways of thinking. I love the schedule and the routine and the whiteboards and all of it. It just seems that I have been working so hard to get here that I have wasted the last three years, and it's almost ... not fair? to suddenly have figured out how to live a life that I enjoy. That I want. I finally hit my stride, and haven't I been looking for it my entire life?

In a way, it's probably taken these last three years of work and discontent and disappointment and hope in order for me to be "ready" [3] for this. A friend of mine pointed out that I needed to go through all of the challenges of the last few years in order to to learn how to face Life and find some kind of balance. I have to stop thinking of it as a waste and start trying to see it as the learning process--but that's hard to do when I am finally here, and I can't remember what was so hard about it in the first place. Then again, I will have had a few months of this before I get started... maybe I needed it all to happen right now in order for me to be excited enough to carry it with me into the upcoming semester.

What I'm saying is, I just want to BE at the start of Orientation #1. Once I hit the ground running I won't have the time to look back, even if I wanted to--and I definitely don't want to.

---
[1] don't worry, I never actually counted on said plan, but it was, you know, there
[2] side effects may include: not knowing who you are anymore; wondering how long it's going to last before you fizzle out; random bouts of ridiculous excitement over the amount of productive I feel in a given day
[3] I'll probably be referencing this post from now until the day I die...

it's just money

Yup, you guessed it: this is another temper-tantrum post regarding the evils of growing up.

Seriously though--when they told me it was rough, they weren't kidding. When the adults I've complained to all gave me the "heh, yeah, I remember those days," I thought, "well, at least I'm not alone, at least they survived."

What I didn't realize was that the little "heh" was a temporary flashback to the red font on your bank statement, or the dreaded calls from 800 numbers (fourteen times a day), or the fact that you start using change when you buy things, simply because it makes you feel like you're spending less money.

For a while it was comforting to know that this is a normal post-college experience. Everyone agrees that it's hard to balance yourself out, start paying back loans, try to pay rent or utilities or whatever, nevermind--God forbid--the occasional "splurge," which at this point, includes paying $1.50 for a redbox movie. But it's normal, right? Plenty of Real Adults have done this, and survived, and have even started to have children! [1]

If it's normal, which they keep telling me it is, then everyone deals with it, and eventually, people recover. It's not forever. One day, or so I am told, it'll be normal to have a positive number in your bank account when you get your next paycheck.

The only thing is, that's just not helpful.

No, I don't want your budget lecture or your helpful suggestions or your "have you tried"s. The problem isn't our lack of ability to manage our money. The problem is the lack of freaking money. And sure, it's going to get better. Aaron is being handed work left and right, and my student loans go on hold in the fall, plus I get a salary to be a TA, which yay, but that doesn't help me now, this week, when it's Tuesday and we're overdrawn and there are literally only two eggs and a stick of butter in the fridge. At least I don't have to decide what to make for dinner?

And so, because I'm me, I like to look at all the things I did or am doing wrong. I could have gotten a degree in something marketable and not "English," because what does that degree even mean [2]. I could have "saved up for college" and/or applied to a bunch of places until I got a free ride somewhere and then I wouldn't have loans to pay back. I could shut my stupid mouth and get the job at Aldi bagging groceries, because in the end, what's another 20 hours/week of dealing with the average American consumer, and no one really cares about your degree or actual abilities anyway. And the time you are (selfishly!) taking for your marriage, your sanity, or cooking actual meals isn't really that important, because--you need the money! Get off your high horse and stop bitching!

....

I used to believe, wholeheartedly, that doing what you love is the most important. I used to believe, wholeheartedly, that it was just money, and that there would never be enough, and you just had to focus on what God is giving you today, and let tomorrow sort itself out...tomorrow.

The thing I'm most upset about, more than anything else, is the fact that it's getting harder and harder to believe in that. In theory, I do. In theory, I completely believe that God gives me what I need, when I need it. In theory, it could be a lot worse, and I have a zillion things to be thankful for, and I really have no right to complain at all.

You may have noticed, but I like to whine about growing up. Partially, it's because I know I'm not alone and I feel a sort of camaraderie with my fellow post-grads--and also, I'm a smartass and it's part of my stand-up routine. But honestly? It's so much harder than I realized it would be. And I'm not just talking about paying my bills. I'm talking about shouldering the responsibility of an apartment, a car [3], a job. I'm talking about facing the fact that it's irresponsible not to do something about the anxiety disorder I've been ignoring for years. Regular day-to-day responsibilities aren't homework that I get to put off until the last minute. The decisions Aaron and I have to make--we're it. We make the last call, and if it's a bad decision, there's no one to rescue us. There's no midnight-"get me out of this sketchy party"-phone-call. We're the end of the line, and we're just so used to being kids. Sure, we listened to what grownups told us, and eventually we actually started paying attention, but how on earth can you be "prepared" for this? All you really have is an idea of what it'll be like, and then cannonball, it's into the freezing cold water and you'd better learn how to swim.

You probably won't believe this, but I actually hate listening to myself whine. I know I don't have it as bad as it feels. I can look at today and think, I have a job, I have tips to buy groceries, I have a car to get home and a fantastic relationship with my fantastic husband. College degree, acceptance to grad school, prospects for the future, friends, clothes, cell phones--what do I really have to complain about?

"Growing up" is finding--or sometimes, creating--balance. Maybe I'm not at work every waking moment, but I'm making the most of my life. And life is more than the bank account. Life is goals and relationships, it's using the talents that we're given (even if they don't make us money!). It's finding the strength to face another day, to be able to say alright, let's have a kid or two, [4], to remember that the amount of money you have/don't have doesn't--shouldn't--can't--dictate how you live your life. Can I make changes? Sure. Will it be touch-and-go for a few years? Probably. But that's just how it is. That's just life, and it's not supposed to be easy.

"Growing up" means actually living and breathing the belief that God is giving us exactly what we need, exactly when we need it. It's not something that just happens, it's something you face, you learn, you exercise over and over again, probably forever. It's exhausting, and there's no going back. And that is the hard part.

---
[1] I can't even begin to process how that would work right now. The suggestion alone raises my heart rate.
[2] If you're one of my past or future professors, please note that this is rhetorical and cynical and ... just keep reading...
[3] Two, actually, and no I don't want to talk about it
[4] Nope, not a pregnancy announcement. Stand down, soldier.

how i became a writer

For my entire life, I have wanted to be a Writer.

Naturally this means getting published, and even, maybe, (although I would never admit to such a wishful hope) producing a bestseller one day. I've been journaling and daydreaming and telling stories for as long as I can remember, and with nothing really to show for it, except a box of diaries, a computer folder dedicated to notes and story ideas, and one novella that I "completed" in high school and can't bear to re-read.

This week, I decided to take a page out of Castle's book, and take myself seriously. [1]

...anyway. In college, for my senior honors project, I decided I was going to start writing a book. At the end of the semester, I presented on it, I graduated, and under the pretense of "stepping away from it to let it develop in the back of my mind," I haven't opened the file since. [2] I had 41 pages, a lot of notes, and most importantly: inklings of an idea about what it means to Be A Writer.

In the last week of trying to Write More, these ideas have begun to resurface in the practical, hands-on kind of way, and I am eager to share [3] what I believe to be a decent foundational approach to the insurmountable task of Getting Started. [4]

1: the muse is a tease

Basically every creative person I know waits to write or draw or whatever until "the muse descends." Because when you've got some down time and you're just feeling really inspired and passionate, it's a great time to bust out the old moleskine and be clever. Except the problem is that we then tend do nothing until we get those surges of creative energy, and let's face it, the most common time to get them is either right as you're falling asleep, or when you're in the shower. [5] If you only wait for the muse, the number of times you are actually productive dwindles significantly, until you all but forget that you like to write in the first place. So don't wait. [6] You can't rely on the muse (that fickle minx) and you shouldn't. When I'm feeling inspired I'm also at the height of my perfectionism, and I hardly ever get anything done, because I'm too worried about losing the Perfect Moment to horrible writing. On the flip side, however, if you condition yourself to write every day, or every other day, for some concentrated amount of time, you are at least producing something. One and a half pages of crap is still better than nothing. Which brings me right to my next point, which is this:

2: editing and writing are not the same thing

I like to edit. In fact, I could spend all of my Designated Writing Time reviewing the last four pages, making them the best four pages you have ever read, and at the end of this time period (which really is never long enough, but it's what I have), I haven't actually written anything. This ... well, this defeats the purpose. Four pages of really brilliant writing is still only four pages, and doesn't get me a publishing deal. And yeah, it's awful to skim yesterday's work and not do anything about the fact that you hate it, and is that even what you want to say? And does this ramble? And is that a good character-driven bit of dialogue? But the thing is, it still doesn't get me another page. I'm training myself to leave it alone, to look forward to the time that I can red-pen the hell out of my ~*finished manuscript*~ and until then, I'm going to focus on actually producing said manuscript. Which means no editing.

3: there's nothing permanent about your decisions

is very closely related to #2, but I make it a separate heading because it has two main points I want to address. The first is for perfectionist, anxious creatives like me: it's okay to pick a direction for the sake of getting some writing done. Nothing is final until probably like, the final publishing date [7], and if you spend your whole 47 minutes of writing time dithering over character names or period settings, you still don't have more than four pages. Pick one, and go for it. If you hit a problem somewhere in the future, reassess as necessary. Names? Use one so ridiculous you won't become attached to it, and wait until it presents itself. Or better yer, spend some time outside of said designated writing time in order to brainstorm ideas and make notes for yourself.

The other side of this section is for perfectionist, anxious creatives like me: it's okay to change your mind about a past decision. Even one you were in love with. It's hard to let go of the things you loved (especially when they were just so good!) but more often than not, it's necessary. Mostly in terms of editing (because let's be honest, that's when you basically destroy everything you wrote and start over), but also in terms of just writing something down. You have to let the writing go in the direction it wants to go, and not get caught up in "but I was going to do it this way!" I only half believe in the writers' myth that your characters and story run away from you, but that half of me is pretty darn convinced. [8]

I'm pretty sure that Stephen King said something about "killing your darlings," [9] and that's ironic, because it brings me to my next thought:

4: there really is nothing new under the sun

I have a friend who doesn't even like to use the term "creative" because she believes that if God created the world and everything in it, all we are doing is copying it in a variety of ways. I think there's some truth to that. There are limitless scenarios and nuances, but the core ideas about humanity, relationships, and emotions are never going to change. Someone is always going to say "wow, way to rip off ___." Obviously there's a fine line here, and I'm not suggesting that 50 Pairs of Shoes is going to be a successful romance novel, but when it comes down to it, you can't spend all of your energy trying to create something completely new. Because it won't be. And anyway, the Greeks probably did it first.

5: writing is writing is writing

People keep telling me that the menial journaling and blogging that I do still counts as writing. I have a really hard time accepting this, because as previously stated I am an anxious perfectionist. But in the end, every little bit still counts toward the final goal. Everything you produce is proof that you can produce something, even that page of terrible poetry or the sketch of the family on the back of a napkin. Not everything you produce in the course of your life will be worthy of publishing or selling--but that doesn't make it meaningless. Do you write for the recognition of having written something, or do you write because writing is just...fun? Goodness knows I have to remind myself this. And goodness knows--writing isn't always fun. It's almost like a relationship: you have to dedicate the time and energy, even when your heart isn't in it, even when you wish it could be better. Writing isn't just an isolated magical Thing--it's a process, a habit, a way of life. It doesn't get better unless you do it, and you can't do it if all you care about is the end result.

Am I a writer? You know what, I think I am. I might not be a good one, I might be a little rusty--but I write, and I do it because I adore it. And I think that even for anxious perfectionists like me, that is enough.

---

[1] I use "decide" as a very loose term here, but that's a story for a different post. Also, look at all the clever jokes. ahaha.

[2] except for just now, to see how many pages it was. Sorry, Andy. It's lost but not forgotten.

[3] primarily with other struggling creatives out there, because I feel your pain, but with everyone too because what the heck

[4] I mean, for whatever that's worth, since I have approximately four pages of Brilliant New Story and have never been remotely published

[5] that last bit might just be me.

[6] I think this is essentially what Stephen King is saying in his infamous "butt glue" quote (you know, about making yourself sit down to write and then staying there until it happens). I quite enjoyed On Writing, but I also appreciate Peter M Ball's objections to it, because--well, because he gets me.

[7] clearly, I don't know the first thing about this process

[8] see also [4] because I will be the first to admit I don't know what I'm talking about. I'm guessing Being A Writer is sort of like Being In Love ... you just know.

[9] or he was quoting Faulkner? It doesn't matter enough to research this right now

baby don't hurt me

If you're side-bobbing your head, you already know what this post is about.

Various people in my life have been talking lately about "love," and what it is, and whether it's attainable. So naturally, because I have some intense ideas and opinions about the topic, I felt the need to chime in. [1]

why is love so complicated?

Honestly, in many ways, it's not. We love our families and our friends, and we don't usually question it, even when they make us crazy. Non-romantic love is something we accept, something we are willing to put effort into. And usually, we do it without really realizing how much.

From our family, ideally speaking of course, we learn a permanent love, the kind that exists regardless of the fights we have with siblings or parents etc. We even admit that we love, at least in some capacity, those relatives we might not necessarily like or connect with, or even someone who has wronged us. Family is family; they aren't going anywhere. So without the option of just "not being family anymore," we learn to adjust, and by adjusting, we establish a relationship. [2] From friends, we learn what it is to find people and love them for how they are. Unlike siblings, friends don't share the same genetics or upbringing, and therefore our friendships add dimensions to our perspectives as well as to our lives in general. Usually each relationship is unique unto itself, and as such we find different ways to interact with different friends. Because we are choosing to spend time together, we are also choosing to invest time and emotion in another person, and to some extent our friendships change and grow us.

So romantic love, as I see it, should fall somewhere in between: a combination of choosing to spend time with someone and working through differences instead of walking away from them. I have noticed, however, that most people try to make romantic love into something much more magical and complex. Some people come at it with a preconceived idea of what it's supposed to feel like, and are ready to run at the first sign that "the spark" might be gone. If we don't just automatically know about a person, it can't be right. Others (and I typically used to fall into this particular category), believe that it has to be love because it's convoluted and intensely emotional--a mix that tends to result in a good deal of fighting and even actual abuse. [3] An alarming amount of people idealize relationships that can be summed up as "people don't usually get us," as though these kinds of relationships are SO incredible that no one else could possibly understand. This is not to say that people haven't ever experienced "love at first sight" (at least some of those cute old people stories have to be true), or that there aren't successful relationships that don't make sense to the outsider. The problem I am trying to identify is really less to do with relationships themselves, and more about the expectations we bring into them.

It seems that most people fully support the concept of "being friends first" but then treat romantic relationships completely different from friendships. And yes, there is a lot more at stake in a romantic relationship than in a friendship, because you're looking to find someone to trust with all of your secrets and vulnerabilities. But if you choose to be friends with someone based on the way you interact and the things you have in common, why should the initial groundwork be any different for a boyfriend or girlfriend? And once you're in a relationship, and looking toward marriage--essentially, trying to establish a family of your own--wouldn't it make sense to treat it as though you will be working on it for the rest of your life?

Equally as complicating as our expectations going in to relationships, however, is the issue of sex. I here refer to it as a concept, which includes mackin' or even just cuddling. Once the physical element is involved, it is suddenly harder to approach the relationship from a friendship perspective. Don't get me wrong, I'm definitely not a "don't hold hands until you're married" kind of a person. But once you've crossed certain lines, they can't be un-crossed, and you've just invested a great deal more than you may have originally planned. I mean, who doesn't like sex, and doesn't want to continue having it after it's started up? Exactly. But barreling down this hill means that the other emotional/intellectual parts of you are still kind of waiting at the tops of their respective hills, and usually you're too busy rolling around in the grass to notice. Until suddenly you DO notice, and then you don't understand why the emotional and intellectual aspects of your relationship are so hard to work out. [4] The fact is, sex (and physical interaction in general) is connected to emotions, no matter which way you look at it. [5] The more you interact physically with someone, the harder it is to stay objective about your relationship. Not to suggest that subjectivity is a bad thing--in fact, it's not at all helpful to be completely objective--but without a certain element of reasonableness, relationships tend to spiral downward into a hot mess of heightened emotion and defense mechanisms.

okay, but what does it look like?

I'm gonna go here, you guys. It has to be done. I feel like a lot of people have heard this explanation so many times that they don't really think about what it means and how it is relevant. Which is too bad, because the Bible straight-up hands us a how-to guide on love:

• Love is patient and kind
• Love does not envy or boast
• Love is not arrogant or rude
• Love does not insist on its own way
• Love is not irritable or resentful
• Love does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. [6]

Kids, this is what love looks like. It is both far easier to break down than people want it to be, and a hell of a lot more work than people expect. It's not magic, it's not inexplicable sensation. It's being patient with someone when they drive you nuts, and not being petty or irritable. It's being kind and not rude or self-centered. And it's hard, because by nature we lose our patience, we are resentful of someone for something they do (or don't do!). I certainly don't like it when things don't go the way I want them, but there it is.

I should mention that this explanation of love is talking about love for everyone--your mom, your lab partner, your best friend, that obnoxious guy you work with, etc. Jesus instructs us to love one another, [7] so the list is really talking about an entire lifestyle. I know someone who actually gets annoyed that people use this in the context of romantic relationships, because it doesn't indicate anything about romance or marriage. And really, when you think about it, if you don't have a foundational perspective and definition of Love, how can you possibly expect a romantic relationship to survive? [8] In fact, without a foundation, "love" appears only in the form of emotions, which are fluid and temporary and therefore unreliable.

sometimes love just isn't enough

Two things:
a) that depends on how you are defining "love"
and b) enough for what?

Okay, I admit it: I do understand the sentiment behind this statement. But I'm me, and it's far too ambiguous for me to simply agree with it.

Love, as defined in the list above, and as exemplified in the perfect life, death, and resurrection of Christ, is absolutely enough. Enough to be happy, to live your life fully, and to establish healthy and enjoyable relationships with those around you. [9] It's even enough to bring us from this life into eternity: for God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [10] If we live our lives loving one another, and trying to imitate the love of Christ, that true love then becomes the foundation of our relationships and the underlying current that directs our emotions. This is especially true in romantic relationships: if you love someone with a love that is patient, and selfless, and rejoices in the truth (and if they have the same foundation, and are approaching it the same way you are), it's going to be much easier to work through the challenges you face.

But "love" in the mushy romantic sense is not enough of a reason to commit yourself to a relationship, let alone a marriage. Absolutely a true statement. There's a lot more to stable relationships than the way you feel about them, because those feelings may or may not be permanent. Relationships are hard work, and this kind of "love" won't always stick around through the fights and the difficulties. [11] I've been married almost two years now and I can tell you for sure that all the giddy romantic stuff is there much less than it used to be. [12] But I can also tell you that this isn't a bad thing. It's not that "the spark has gone out"--our relationship has simply changed. You grow out of that initial head-over-heels feeling and into a different kind of warm fuzzies. And no, it's not that incredible headrush of the first kiss, but it's a comfort and security that you can't possibly achieve right away.

then how do you know you're in love?

Honestly, I'm not sure how to answer this one. To some extent, I think it's kind of obvious: you'll feel it, you'll breathe it, you'll know it with every ounce of your body. But whether that means you're ~in love~ as in, THE love, the person you're going to marry? I think that has to be a different feeling for everybody. And it probably depends on your views about "The One."

My views, since you asked, are sort of in the middle of "there is One Person out there for you" and "you can theoretically marry and be happy with anyone." Before I met Aaron, most of the married people I asked about this told me "oh, you just know." And of course I didn't really believe them, because that sounded like a load of crap and I was far too practical for that. True love, after all, isn't magic and fleeting emotions. But as it turns out, I did "just know." I knew it so well that to this day I haven't questioned it, and I haven't needed to.

I believe that God is using my choices and circumstances to provide me with everything I need, and to bring me, ultimately, through life and into an eternity in heaven. [13] I believe it strongly enough to write about it, even more than once. So my beliefs regarding marriage and "soul mates" fall, naturally, within this structure: certain choices that I have made have led me toward the person I married, and I believe completely that God brought us together on purpose (which includes, I should add, the idea that God also used Aaron's decisions and circumstances to guide him toward me). But I think that if I had made different decisions somewhere along the line, or even that external forces had led me in another direction, I would have met someone else who was equally as perfect for me as I am for him. So in a way, I believe that I could have married any number of different people and have been just as happy as I am now, but it's no different than thinking about what would have happened if I had gone to a different college or decided on a different career path.

so what is love?

Love is putting someone else before yourself. [14] Love is an active decision you make every moment of your life, and it's not always easy. But love isn't necessarily any different between friends or family or spouses. Our relationships and the ways we express our love are all different, but at the core, the foundation remains the same. And yes, loving people puts you at risk. It's actually a little bit terrifying to think how vulnerable you become when you are willing to truly love someone. But when you're looking for a husband or a wife, and when you both come at it with the same foundation and beliefs, you already have the answer for a lot of the problems that arise on the surface. And when you're both in it together, loving each other as God loves you, then you can't go wrong. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. And the best part is, love never ends. [15]

---
[1] For all of you skeptics out there, don't worry, I have already been informed by multiple people that anything I have to say on the matter is rendered invalid by the existence of my wedding ring, as it indicates that I am no longer capable of sympathy or empathy for the lovelorn. Because clearly that's how it works. </snark>
[2] Of course, I'm speaking in ideals here. Certainly, and unfortunately, I am aware that a lot of hurt and awfulness can occur within--and as a result, separate--families.
[3] Not to make light of abusive relationships, because those are a psychology chapter all to themselves.
[4] I mean, not like I have ever done this before.
[5] Even if that means you shut your emotions off, and pretend that your sexual experience has no bearing on the rest of your perspectives. But that's still a connection, and it's not a healthy one.
[6] 1 Corinthians 13:4-6
[7] John 15:12 -- This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you.
[8] Yep, you bet that I realize that I am presupposing a foundation of faith in order for any of this to work. I also realize and acknowledge that not everybody shares this foundation. To be honest, though, I don't think there is a better, all-encompassing explanation or approach than that list.
[9] 2 Corinthians 12:9a -- But he said to me, "My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness."
[10] John 3:16. Go team.
[11] If you're interested, I've even written a post about what I have learned to be important to a healthy relationship. Keep in mind that I do know everything.
[12] Not to say that we aren't sort of mushy and gross sometimes. Because ... we are. lol.
[13] Romans 8:28 -- And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
[14] John 15:13 -- Greater love has no one than this, that someone lay down his life for his friends.
[15] 1 Corinthians 13:7-8a

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.

I'm writing a book called "How to Make Enemies" ... let me know if you want an autographed copy

I'm on dangerous ground here. You may know that I like to stay away (far, far away) from today's social issues and politics, because there's too much emotion riding on everything and I have noticed that it is generally hard for people to see reason when they're on a soapbox.

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?

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.

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.

but the body is weak

"oh my god, have you listened to me lately? lately i've been going crazy ... " (some nights (intro) / fun)

It's true. Lately, I've been ... well, overworked, and burnt out, but that's a result of the show I'm doing and won't be the case after next weekend. But aside from that? Lately I've been unhappy, and restless, and even more anxious than usual. Lately I've been ... hurting, and aside from a few specific-but-not-comprehensive reasons, I haven't been able to figure out why. I always try to pinpoint the heart of my problems so that I can "fix" them, and so far, it hasn't helped.

Primarily I blame my job/life situation. It's all I can freaking talk about these days, apparently. I am sick of waking up before the sun. I am sick of feeling anxiety about staying up past 10 pm. I am sick of not stretching my brain or learning things, sick of not getting any closer to grad school or a career, sick of pandering to the entitled narcissism of our society. So I have started The Job Hunt, because clearly the problem is that I need a new job, and once I have one, I will be happy again.

But ... that doesn't fix it. It's not about creating a new scenario in which conditions are perfect [1]. Because how will getting a new job push me to start working out? Or start blogging more? Or start reading all the articles and links people send me, which gives me more thinking and blogging material? Not to mention the books I want to read, or the writing I want to do. New job =/= free time, inspiration, and/or motivation. I've been saying that not using my intellect at work makes it easier not to use it at home, but the truth of the matter is that using my intellect at work will just make me want to not use it at home (and also, probably, give me a 'better' excuse for not doing it).

I was talking to a friend today about timing and about plans. And I basically paraphrased my mom, who always used to tell me that life doesn't work on an "if/then" basis. You can't wait to start something until you do something else, because then your entire life is contingent on you doing that one thing. If you want to do something, you have to make yourself DO it, regardless of the timing. This is stuff I've known forever, and applied in weird places [2]. Apparently it's also stuff I believe in enough to tell other people--but not to take to heart. Because the presence of Starbucks in my life isn't the problem. It might be a problem, but not the underlying one. And neither is not getting into grad school, or feeling out of touch with my friends who don't live around here.

You guys, I have a confession. I haven't been to church in ... a really long time. I didn't even go on Easter Sunday because of a ridiculous scheduling error (I don't want to talk about it) and recently, I can tell. I can almost physically feel how badly I want need to start going on a regular basis. I've known for a while, I even took Sundays off, and I always have the intent to get up in the morning and go. But I haven't, because it's the first day that I don't have to be somewhere. Or because Aaron didn't get home until 6am and I don't want to go without him. Or because (just like in college) I'm just tired, and my instinctive reflex is to shut off my alarm and worry about it later. At least in college I had communion services on Wednesday. The church in town we've managed to go to (twice) only does communion every other Sunday, and guess which Sundays we actually attended. I'll give you a hint: it wasn't the communion Sundays.

And I've known that this is the problem for ... a while. I've been feeling it creep up on me. It's not that I don't think church is important, because I totally do. [3] I guess I've just never been this aware of how much I needed that forgiveness and sanctification in my life [4]. It's never really been this bad before. And it's weird because was never an intentional thing, it's just sort of how it happened. But now this is routine, and I need to break out of it, because I am convinced that re-establishing a norm for myself IS going to fix the problem, especially if that norm is a foundation of faith and hope.

So I'm going to make the effort to go to church more. And to actually bust out the Treasury of Daily Prayer that Keaton and Rebekah got us, and to spend more time focusing on Scripture and less on the daily drama I can't do anything about anyway.

And I'm scared. Because that right there is a lot of law, and I know I'm not going to stick with it. So a huge part of me wants to shrug it off--why bother starting, if you're just going to flake out anyway? But that brings me back to the idea of plans, and timing, and getting stuff done. And I know for a fact that I need to work on reconstructing the way I look at time as a whole. I already know that I can't create for myself a weekly schedule, because my life is never that easy to coordinate. So I just need to take one day at a time, and let it be what it is. Will I be productive at all this coming week? For goodness sake, no. It's tech week. Who am I kidding. What I can do is let it be tech week, and not expect anything to get done, and worry about the future ... in the future. Because conditions will NOT be perfect, ever, and sometimes you just have to make do without the business socks [5].

And at the very least, I'll go to church on Sunday. But pray for me, brothers and sisters. Because the spirit is willing, but ... my bed is just so comfy ...

---
[1] every time I use that phrase, I am actually quoting the Flight of the Conchords song "Business Time" in my head
[2] like breakups, for which there is never a good time, or in my personal philosophy regarding design and "predestination"
[3] please see this link (sent to me by my mom) for the quickest/best explanation for why we should go to church on a regular basis
[4] my use of the term "sanctification" is totally a result of watching a Rev Fisk video - click here for the link and go to approx. 4:50 for the definition if you don't want to watch the entire thing
[5] see [1]. and this video.

marriage - i think we're doing it wrong.

Yesterday we celebrated our one year anniversary. Which is really weird, because I kind of feel like I just got married. But ... I also feel like I've been married for years. Aaron and I joke that now that we've made it a whole year, we're going to have to stop enjoying our relationship, since according to the media and social commentary, this is supposed to be a battle. Men are lazy and selfish and only want sex, and women are underappreciated but the only reason anything gets done. Of course there's also the opposite side, where men are the breadwinners and women are supposed to be subservient and housewifey, but that this makes men into workaholics who don't care about their families, and it makes women into drones and nags. Either way, it's obvious to me that we're doing something wrong, because none of these sound anything like our relationship.

I know it's only been a year, and color me pretentious for already having some commentary on marriage. Trust me when I say I definitely do not believe I know everything about how this works, and that I am counting on many more years of lessons (both the fun and the hard). But what I have learned, aside from the (many) little quirks of Aaron, are (I think) relatively universal insights into how relationships work, and how they can be improved. It should come as no surprise that the underlying key is communication--which, I discovered, is not exactly what I thought it would be.

So, in no particular order, allow me to share some thoughts I've had about my relationship.
Like, for example,

patience.

This is one of those concepts that I always knew was important, but never realized how much. I always used to think that being patient meant being able to wait in a chronological sense, like for your mom when she's talking or to open your Christmas presents. But patience, as it turns out, is also about waiting to lose your temper, waiting to react, waiting to become offended. This is chronological too, technically, but has more to do with self-control. Patience, essentially, is a form of expressing your love for someone by putting them before yourself.

Typically, we Christians like to explain love with 1 Corinthians 13. Love is patient, love is kind, etc [1]... it's just one of those automatic definitions we use. It certainly isn't all-encompassing--it doesn't deal with forgiveness or selflessness or commitment, all of which are universally-accepted (maybe?) aspects of love. If you think about it, this verse doesn't even define love as much as it gives us a list of instructions on how to love. So most commonly we just file all these attributes in the folder marked "love, etc" and let it be. But I think it's very worth noting that the first thing Paul says about love is that it is patient.

Here's the thing, and maybe you knew this: I'm a nerd. so I went and looked up the original Greek text of 1 Cor 13:4. The Bible uses the phrase Ἡ ἀγάπη μακροθυμεῖ, which breaks down like so:
Ἡ ἀγάπη (agape) = the love (noun)
μακροθυμεῖ (makrothumei) = it is patient (verb)

The word makrothumeo (I am patient) is a compound verb, formed from the words makros--meaning "distant/long"--and thumos, which translates most easily into the word "passion," but (depending on prefixes and forms and such) can imply anything from desire to rage to lust. Uncle Robbie calls it "the fire in your belly." The verb makrothumeo literally means "I suffer long." Patience isn't just about waiting for things or biting back the snappy remarks. It's about being willing to suffer, and not just temporarily, but for a long period of time. It takes conscious effort, and (because we only suffer the things we don't like) it's not often rewarded. And, as previously mentioned, that's the very first thing Paul says about love: love is long-suffering.

Hold the phone, I'm not suggesting that it's only love if you are suffering. Because that's not the case either--see the actual Scripture at footnote [1] down below. And it doesn't necessarily mean that the person you love hurts you, because the perfect love from Christ does not cause us to suffer. Existing in the sinful world, however, does involve suffering, and sometimes suffering at the hands of other people because of that perfect love.

The fact is, people are flawed. It doesn't matter how much you care about each other--you're neither of you perfect, and your imperfections are, at some point, going to hurt the other person. It's easy to say that loving someone means treating them well, but we often forget that it also means being understanding when the other person makes a mistake. And being patient is very closely connected to

compromise,

which is what I really meant when I said "communication" up at the top of this post. Like so many of my little discoveries, this too turned out to be not as simple as I thought it was before I was married. When you're growing up, you learn to compromise as a means of conflict resolution. You both give up a little bit and then reach a conclusion that can make both sides happy. Important life skill? Definitely. But compromise isn't just about resolving issues--it's about preventing them. Compromising between spouses is an active, ongoing decision, and it requires the willingness to communicate.

I am of the opinion that everyone has their own language. Not as in English or Spanish, but as in a form of communication, a way of perceiving the world that you use when you express your thoughts. For example, Aaron thinks in clear cut words and ideas, and expresses them concisely and directly. He says exactly what he means, and no more and no less (usually...lol). But I, on the other hand, think in concepts and spiderwebs, with everything connected and under the lens of whatever emotion I am feeling the most at that time. Needless to say, this difference has been more than a little bit of a problem when it comes to working things out. At the root of most of our arguments is the fact that we are speaking to each other in different languages and we don't always remember to bridge the gap.

Compromise, however, is what I mean when you try to understand where the other person is coming from. It means taking the time to meta-communicate (psych term!) about your relationship, to understand why the other person says what they say, or why they get upset with you for just saying what you say. Aaron's directness can really put me off until I remember that he just cuts through the fluff and gets to the point. On the other hand, my emotional thought-train tends to frustrate Aaron, until he remembers that it's all a network of ideas and ~feelings that build up to my actual point. Compromise happens in two ways: both when you try to express your ideas in the other person's language, and when you try interpret what the other person is saying using the rules of their language. And both Aaron and I have had to learn to be patient (vocabulary word!) with each other, to hold back the reactions caused by our personal language in order to understand the language of the other person.

Moving on to other useful tidbits of advice, such as

keep your mouth shut.

Ha, ha.
No, but really.

Last year, at my friend Paul's wedding, they did the couples dance where at certain points you have to sit down if you've only been married for X amount of years. The last couple dancing had been married for ... 60? years or something, and the DJ asked them what their secret was. The man, who was totally beaming at his wife the entire time, just said, "keep your mouth shut."

Of course everyone cracked up about this. Because isn't that what society jokes about when it comes to husbands--just shut up and let your wife have her way? Personally, I got a little riled. But the more I thought about it, the more it began to make sense. It's not about not speaking your mind, or about one person having a "better" opinion. It's about being aware, and about picking your battles (even if it doesn't seem like a battle at the time).

Before I was married, I was convinced that the key was sharing everything, the good and the bad, the every-moment thoughts, the things about my husband that bothered me. Because this was "good" communication; it meant that we were open and honest with each other. But what I have discovered is that all things, including sharing, need a little bit of moderation. I definitely advocate being honest and open, and I believe that keeping secrets is the first step to closing yourself off to someone. But I also think that people tend to swing too far to the other side, and share everything, all the time, without regard for the situation or what is going on with the other person (and by "people" I mean "piera"). The trick is timing. If it's a problem that needs to be addressed, usually it's better to wait until you've both wound down from your day, and that neither of you are distracted or already upset about something else. More importantly, if you're in the middle of a fight, it's never helpful to make all the snappy comebacks that you want to, because all it does is make the problem worse. Keeping your mouth shut is a hard trick to learn (and I definitely haven't mastered it). Learning when and how to share is also difficult, but creates less conflict in the long run.

take each other seriously

This kind of seems obvious to me, because if you respect and love someone, it would follow that you respect their opinions and perspectives. I have learned, however, that that is not necessarily the case. I know for a fact that there are some things that bother Aaron that don't bother me, and vice versa. And more than a few arguments have occurred as a result of one of us going "well that's a dumb thing to be upset about." Because the fact of the matter is, it's important to one of us, for whatever reason, and even if it's objectively mundane and petty, it's still something that we are affected by. Certainly we could both learn to let it go, and to be less bothered by it, but that is an ongoing life improvement issue and can't be fixed in one instance. Even if the circumstance calls for a "honey, I think you're overreacting" (which it probably does), it's important to remember that the other person's opinion is still valid simply because it is his/her opinion.

...but not TOO seriously,

because sometimes you both just have to let it go. Especially about each other. It's so easy to pick out little things and let them get to you, but these little things are a part of that person as a whole, and they are unlikely to change. This is related to the concept of patience above, but I am applying it here in a broader, less-important sense. You could spend your whole life fighting about stuff, or you could just shrug most of it off and accept that this is the way it is for that person. Of course--this doesn't necessarily apply to actual sinful behavior, nor does it mean that you shouldn't talk about problems you have. But some things aren't going to change, and there's no point in letting them make you miserable for your whole life.

pride!

(huh! what is it good for! absolutely nothing)

Obviously, being overly proud is a bad thing. I bring it up, however, because I never realized until I was married just how much of it I have. It comes out mostly in arguments, at the moment that I realize I'm fighting a losing battle. This is when I stop making reasonable arguments and start saying whatever I feel like saying, because I don't want to be wrong, goram it.

But although this is where I can see it flaring up, I think I recognize it most in the moments when I fight against it. It seems that human nature values its dignity and pride above most other things, and making the choice to not put it first is ... well, scary. Without my pride as a defense I am suddenly a lot more vulnerable than I want to be, which means I have to remember to trust Aaron even though we're both mad at each other. It takes actual effort to decide which route to take, and that moment of decision has a tendency to add a little perspective to the situation. Which is also a bonus.

putting each other first

is at the heart of all of this, and I feel like it sort of goes without saying, but ... then again, maybe it doesn't. It's one thing to die for someone, but it's another thing entirely to live for them. [2] If you love someone, you put them before yourself--not in a worshippy sort of way, but in the sense that you look out for their best interests. This means that you exercise patience in arguments, in order to find out what the other person is trying to say. It means you think about how your comments and actions will affect them. It means trusting each other, and allowing yourself to become vulnerable to someone--because if you're both taking care of the other person, you don't need to take care of yourself. What it means, and what a lot of people don't want to believe, is that you allow yourself to be changed in order to better care for the other person. This doesn't mean that you should bend over backwards to be whatever they want, because that isn't "caring" for them in the overall sense (plus, it's destructive for both of you). In fact, it's good to stand your ground, and let the other person learn from you. I need to work on thinking in concise, clear-cut terms, and my relationship with Aaron has helped me with that a great deal. And sometimes it's good for Aaron to let go of the little things that I let go, and I think he is learning from that as well. But at the heart of it all, if you're going to commit to spending the rest of your lives together, you have to give up part of yourself for that person. You have to be willing to change, or you will spend the rest of your life in a standoff, and nothing will ever be accomplished. Plus you'll both be miserable.

Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes I want things to go MY way, and sometimes I just want Aaron to meet me where I am. But all of the time, everything works out for the best if we both try to meet each other on the other person's level. Nothing in my life has ever been this much work, or--sometimes--this hard. But nothing has ever been this awesome, either. Because when we stop trying to fight each other, and remember that all we want is for the other person to be happy, everyone wins.

---
[1] 1Cor 13:4-8a, 13 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. ... So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
[2] This is a loose quote from ... someone. Aaron maybe? please let me know which of you lovely people said this, because it's golden and I can't take credit for it.
[3] I am really painfully aware of how much colloquial mismatched person is happening in this post ... all the "their" when I just mean "he/she" and don't want to do the work. But you know what, it's my on goram blog and I'll misuse grammatical rules however I want to, and you just need to meet me on my level. Ha.