Personal Boundaries and Self Sacrifice

Christmas, and, indeed, every holiday that involves family, makes me introspective.  A somewhat favorite topic of pop-culture lately seems to be the idea of personal boundaries.  The concept that a person needs a sense of self and to hold to their principles even when people, particularly friends and families, are testing or imposing on those principles.  

When put as simply as that, the concept is delightful and extremely important.  The idea is important to prevent resentment that comes from performing acts out of sheer obligation.  But it's always bothered me, because most of the articles I've read (which have been a great many at this point) have preached that when faced with a request that imposes on you, that you should hold firm to your boundaries against such an imposition.

Before tonight, I had never read an article that mentioned that perhaps doing something that is an imposition doesn't always breed resentment.  My problem with this psychological tenant is that, as the word implies, tenants do not encompass the whole of the situation.  I am not entirely convinced that performing something out of sheer obligation is always unhealthy or problematic, but that isn't what I would like to address.  What I would like to address is that doing something that is an imposition or something solely for someone else's benefit when you truly want to do it, won't breed resentment.

And while it could be argued that it is selfless, it is also a form of selfishness, because a person's gratitude for service or help rendered is frequently more than enough repayment for my actions.  We both benefit, so where is the harm?

I've gotten into arguments with friends about this and it, for me, is something that is decisive in my relationships with others.  While yes, doing something for someone because you'll feel good about it is selfish; I believe that not doing something because you don't want feel obligated is a different for of selfishness, and one I personally am less tolerant of.  In the first situation you both benefit in your selfishness.  In the other, one suffers while you benefit from your act.

I realize that people can't control when they will resent feeling obligated.  I realized people can't control whether they will actually feel good about going out of their way for someone.  But I have found that if you truly do care for someone, you will want to you out of your way for them.  Nevertheless, herein lies the conundrum.  You can't force yourself to feel a particular way and if you will truly resent an obligation, then I do agree with the advice that you shouldn't do it if it will make you unhappy.  It is simply my belief that it is best to strive to want to do acts of kindness for other to make yourself happy.  Unsurprisingly, however, I have no idea how to accomplish such a thing if it does not come naturally.

My other problem with most of the literature out there on setting personal boundaries is the advice that you should make your decisions regardless of how other people will react.  If you are going to do something that will upset another person, you should do it, because their feelings aren't relevant and/or have no bearing on the situation.  But humans don't live in vacuums.  We are social creatures and while another person's feelings on a subject shouldn't ultimately and unilaterally decide your actions, if you care for them, if they are a large part of your life and relevant to the choice you're making, then I believe you should keep in mind their feelings.  And if you don't have a reasonable idea of their feelings on the subject, then you should ask.  And if they tell you unsolicited how they feel about a topic, I believe that carries even more weight.

If my boyfriend has had a hard day, but I've made plans, I might still go out.  But I might stay in an comfort him and hang out with him, because it will make him happier and that will make me happier.  I'm not saying that I'm obligated to stay and comfort him; I'm saying that in many situations, I will be happier with changing my plans and staying than if I went.  But, there are times when my plans are the more important element and I'll keep them.  I'm not going to abandon my boyfriend though.  I'll maybe buy him ice cream, or make plans with him later that night, or text him and amusing article, or poke him in the ear (long story).  There's always compromise and I feel like most of the articles I've read would say the conversation has to go like this:

Him: I had a really hard day.  My coworker yelled at me and then I made a mistake that resulted in costing money.  I ended up with a flat tire because I hit a curb when someone almost served into me.  And it doesn't help that you have plans tonight.

Me:  I'm really sorry that sounds awful.

Him:  I would love if you would stay with me tonight instead of going out.

Me:  I understand that you want me to stay, but I've already made plans and I need you to understand and respect that.

My problem with the above conversation is, that instead of continuing the dialogue, it cuts it off entirely.  By explaining that he's imposing on my boundaries and he needs to respect that, you've ended the conversation, and no matter how nicely you say the above, you've basically created an ultimatum, which I feel like, people generally respond poorly to.  I also feel like the above scenario assumes that my boyfriend knows nothing of having boundaries and that I need to educate him on them.  The firm phrasing also, I feel, conveys a sense that he is intentionally trying to test my resolve and boundaries, instead of just making a request because he's not feeling well.  While it's true that he could be testing my boundaries, I tend to assume the best of people and would like to make allowances for this not being the case (I also think this assumption depends a lot on the individual person involved).

Generally (though my relationship is far from perfect), my conversation would go more like this.

Him: I had a really hard day.  My coworker yelled at me and then I made a mistake that resulted in costing money.  I ended up with a flat tire because I hit a curb when someone almost served into me.  And it doesn't help that you have plans tonight.

Me:  I'm really sorry that sounds awful.

Him:  I would love if you would stay with me tonight instead of going out.

Me: You know I love spending time with you and it's even more important to me when you're not feeling well.  Most times I'd cancel my plans and stay with you, but this time, it's really important that I go out.

Him:  I understand.  I'll miss you though.

Me:  Oh!  I finished Alloy of Law and know you'll love it.  Here let me grab it for you if you want.  I know reading often makes you feel better.  And hey, if you want and will still be up when my plans are done, I'll grab us some ice cream and we can hang out afterward.

Him: I don't want to impose or make you go out of your way.

Me:  I'm your girlfriend, I get to claim first right of imposition and I'm honestly happy to do it. 

Him:  Well then, that sounds nice.  Thank you.  You're the best.

This is pretty much exactly a conversation I've had with him before and I don't see the harm in it at all. It assumes that he's not trying to impose or manipulate.  In fact, he tends to know when he's imposing and mention it.  This isn't the case with all people, as I said above, but just because someone is pushing on your personal boundaries doesn't mean you need to rebuff them.  And I still don't believe that doing something that will make someone you care about (or even just an acquaintance) happy, and won't make you unhappy, is wrong.  

It's all about balancing your boundaries with that sense of self sacrifice.  And I struggle with people who have a low sense of self sacrifice, because I tend to have a high sense of it.  I feel like this is bragging or boasting, but I also think it is something that is intrinsically characteristic of me and not something I would care to try to change.  People have a lower sense of self sacrifice which means they're going to watch out for themselves more because it's the only way they can stay happy, and that's okay too.  I just struggle with accepting that.

The problem that I have with so much self-help literature/blogs/theories/etc is that is written as an absolute.  There's often a lot of: This is the only healthy way to react to something and everything else is wrong.  And I struggle with that perception so much, because I firmly believe that there is always a better way to do something.  A better way to balance caring for yourself and caring for others.  A better way to make yourself happy.  A better way to know when people are trying to take advantage of you and when they're just hurt or upset.  And I am always going to look for that better way.  I do things the way I do now because for this moment, they're what I know as best, but I intend to improve.

My bottom line: I believe setting personal boundaries is extremely important, but sacrificing for other people isn't wrong as long as it doesn't make you unhappy.

Aegism in Volleyball Officiating

I talk about ageism more than many other things.  I think it's mainly because growing up, I wanted nothing more than to be treated like a competent human.  And then suddenly I turned 18 and magically adults finally started treating me like one.

It particularly frustrating at my job right now.  I am in between shows for the theatre (minus a small fundraiser I'm working).  It means that I've actually had a chance to ref volleyball this fall, which I love.  The sport is elegant and I miss it (though not the horrible politics that come with it).  In my refing association, I'm the only one under 30 and the association is probably 15% women.  I'm not a huge fan of either statistic.

It would be easier to overlook it though, if everyone didn't behave so stereotypically.  All the elderly men are patronizing and ready to put a hand on your shoulder and tell you not to worry about things too much, etc, etc.  And whatever, it's horrible sexism that I don't put up with when they do it to me, but what's more frustrating is their patronization of the athletes we work with.

In volleyball there is a head ref (generally called the R1 or up ref since they're up on the ref stand) and a secondary ref (generally called an R2 or down ref since they're on the ground).  There are line judges for two corners of the court who each have two lines of the court to keep track of.  There's a scorekeeper who keeps track of that complicated piece of paperwork.  There's a libero track who only tracks the libero (a defensive only player).  And finally, there's the person who runs the scoreboard and clock.  At each match, the home team provides a score keeper, scoreboard person, libero tracker, and two line judges (if they didn't pay for officials to do lines for them instead).

Frequently, girls from the JV and C teams ref the Varsity (Varsity girls ref the other two teams, etc).  And there is no end to the condescension almost every ref treats those girls with.  They say things like: "Well they're not really paying attention anyways" or "They're only kids" or "They're not real refs."

Now, here's the thing most of our referees never played volleyball.  Most are basketball or football or softball refs who wanted more work and said: volleyball, that's easy and doesn't require running.  Well volleyball has an extremely complex set of rules and watching new refs work in invariably painful for at least their first year.  In contrast many (probably 50%+) of the girls who are working matches have been playing since they 11 or 12 and so frequently will have quite a few years of experience with the game in comparison to new refs.

There are some leagues that require schools to provide adult support officials (score keepers, line judges, etc).  This is even worse than new officials.  At least the new officials have a couple weeks of training before they start refing.  I would say about half the parents have at least watched their daughters play for a few years, but the other half of the parents generally haven't seen more than a match or two in their life.

Now tell me, who do you want as an official?  A girl who knows the game or a adult who doesn't?  I would pick the girl every single time.  In fact, I will almost always pick the girl who's only played on C team, because even if she doesn't know the game that well, at least she's playing it 5+ days a week for two months.

Most of the refs, including ones who have been working for years, can't scorekeep properly.  The score sheet is (probably overly) complex and it's important to get right.  Once again, I would prefer a girl who's been scorekeeping for years to an untrained parent or even official.

I don't understand why these girls aren't treated competently!  I'm no more competent at score keeping or line judging than I was ten years ago.  There was nothing more frustrating than being treated poorly when I was scorekeeping or line judging in high school.  By my senior year, I'd played for eight years.  I started R2ing club matches (every team is expected to pitch in and help ref on the rounds they aren't playing) when I was 11.  I started R1ing when I was 15.  By my senior year, I had as much experience as probably at least half the officials and I was unusual but not a complete anomaly.  In this case, age simply doesn't matter.  Knowledge of the game and skill level, however, do!

The other day I was working a junior high match so the oldest girls were no older than 13.  I was given two line judges who'd done lines once before and so were nervous.  I walked them through my expectations and the rules, as I do with all line judges, and then we started the match.  At first they were hesitant, but after they'd made a few calls and I'd nodded at them encouragingly, they got into it.  They actually even understood some of the technicalities some officials don't understand.  They would come up to me at time outs and apologize for missing some technicality and I'd explain what it was.  Both girls even caught foot faults (where the server steps on the back line before contacting the ball).  My R2 was surprised that they'd caught them, but I wasn't.

If you expect people to be competent, if they actually possess the pertinent skills, they will meet your expectations because they don't want to let you down.  This isn't necessarily always true, but I've found it works with most everyone: dogs, kids, actors, coworkers.  The fact that someone is younger doesn't mean they're stupid or even less competent.  It does generally mean they have less experience and practice, but even that's not always true.  I just wish we could treat everyone like capable human-beings until proven otherwise.

The Hufflepuff Bias

Well, I have more time than I realized, so I'm going to see if I can fit in another post in the time before I need to go.

When Pottermore first existed, I created an account  and got sorted into Gryffindor.    Recently, I was curious if I took the Sorting test again what the results would be.  I was given a set of almost completely different questions.  I'm fairly certain the two repeat questions I had, I gave the same answer as previously.  This time I was sorted (caps? no caps?) into Hufflepuff (which my spell check would like to correct to kerfuffle).

Why am I sharing this information?  It's seemingly random, very nerdy, and mostly off topic.  The reason I'm sharing this information is because I actually do feel like Hufflepuff fits me quite well.  When I was younger I liked Gryffindor and identifed strongly with the characters there, but I think I slowly realized Hufflepuff isn't an awful House, unlike many people would have you believe.

It's interesting to me that the other three Houses in Harry Potter are so popular.  Ravenclaw is for the smart kids, Gryffindor is for the brave kids (the jocks and athletes in many people's opinions), Slytherin is for the ambitious kids.  But then what is Hufflepuff for?

Well, I looked up the adjectives the Sorting Hat uses for your viewing pleasure (this site was a wonderful asset considering my actual copies of Harry Potter are all packed.  If you want to read the full Sorting Hat speeches, it has them there).h

House	Philosopher’s Stone	Goblet of Fire	Order of the Phoenix
Gryffindor	Brave at heart, daring, nerve, chivalry	Bravest	Brave deeds, bravest, boldest, daring
Slytherin	Real friends, cunning, any means to achieve their ends	Power-hungry, great ambition	Ancestry is purest, pure-blood, cunning
Ravenclaw	wise, old, ready mind, wit	Cleverest	Intelligence, sharpest mind
Hufflepuff	just, loyal, patient, true, unafraid of toil	Hard workers	"Teach the lot", "The rest"

As I said earlier, the three most popular Houses are Gryffindor, Slytherin, Ravenclaw.  I want to briefly look at the connotations that their descriptors give.

Gryffindor:

• Brave- No bad prevalent connotations
• Daring- Usually described as a desirable trait
• Chivalry- Association with code of honor, and knights, very strong good connotations
• Boldest- Generally good connotation, but there is such a thing as being overly bold
• Brave Deeds- In the context of the song ("We'll teach all those/with brave deeds to their name") this means fame and fame can have a good connotation, but it can imply selfishness and shallowness

Slytherin:

• Real friends- good connotation, implies loyalty/depth of character
• Cunning- Though it can be used as a good trait, this is often used to imply that someone is misleading or out for their own gain
• Any means to achieve their ends- Really, this is just not good.
• Power hungry- Again, not a good thing really at all
• Great ambition- This can be a useful thing (I'm not overly fond of ambitious people but it can be good in many situations)
• Ancestry is the purest/pure blood- Not a good thing. Within in the story a very bad thing in fact.

Ravenclaw:

• Wise (going to include old with this)- This is something that people want, it generally comes with age and so children of 11 would be particularly impressive to be considered wise, even if they were not wise yet but just had the potential to become wise.
• Ready mind- Teachable, when I'm teaching someone this is a very useful trait
• Wit- This can be good because it implies cleverness and intelligence.   I would also say that this can fall under the same category as cunning occasionally.
• Cleverness- This is generally a very good descriptor for intelligence
• Intelligence- Intelligence is has good connotations.  But I would like to note that, at least within American culture, there exists a certain bias against intelligent people.
• Sharp mind- Okay, basically the same as all the rest, we get it, Ravenclaws are smart.

What's my point?  When I look over these they read as one dimensional to me.  Gryffindor people are brave, but what else?  Slytherin's use their guile to reap reward (oh, also they make good, true friends?).  Ravenclaw students are smart, which is repeated ad nauseam.  Now let's look at Hufflepuff's traits.

Hufflepuff:

• Just- Offhand, there aren't any bad connotations with come with this word.
• Loyal- This is a trait I prize above most, which means I'm biased, but this is important to relationships
• Patient- "Patience wins the day", "Patience is a virtue", shall I continue?
• True- It's interesting, this isn't a word that's used to describe people very often, but if I was described that way I think it would be some of the highest praise I could receive
• Unafraid of toil/Hard workers- Means they aren't afraid to get their hands dirty, they aren't given things, they work for them.  Some could say that it implies they are lower class, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
• "Teach the lot"/"The rest"- Again, this is an interesting statement.  I think this particular descriptor didn't do a lot for Hufflepuff.  It implies that there was nothing special about those people.  They're all thrown into a group because they don't have one particular trait that makes them unique.

So Hufflepuff descriptors are interesting to me.  It they are fair and just, they are devoted to other people, they are willing to wait and not push the issue, and they are willing to work hard.  I feel like J.K. Rowling used "teach the lot" and "take the rest" to describe Hufflepuff because she didn't have one catchall word that she could use.

It's interesting (and possibly telling) to me that it's the least popular House.  They're good people who like other people and are willing to work hard.  There's no conniving, there's no pride, there's no showing off.  It's frustrating to me that our culture (and many cultures similar to the US) prefers blinding ambition to a good, but perhaps average person.  You don't need something that makes you "special and unique" to make you a worthwhile person.  Just do your best and work hard and be a good person.

I guess this post just shows why I tested as Hufflepuff this time around?

Note:  While there are some connotations that are fairly universal, talking with Jay has reminded me that many connotations are intensely personal, and so these connotations are my personal opinions.  Also, I am biased in general because I'm not a huge fan of how the Houses are structured in general.

Broken Trust

Today was a very inauspicious first day of tech.  We got about as far as I expected us to, that wasn't the problem.


When we first showed up today the production manager came up to me and was like: "Kaylee, I have some bad news."  So of course it couldn't be good.  As it turned out, one of our crew members had dropped that morning before tech and we didn't have a replacement for her.


I spent much of my first hour in the theatre trying to find a replacement.  I called in one of my asms from a previous show and she filled in until she unexpectedly had to leave after dinner.  Then we just did the show (frustratingly because we don't have extra people) without that last person.


Luckily, we did find someone who was able to fill in every other day of tech and the run.  Unfortunately, it's an actor/director with power issues and an attitude problem.  I am so looking forward to having them backstage.


Then came the part of the day that just makes me incredibly mad.  When it got to be dinner break three of our actors came out on the stage and announced that their wallets had been stolen from their zipped bags in the dressing rooms.  And unfortunately two of these actors were seniors who had just received their graduation money and thus had a fair deal of cash in their wallets.


The three actors were just devastated.  I spent the first twenty minutes of my dinner break consoling them and helping them look.  Then I went and bought the two who had no other money dinner and came back and talked with them some more.  I ended up sending on of the actors, one of the most responsible and sweetest actors up to the balcony, because he was looking like he wanted to throw something.  I know that feeling and he needed to be alone.


Ten minutes later I went up and talked to him and I have never quite heard someone sound that broken.  He was beyond tears and he admitted several times that the hardest part for him was not that his wallet had been taken.  The hardest part was that if most likely had been taken by someone in the cast, someone who he had trusted completely before this.


It's not well known outside of theatre, but there is a great deal of trust between the actors, crew, etc.  Tablets, computers, wallets, even money frequently gets left out in dressing rooms because no outside intruders can get in and just no one would ever steal it.  I've never heard of theft in a theatre before. Ever.  And the fact that someone would break that trust, that complete and utter trust and that comes with people working on a show together, that is just devastating.


Once everyone was back from dinner the production manager made an incredibly somber announcement, urging whoever had taken the wallets to return them, no questions asked.  We then did a sweep of the dressing rooms with each actor looking through their own bag, unfortunately nothing turned out.  We would have called the police at that point, but the production manager and program director did one more sweep of the bags and found that the wallets had been returned to the original bags at some point after everyone made the sweep.


I'm very glad that everything was returned, but I'm also sadden that someone in my cast (or crew) would do that to their fellow actors.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

As a result of those thefts, we also offered to lock everyone's valuables up in the safe backstage.  Most actors took me up on that offer and I was handed twenty+ wallets, purses, keys, cell phones.  It was almost awe inspiring, the trust those actors had in me.  I don't particularly like power and this was even more dangerous than most.  The fact that so many actors and children trusted me so completely is...heady, but not in a particularly good way.

Valentine's Day- Unpopular Opinion

This isn't twitter, but I tagged my post with #unpopularopinion (via the title) anyway.  It seems to be trendy to hate on Valentines Day.  It's too commercialized, too heteronormative, it's too couple-centrist, we should be celebrating love every day, etc, etc, etc.

And my question is: What is wrong with taking one day to remind us of our love for other people?  Not just our significant other(s) but everyone.  You know back in elementary school where you were required to give a valentine to everyone?  What is wrong with taking one day to be reminded the cherish the people you love?  Yes, Valentines day is too commercial and what the media has made it into is kinda disgusting.  But you have the choice not to buy into all the media crap and just celebrate with your friends, family, and lovers.

Every holiday is just a reminder.  Christmas reminds us of giving and genorosity (and if you're Christian, of Jesus' birth).  Halloween is a reminder of the old tradition of All Hallows Eve and also of childhood (both the past childhood of adults and the present childhood of children).  Earth Day-reminder of global warming and preservation; Memorial Day, Veterans Day- Reminders of those who have fought and died or survived in wars.  I have heard about so many of these holidays: "Earth/Veterans/Generosity/etc only gets 1 day?!  What about the other 364 days of the year?"  But no. No no no no no.  That is so not the point.  What is the point?  The point is to remind the world about these important causes so that they will remember the other 364 days.

So what is wrong with celebrating the love in your life and having one day a year to help remind you?  Nothing.

Reply All

Another rant (partially because I am so sick of people's lack of tact).

Reply all is a wonderful thing.  You can press one button without retyping all the email addresses.  However, it really really should not be your default in theatre.

If you're having a scheduling chain of emails between all of your directors you should be using reply all.  Why?  Because everyone involved needs to know when you're busy, when you're not.  Your music director needs to know when to teach a particular song if you want to teach a particular dance soon, etc, etc.

If you are sent a rehearsal report and it says:  "What size camera are we using'?  And the props designer gets back to you with the size but also is wondering: "Are we using a flash with this same camera?"  In that case, using reply all is a fairly good idea.  The director(s) is/are probably going to have thoughts about that, the lighting designer might have thoughts.  The sound designer might wonder: "Is the flash going to be making a noise?  Will the camera be providing this noise?"  Hence a situation where it helps everyone to know about your response.

When shouldn't reply all be used?  When you are replying in a fashion that has the potential to embarrass the person you're replying to if the entire production team,etc reads the reply.  That happened the other day, where our set designer was talking about the backdrop and our lighting designer had misunderstood her several times about what type of material the drop would be.  The set designer tactlessly replied to the entire team saying: "Oh! You didn't understand?  I've been perfectly clear."  And there was just no reason for that to be sent to the entire production team and if our set designer had used a tiny iota of sense, they would have realized that embarrassing another designer is not a way to make friends.

So what if you need to reply to five out of twenty people?  A) Press reply and add the rest of the names you need.  B) Press reply all and delete the rest of the names you don't need.  Or C) Send a separate email to the people you specifically need to talk to.   It's not that hard.  I just don't understand.  Yes, the stage manager and director(s) should be included in a lot of replies, but reply all is frequently not the best way to include them.  Sigh.

Freshman and Sophomore Years of High School

What a descriptive (and very thoroughly not catchy) title I gave this post.  I couldn't decide on anything else.

I really should be blogging more frequently, especially since I have posts fucking written out that just need to be typed up.  I should also give you posts with more substance but as I seem to do when everyone goes to their respective corners of the country, I'm thinking through some personal stuff currently.  I should also also go to bed instead of writing since I'm going to breakfast with Lana tomorrow morning since she's in town for an interview.

As far as posts go this is going to be more of a story telling one.  I realized when talking to Lana how little I talk about my first two years of high school.  I'm not sure if they're really upsetting or traumatizing anymore, but for a long while, those years were just a time span I didn't like to think about...at all.  My freshman and sophomore year I went to a prestigious Catholic school.  I ended up transferring after my sophomore year, not because the school work was too hard (I came out of the school with a 4.0), but because the administration was absolutely ruining the school (this has since stopped I believe).

The school my freshman year wasn't actually completely horrible in regards to administration, but what they were teaching me shook me to the core.  The math, the science (although freshman year science was taught by a priest which kinda.......sucked), the languages, they were all easy.  And by that, I mean the material was quite challenging, but ultimately it was taught in a format that I knew and was comfortable with.

It was history and English and religion with which I had problems.  This was always sorta strange to me because in junior high (and 11th and 12th grades minus religion) those were always my favorite classes.  But they were taught in a large group setting of around 50 kids and co-taught by two teachers.  We switched somewhat fluidly between subjects and we had this class about twice as often as every other class.  In the class they talked about not taking religion literally.  And it will probably sound really funny to some people, but this was a hard concept for me freshman year.  I had been taught that every story in the Bible literally happened, exactly as was stated in the Bible.  But in that class we talked about symbolism (enough that it my brain want to explode).  We talked about questioning every single possible assumption.  We talked about thinking critically and ways to do so.  And thinking back, this was crucial for me to learn but it was an incredibly painful and frustrating process for me.  It was bad enough that my frustration with the teaching as well as the fact that I had few to no friends almost drove me to transfer after freshman year.

Sophomore year I made friends, which was a relief.  I didn't hang out with them much outside of school until the end of the year, but at least I had people to eat with at lunch.  Let me tell you, eating alone or next to a group of people fucking sucks.  But beyond that, my sophomore year the school had almost entirely new administration.  Some people had retired, others had been fired.  I'm not entirely clear on the details, partially because I wasn't privy to all of them.  In short my sophomore year was a disaster.  We lost 75% of our senior class the summer before that year (we had a graduate early program than most of them did, the rest transferred) because things were projected to be bad..  We realized we had illegal aliens attending an important private school (I'm still not sure how that happened), we had a horrible horrible sexual harassment scandal within the ASB, we had a sexual abuse case between a teacher and student, we had a lockdown because there were threats from people with guns, and we had a sit-in and a walk-out protesting all the terrible things that were happening that year.

(I think I will maybe tell some of these stories more fully later because a lot of them are fairly interesting.  I also have an abuse story about the people on my volleyball team that wasn't included in my above list.  Also, while I'm thinking about it, I can tell some interesting stories about my travels for volleyball too.  A lot of these are good stories which I've just never thought to tell my friends.)

The story I do want to tell in detail (mainly because it's short) regards dress code.  Now, my school had a typical: all shoulder straps must be three fingers wide, all skirts must be down to your knees, etc policy my freshman year.  But, my sophomore year we got a new assistant principal and she was all about "appropriate dress" and "family values" (put in quotes because they're buzz words, not because the concepts themselves are completely invalid).  The first new piece of the dress code she added was: no flip flops.  Flips flops after all are "shower shoes" and are "dangerous, tripping hazards" and are not "appropriate attire for school".  People pretty much ignored this rule until a bunch of people ended up in detention (yes, my school actually had detention, it's the only one I've heard of in these days that did).  Even some girls on the soccer team who were wearing flip flops after changing out of their cleats got put in detention.  It was ultimately really ridiculous.

Eventually matters got so ridiculous with the dress code that students began requesting uniforms.  So much of our dress freedom had been taken away from us, a uniform would have been a relief rather than trying to find clothes that worked with the new dress code.  You see, for one final example, the next thing to change after no flip flops was shirt necklines.  And the rule was not anything semi, quasi reasonable like: you cannot show even part of your cleavage or anything of the sort.  Instead the rule was: You cannot wear shirts that expose your clavicle.  Your clavicle! Where your neck connects to your torso.  Yeah.  That's completely inappropriate.

Please take a look at the shirt your wearing.  Odds are very very high that your clavicle is exposed.  Most of my t shirts expose my clavicle (though to be fair part of that has to do with how my breast fit in shirts (hint: they don't)).  When that announcement was made, guys were looking down at their shirts and realizing their shirts didn't conform to dress code.  At least the dress code was enforced equally.  Guys and girls got detention for breaking the clavicle rule.  And the thing is, the dress code just kept getting more strict after this incident.

It was fairly intense but also something we secretly laughed about because: OH NO! Clavicles are just too damn sexy and corrupting.

Friends are the Family you Choose

I admit, the title is cliched and overused, but that really doesn't mean it's not true.

Happy (belated) Thanksgiving to those Americans out there.  Like almost everyone else I know, I spent the entire day yesterday with my family, an occurrence that very rarely occurs anymore. And what I was struck most by was how horribly sexist, racist, and intolerant my family is.  I heard some absolutely awful things said about gay people and fat people and women and non-white people.  I should have expected it, and to some extent I did, but the amount of crap my uncles (in particular, though they were not the only ones) heaped on people that were different than them.

With my immediate family (my sisters and parents) I would speak up and say: You realize that's racist? or Your realize that's sexist/judgmental/intolerant? And I will give them credit, throughout the day, they did start getting better (whenever they're around my uncles, they slide down into intolerance pretty quickly).  But my uncles don't respect me, I'm still a kid in their eyes, and if I had said anything, they just would have a) ignored me or b) ridiculed me and called me over-sensitive.

It was just such a rude awakening.  I spend my time at my job where people who are different are excepted without question.  And lately, several of my closest friends (including Boyfriend) have been home and I've been hanging out with them, and when I'm with them not only is everyone accepted, we even talk about intolerance.  In these circumstances, it's easy to forget that the entire world isn't like the people I interact with on a regular basis.  Thus interacting with the "real world" is frequently a rude awakening.  But, it's such an important awakening for me, because it does reaffirm that there are important rights to still be fighting for.  Things are better than they used to be for a lot of groups, but they still are not nearly equal.  I'm not sure I would necessarily classify myself as an activist, but it's times like these that make me want to be more of an activist.

Again, it's cliched, but I am grateful for a fairly large group of people who are accepting and allow me to be myself, and I wish everyone who feels that they're different from mainstream culture had similar support in their life.

Flirting

Flirting has never been something I'm good at, so, out of curiosity, I looked up the dictionary definition.

Flirt:
verb (used without object)
1. To court triflingly or act amorously without seriousintentions; play at love; coquet.
2. To trifle or toy, as with an idea: She flirted with the notion ofbuying a sports car.
3. To move with a jerk or jerks; dart about.

I found that distinctly unhelpful, so I moved on to my trusty friend, Wikipedia.  

Flirting (or coquetry) is a playful, romantic or sexual overture by one person to another subtly indicating an interest in a deeper relationship with the other person, and can involve verbal communication as well as body language.

Okay, this matches more with what my idea of flirting is, but it got me even more curious so I decided to do a quick google search: How to flirt.

The variety of answers I got was fairly impressive, but my the first result was some typical pick up artist bullshit.  It suggests that instead of compliments, that you should tease girls (this article is strictly directed at men looking to pick up women).  It suggests the following as some tried and true teasing pick up lines.

• If a girl says something nerdy I will say “You usually hang out at the library don’t you?”
• If a girl spills her drink I will say “Bartender, I think you need to cut her off”
• If a girl is acting a little spoiled say “Looks like someone put their cranky pants on this morning

Is there a single one of those lines that isn't offensive? Are there women who actually like some creep insulting her? This seems like a beyond foreign concept to me. Whatever happened to a friendly, "Hello, my name is..."?

It also suggests that you can tease a girl when she gets up to go to the bathroom by blocking her path a couple times. And, no, just no. Maybe the bathroom is her escape from you, or maybe she just needs the bathroom. But that is creepy and overly possessive of a person you don't even know. It also gives off vibes of stalker and aggression.

This tip was unique to the first several top results of my google search. However, many of the sites did have advice like: "Break the touch barrier by touching her arm" or "Maintain eye contact at all times, it projects confidence." And I would just like to say that if were aren't friends, or at the very least, acquaintances, you damn well better not be touching me. That very well could be considered assault, if you decide to take a picky definition of the word. Also, I really don't want to be stared at all evening, at all. Eye contact is good, staring is just creepy.

There were some sites that had a lot of things I agreed with. Be friendly, be confident enough to at least introduce yourself, and most importantly, listen to the other person. But two things I did notice both about the bad and the good advice:

1. The advice was strictly aimed at men looking up to pick up women.
2. The advice was strictly aimed at men picking up women in a bar setting.

Can't people who are already friends flirt? Can't women flirt with men? Or women flirt with women? Or men flirt with me? I'm not horribly surprised by these two things, but I am disappointed.

Open

I'm not sure I want to be blogging about this subject.  I have permission from Boyfriend, who is involved with what I want to discuss, but I don't want to get judged.  I've never been afraid of being judged, not even when I was a little kid, so this is very strange for me.  The hardest thing for me?  Not telling the entire internet, but telling the people I know in person who I know read my blog.

So now that I've built it up to be this huge deal, I suppose I should actually talk about what I'm thinking about.  Boyfriend and I are currently living in different cities (far enough away that it's not easy to visit him necessarily). And I've had a couple people tell me it would be good for our relationship, which I only sort of agree with.  But one thing living away from him has done is give me more free time.

I read a lot more blogs on feminism, gender, sexuality, and political issues in general now.  I've learned more that I could possibly quantify over the past few months and what I've learned has changed my world view quite a lot.  Couple that with the fact that I'm dealing with my anger management issues now and I feel like a fairly different person.  One who is distinctly me in many ways, but one whose view of the world is profoundly different.

Senior year of high school (which is when I consider my life really starting to change) I believe that monogamous relationships are the only valid ones.  And that for me, the only relationship I wanted was a heterosexual one.  And even now, I will still admit that primarily am attracted to men.  I will give this to my past self, I didn't say: "I'm not attracted to women", but I did say: "I haven't been attracted to a women in my experience."  Years later, I have been attracted to women, so that's one part of the equation that's changed.

So, if one part of my romance equation wasn't true, it probably stands to reason the other wasn't.  Even a few months ago, I talk about how polyamory wasn't for me.  And the more time that has passed, the more I realized I hadn't really ever legitimately considered the option.  For quite awhile, I was hesitant to even talk to Boyfriend about what I was thinking about.  I finally got to mentioning it occasionally and we had a few brief chats.

A few days ago I finally talked with Boyfriend about the possibility of pursuing an open relationship.  I felt so much dread I was shaking and there was just no reason because he agreed that it was something that he would like to try.  The thing is, I don't want to go out an have casual sex with strangers. That really wasn't the point.  But a friends with benefits situation or even another relationship with another person interests me and is something that I would like to have as an option.

I haven't told very many people about this but I've already been forced to justify myself.  Yes I love Boyfriend.  Yes, our relationship is actually wonderful right now.  No, the reason isn't: "He's not enough for me."  What brought this on?  The belief that I honestly am not convinced that people are designed to be monogamous.  Do Boyfriend and I have limits/boundaries/ground rules about it? Yes, we've agreed to talk to each other about any relationship we may or may not start. (Note: Some of these were totally legitimate questions asked out of curiosity and not out of judgement.  But I find myself being very defensive, overly defensive even).

I don't like be judged.  I really don't.  But this is something that I would like to explore.

Ramble

This is my third post within twenty-four hours, but I have been having the worst time sleeping lately and sometimes clearing my mind helps. This might not turn into a very coherent post but I'm going to give it a shot.

~*~*~*~

I honestly think that people get in their own way sometimes. I was talking with my director and a couple of one of the actresses' friends the other day. The friends were a gay couple from Las Vegas who had been in their relationship for more than ten years. And my director, who was also gay but was significantly older than the gay couple, absolutely mortified them. He was talking about "fags" and about how gay people had no morals and it was so hard to tell whether he was even being sarcastic. The two men from Vegas just stood their, eyes wide open, shocked and completely offended. The worst part was my director didn't even realize it.

~*~*~*~

I met a woman the other day who impressed me just by the way she dressed. It was with such style and a style that was so uniquely her own. She was a woman, probably in her fifties, who said that she had made the discovery twenty odd years ago about what clothes she looked good in and damn if she didn't look good. She wore a pearl necklace, pearl earrings, black pumps, men's-style pinstriped slacks, a men's-style blazer and dress shirt, and a fedora. And damn it was an evocative picture. She probably would have gotten some weird looks walking down the street (in any town but this one anyway) but she knew what she liked and was clearly happier for it.

~*~*~*~

I'm not sure I ever want to make the statement that my viewpoint/world view/whatever is correct. I'm not sure if I honestly ever believe that my paradigm is correct. Yes, gay people should be allowed to get married. That is true and that fact is correct. I acknowledge that, but just stopping there isn't really correct either because polygamous people should be allowed to get married, to as many people as they choose.
People should be allowed to have kids or not have kids. People should be allowed to get married or not get married; do drugs or not do drugs.  It's their own damn lives, stop interfering.

 But I guess ultimately what I'm getting at is that I feel like saying: I have the correct world view, I don't need to listen to other people is just harmful.  As a kid I believed that monogamous, heterosexual relationships were right, only because that's all I had ever experienced.  Once I discovered that my babysitter was gay and in a serious relationship and that two of my mom's friends were gay and had been together nearly twenty years, I realized that heterosexuality wasn't the only option.  Similarly, once I learned the polygamy wasn't something that only occurred in fundamentalist Mormon relationships, I realized there was nothing wrong with it at all.

I guess what I'm saying is that I'm still learning.  I'm always going to be "still learning".  There is always going to be a more enlightened, more equality centered belief system out there, so I want to keep hearing other people's opinions.  I want to know if I've offended someone, so I don't offend people in the future.

I suppose that some of my beliefs are probably "correct", but I'm just not comfortable saying that.  That's probably a bad thing, maybe I'm just silly.  But I think saying: "People deserve to be treated equally" is more important than saying: "I'm correct"

On a somewhat related note: I will however, always respond better if you say: "Here's what I took offense to and how you could say it better", rather than saying: "You're wrong, I'm right.  Now listen to me."

My thoughts on this subject rather strongly rather remind me of this SMBC comic: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1726#comic (and yes I've linked to SMBC twice in one day, Zach Weiner can thank me for the potential six extra hits I'm giving him).  Sorry for not embedding it, but this post is already long enough.

~*~*~*~

I think that was mostly coherent.  It was certainly scattered, but I do think I got my point across.

Because

The word "because" is not an explanation.  By definition it is a preposition that indicates causation.  It in and of itself is not a cause.

The "explanation" parents use so often: "Because I said so" is not an explanation.  By definition, an explanation details the reasoning behind a decision[1].

The words: "Because I said so and I'm your parent" at least imply the reason that parents are refusing to elaborate is because the parents are in the position of power and don't believe their child/children need to know the reasoning behind a decision.  The ability of parents to believe that their children wouldn't understand or don't need to know astounds me.  The ability of children to ask pointed questions and to comprehend complex ideas astounds me.

The phrase "Trust me" doesn't bother me nearly as much because a) it makes the assumption that the people conversing are equal and b) the phrase implies "If you trust me then you will eventually get to know my reasoning, I just can't tell you right now."

What am I getting with all this rhetoric?  Children deserve explanations.  Real ones.  Not made up reasons because the adult/parent can't be bothered to explain.  I firmly believe that if a child has a firm enough grasp of the issue to be asking questions then they have a firm enough grasp of the issue to deserve an explanation, however rudimentary.

As I child I rarely was told: "Because I say so" mainly because my parents knew I would never accept it as an answer.

Loving your Job

This relates to something I said in my last post and that is: I honestly believe you should (at least) like your job.  I love my job and really can't think of anything else I would rather be doing (though I am going to try to pick up a second job because I'm broke).  I know this isn't how it is for most or even many people, but if your job is making you miserable and you dread going, maybe look into another career.

Okay, now I just sound naive and like I live in this utopian fantasy.  "There's a depression/recession in progress," you say,  "Changing careers isn't that easy and besides at least this job gives me stability!"  And the thing is, all of those are valid reasons to keep a job you hate, reasons I can't really argue against.  I just think it's stupid to raise your children believing that they can be whatever they want to be if many of them just settle for whatever job they can get.

My views on this are confused and biased so I'm not sure what else I can say.  All I know is that I'm extremely lucky.

Morning Culture

As a night owl, I wanted to talk about how much of the world revolves around the small percentage of people who are morning people.  In the past it made complete sense, America (and much of the rest of the world) was a vastly agrarian society.  Farmers need to get up with the sun in order to get all their work done while there was still daylight.  It all makes sense.

But now the majority of jobs/education.etc take place inside where there exists a magical invention called a light bulb.  I don't function well in the morning.  I make more errors, I don't make decisions rationally, I am more inclined to snap at people.  I realize this is a personal thing but I know so many people who don't function well in the morning.  There have been studies that show teenagers need more sleep than adults and don't function well in at 7:30 in the morning.  I fwe want our future workforce to be their best, why not start at 9:00 instead?  Most colleges don't offer classes that start before 8:00 and almost every college student I've talked to greatly appreciates it.

I'm not suggesting shifting work and school to start at noon (though that's when I would personally be at my best) but what about those people who are neither early birds or night owls?  What about starting the work/school day at 10a?

I have a friend who insists that the only job worth having is one where you need to wake up at 5a.  And I'm sorry, but I'd be miserable having to wake up at 5a and I don't want to pursue a job that made me miserable (I think everyone should pursue a job that doesn't make them miserable to the best of their ability).

I'm lucky, generally the earliest I have to wake up for most theatre jobs is at 10a and most theatre people I know are also night owls.  I love my job and I love the hours I get to keep.  So why am I complaining? A) I honestly believe that people would be happier getting up even a few hours later (I know I am) and B) I wish people could accept that just because some people don't function well/at all till later in the day does not make them lazy (necessarily), it makes them different.

Health and Fitness

So I really like Jessie, I honestly do (I've never liked someone this much whose paradigm differs so wildly from my own), but sometimes people with her views about health and fitness drive me crazy.

I am overweight (I've never been comfortable with calling myself fat, but yes, I am fat).  With my genes, I'm honestly not that surprised.  I played national caliber volleyball and select soccer through high school, which helped a ton, but as soon as I stopped playing I gained a lot of weight.  I've never been particularly comfortable with it, but throughout college I was so busy with classes and productions and work that I rarely had even fifteen minutes to spare, let alone enough time to actually go to the gym and work out (you can scoff, but honestly with being in the theatre five hours a day, in classes an average of five hours a day, and holding two jobs I honestly didn't have time).

Now that I'm out of college and only working a job at night I have a lot more time on my hands, so I've taken to going out and running.  It feels good, but damn I'm sore afterward.

Anyway, I digress, what bothers me about Jess and many other people I know (particularly my boyfriend's dad and his dad's girlfriend in particular) is that people who are in shape and as thin as a rail is how superior they are about it.  They probably don't realize but they so often talk about working out is the only worthwhile thing in the entire wold.  I hate conversations that go like this"

Health Enthusiast: "Man, I just climbed a mountain and I feel great."
Me: "That's really cool.  Good for you."
Health Enthusiast: "How was sitting on the couch all day? Did you actually get anything done?"

The derision in their voice is just so frustrating!  (I desperately wish that conversation was hyperbole and not an actual conversation I've had).  Yes, I did sit on the couch all day, but in that time I've made twenty props, done two hours of paperwork, and written a chapter of my story.  Is not all of what I did worthwhile?  And, if I had sat on the couch watching movies the entire day, why is that any less valid?  It's not like all I do is sit on the couch and watch movies every day.

I want to lose weight.  I want to feel better about my self image (stupid media).  I do not need other people's condescension.  If you want to help me get and shape, then come running with more and don't laugh when I can't go as far or as fast as you.  Your lifestyle is perfectly valid, but so is mine.

Consent

While I had awful insomnia last night, I sat down and had and  was reading one of The Pervocracy's old posts ("Ooh Baby") which brought to mind my views on the issue of consent in children.

In the post linked to above, Holly talks about a baby that she saw in the grocery store and her mother had put makeup on her and pierced her ears.  Holly was fairly taken aback and quite frankly it's just something I have never and (most likely) will never understand.

Not only is this mother sexualizing her less-than-a-year-old child (which is bad enough on it's own), but the parent is making an assumption about their child and placing assumptions about who that child should be, long before that child starts to think about who they are.  Maybe it's just a touchy subject for me, I didn't pierce my ears till a month ago (after much deliberation), but maybe that child will grow up and wish their ears hadn't been pierced.  Maybe that child will grow up and wish that they had be the one to decide they wanted their ears pierced.

Yes, getting your ears pierced is a fairly minor thing, but it is being done to your body, not someone else's and, ultimately I think it is you (used in a general sense) that should decide whether you want to inflict harm (however minor) on yourself.  I believe that yes, even children should have this right.

And for me, it's about so much more than just mere ear piercing.  People so rarely ask children's thoughts, feelings, or permission for anything.  And in regard to ear piercing, where does making decisions for your children without even talking to them end?

What about intersex infants, those born with "ambiguous genitalia"?  Should the parents make a decision about their child's genitalia at birth, within the first 48 hours of their child's birth, as doctors so often recommend? [1] I will obviously argue against this practice and yet is far more common than many people suspect.  Why not let the child grow up a few years and as they grow explain to them what is different about their body, explain how it is different than "normal".  Then after the parents have done this, explain to them the options and fucking ask their child what they think about their body.

The arguments I have heard against this range from: but they won't grow up normally to (the more rational) but they will be teased.  In the face of the first argument my response is: so what? Normal is overrated and I would much prefer my child to grow up an individual who understands themselves.  To the second argument I would say: if the parents explain to their child that teasing is a possibility and explain why other people might laugh and mock, but assure their child that they should be free to be themselves, then teasing shouldn't be the biggest issue in the world.  People so often underestimate children's understanding of situations and I understand the urge to want to protect them from all teasing but ultimately I think a bit of teasing is worth the heartache/break later in life from potentially assigning a child at birth what the child considers the wrong sex.

I'm sorry for the excessively long post (I am naturally a very verbose person).  This is something I feel passionately about and something that always bothered me growing up.  I just wanted to be asked my opinion, children are people and the ageism built into most cultures is something that bothers me more than most things.

[1] This is an article through the Intersex Society of North America which discusses what intersex is and how it is often handled. Dominant treatment protocals is particularly relevant to what I discuss above.

A Frustrating Conversation

I am currently in an interesting living situation.  I took a job about an hour away from where I live and, not wanting to commute every day, needed to find housing.  I found this nice guy who had an extra room that he wanted to rent out.  I took my boyfriend to meet with him, his girlfriend, and his daughter and to see the room.  I ultimately took the room and am living here throughout the length of the show.

But, while I'm not really at home in this living situation, the people who live here are extremely nice and fascinating to listen to.  My landlord's girlfriend, Jessie, is a beautiful (in the media sense) woman: blonde, skinny, tall, tan, athletic.  And Jessie was talking to my landlord's daughter about teaching her daughter (she's divorced) not to judge other people.  All in all, a really good lesson and one a fifth grader needs more than a lot of other lessons.

However, Jessie's daughter was telling Jessie about a girl at school who looked like a boy and, like a good mom, Jessie told her daughter you can't judge "a book by it's cover" (which is a statement that, in regard to books, is only nominally true).  But, a few days later, Jessie was picking her daughter up from school and saw the girl that her daughter had mentioned and thought to herself "that really does look like a boy."  Not she, not the girl's name (which she knew), Jessie used the word "that".  And it wasn't a one time offense either.  The discussion became: "that really did look like a boy," and "that looked just like Justin Beiber."  Jessie's final remark was: "that girl is going to grow up to be a lesbian".

And...just GAH.  There are so many things wrong with Jessie's thoughts.  So many things wrong.  Firstly, no human being deserves to be referred to as: that.  We have pronouns for a reason (I will get into my thoughts on pronouns some other time) and as far as you know, that little girl just enjoyed dressing like boys but used female pronouns.  So fucking use female pronouns.  Also, maybe that girl is a lesbian or trans or maybe she just enjoys dressing in male clothing.  Who the fuck cares.  The girl is still a person and I have to say an exceedingly brave person for dressing in the way that she wants, even though she has undoubtedly taken crap about it before.  Final assumption that I found offensive.  One does not: "grow up to be a lesbian" necessarily. The girl could already think of herself as a lesbian or maybe she thinks I like girls, but doesn't label herself as a lesbian.  Sexuality and sexual orientation is not this magical thing that suddenly becomes relevant when you're a "grown up".

I should have said something.  I really should have.  I regret not saying anything, but it was for the sake of being able to live here another month in peace.  And at least Jessie did say, "How am I supposed to raise children to not judge people when I judge people all the time.  I guess it's a do as I say and not as I do kinda deal."  I don't know, Jessie is a really nice person who just happens to have some rather unfortunate views about sexuality/sexual orientation (views which I doubt she even realized she was expressing).  And she is right, everyone does judge others, but how she spoke about that little girl just makes me angry.

</rant>