Misunderstood: In Defense of Myself

Every child, every teenager, goes through that: Nobody gets me phase.  Right?  I'm not fond of absolutes, so saying every is a toss-up to me, but I think that in general, that statement is pretty true.  Adults tend to laugh because "they've been there", of course the kid "is being dramatic", and "will be okay".

I've heard all of this so often throughout my life; it's no wonder I believed it.  Growing up, I felt like a stranger to everyone I interacted with.  As a child, I just wanted to be an adult, and wasn't afraid to tell anyone.  I generally didn't relate to other kids around me very well.  Sure, I made friends, but more often than not, I found myself explaining to them my thoughts and feeling; having to justify my view.  No, I'm not mad you went off campus for lunch without me when I had to make-up a test.  But, yes, I am hurt that you didn't tell me that you went, when I would normally have been invited..  The fine line, that fine distinction, I had trouble articulating as a kid/teenager.

Or, I would foul a pass in a volleyball game and the coach would tell me what to do better and I would respond with "I know".  It wasn't the most conducive or coachable response; I understand that now.  However, the coach's response of: "then why didn't you do it in the first place?"  always frustrated me.  I could never explain that I knew the theory of how to do it correctly, but just hadn't been able to get my muscles to do what I wanted.

In college I had this problem with Riley a lot, but rarely with other people.  I missed my high school friends and I hated being misunderstood, so my solution was generally to just avoid befriending people.  It's funny, in high school, I didn't start actually making friends until right before I transferred at the end of my sophomore year, when I know longer had anything left to lose.  Similarly, I didn't make friends until my senior year of college, when it didn't really matter if I was going to be misunderstood so I took more chances.  The pain of people just not getting me has been with me most of my life.

So when I moved in with my high school friends, the only people I feel like ever understood me up to that point in my life, I hoped it would go well.  It ultimately didn't and I feel for very much the same reasons as usual.  I had the opposite schedule of everyone, so I could rarely go to events.  When people would schedule events but not invite me/tell me about them and then I found after the fact, I would get upset.  More than once I came home unexpectedly early for some reason and found an empty apartment, not because they didn't want me at the event but because they knew I was busy.  My frustration stemmed not from the fact that they didn't plan events that I could go to (basically an impossibility) but from the fact that they didn't tell me about events that I couldn't go to.  And it reached the point where they stopped telling me about events entirely because they were afraid I would be mad I wasn't invited (again, not why I was upset in the first place); this logic always seemed circuitous to me.

When we lived in the apartment together, we had a dinner schedule and people signed up to take days.  But, when I was in tech and someone chose not to make dinner that night and I got home expecting dinner, I got angry.  I wasn't angry that there wasn't food.  I wasn't angry because I was hungry.  I was angry that they hadn't texted me and told me there was no dinner.  Not having food at home was a solvable problem, but I hadn't been given the opportunity to solve the problem because of lack of communication.  For me, it's always been those fine distinctions that people just don't seem to get about me.

I am constantly seen as being angry.  When I got left in a subway station in New York alone, when I finally caught up to my friends, I was told that I was having a tantrum and over-reacting.  My fear and hurt and anger at the situation was completely glossed over.  And even if I was over-reacting (which I'm not convinced I was), my emotions were declared invalid.  More often than not, people withheld information from me "because they were scared I'd be angry", which of course only upset me more.  I couldn't convince them that if they'd only given me the information up-front, I wouldn't have been angry at all.  So in that situation with my apartment, like my relationship with my family, I gained a reputation for be angry.  People began to treat me like I was always going to lash out at them and so it became increasingly difficult not to do something.  It's not to say that I don't have a temper.  I undoubtedly do.  I would also say that it is now firmly in hand though.

And my complex and guilt about anger now is almost crippling.  It's new baggage that I'm beginning to work through, with some success, I'd say.  But the first time I got truly angry with Wendell I just hugged myself and sobbed so hard I shook and felt like I would tear myself to pieces, trying to withhold my anger, to feel some other way entirely.  When I could finally speak, I stated my case in clipped tones and I apologized for being angry.  And Wendell complemented me on how well I had expressed myself (once I could speak again).  I was so shocked I stopped crying and couldn't only stare at him.  There has been one or two times where we've gotten angry at each other unjustly, but most of the time, I will explain while I'm mad and generally Wendell will say: you're right.  And I'll apologize for being angry and he'll say something like: no, you get to be angry when I do something that stupid.  I'm still shocked every time it happens.  And even when I am justifiably angry (which apparently is more of the time than I realized (?), I get near crippling anxiety.

The other reputation I seem to constantly get throughout my life is that I'm stubborn.  And like my reputation for being angry, it's not completely unjustified.  I was incredibly stubborn as a child.  If my parents told me to do something, I frequently wouldn't just because they had told me to.  But like with the anger, I've gotten better at choosing my battlefield.  I've frequently taken to saying (these days): "that's not a hill I'm going to die on".  But people still call me stubborn, because when someone does something I truly believe is wrong (morally/procedurally/legally/etc), then I am going to say something.  And if someone presents pressing evidence that I'm wrong, then I am going to concede.  I generally even try to say the words: "I was wrong" because someone, it's frequently just important for people to hear those specific words.

I said them to my mother the other day about something inconsequential and she joked that she need a tape recorder to record them because they shocked her so much.  And I turned to Wendell and told her that I say them all the time when I actually am wrong and he immediately and vehemently backed me up.  There's a fine line between being stubborn for the sake of pride and being stubborn because what's right needs to be stood up for and I'm trying hard to find it.

But that's the problem.  I'm changing constantly.  I've changed hugely and while my stubbornness and temper are things that will always be there, they're things I try to use and not let rule me now.  People aren't seeing the changes in me though.  They think they know me, when they either never did or no longer do.  And it is so frustrating and hurtful to me, because I am striving every day to be a better person.

So having Wendell just get me is the most incredible thing I could ever ask for.  To start explaining my motives and have him say "I know..." and then finish my explanation for me, demonstrating that he does know exactly how I'm feeling; that he exactly understands my motivations.  I don't constantly have to justify myself to him.  He's never assuming the worst of me.  The other night we fought (we do fight, but they've always been minor thus far) because I criticized a fix he'd made a work. While my criticisms were valid, he was hurt.  And his point that he hadn't had time to fine-tune his fix, in my opinion, made my criticisms unnecessarily cruel.  When I tried to apologize, he wasn't ready to hear me yet, and rebuffed me, so we both ended up feeling hurt.  By the end of the show though, we had talked through all of this to the point of understanding each other and ended the fight with thanking each other for being understanding.

That's a new situation for me.  It's an incredible situation for me.  I hate fighting with him and thankfully it's rare.  But I am so happy that thus far we've been able to talk through things not only civilly but to the point where we gain new insight into each other.

Maybe all I've ever needed was a single person to actually get me.  I'm not sure, but I'm more at peace with this than I really ever have been.

Though that statement isn't entirely fair.  Janey gets me and really always have and she's always been a wonderful supportive friend.  She's just in the middle of two groups of people that she understands both of but whom don't understand each other.

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.

I Will Take Care of Myself

***Trigger warnings for rape, sexual assault, etc.  I won't discuss them in depth, but I do certainly mention them in this post

I carry my keys in my hand with getting to my car.  I also carry a knife and a flashlight after dark.  I complained to my landlord when the external lighting fixtures were all burnt out.

But the reason I do all these things?  You could say rape culture and you might be right.  I'm a single woman living in an unsafe world controlled by men, and again that's not a wrong assessment.  But I carry my keys in my hand because I work long hours and just want to get the fuck in the car and go.  I carry my knife and flashlight after dark, but during the day too.  They're tools for my job, which I use daily.  I complained to my landlord, because yes, it was a little eerily dark.  But also, because I walk my dogs after the sun goes down a lot, and, with no lights, I can't see where they poop.

This post isn't designed to disparage the women who do all these things because they feel unsafe.  Those women aren't wrong and I also do the above list, because they are sensible precautions for a young, single woman who lives alone.  But do I live in fear?  I choose not to.

My apartment could be broken into by someone (most relevantly a man), but my dogs aren't going to be thrilled with the intruder.  Someone I'm seeing could ignore me saying "No, stop", but if he does, then he's going to reckon with me. I could be accosted on the way to my car, but I have my knife, flashlight, and I'm generally near enough other people that they'd hear any altercation.  If a man follows me and makes degrading comments, I'm going to tell him off.  I can and will take care of myself.

A friend of mine created a pastel (only a relevant detail because it just makes the message better) banner that says "Fuck the Patriarchy" and I'm with her 100%.  The sexism and bullshit women put up with on a regular basis is unjust, unfair, and it's changing at a glacial rate.  It's not that I don't see the sexism, but I'm not going to live my life looking over my shoulder.

I have the luxury of coming from a place where this is possible for me.  I didn't have a father or uncle who was perversely fond of me as a child.  I didn't have a boyfriend who had one too many beers and didn't listen when I said no.  I never had a professor who poured on the charm and said "if I only did this one little thing" then he'd change my grade.  I didn't have a husband who hated me, who beat me, tied me up, and raped me.  These are all real stories I've heard, not on the internet, but from people I know.  And I have lived the charmed life of never having experienced any of that first hand.

For me, boys and men have always been who I felt safest around.  I'm the girl who was playing sword fighting with my best friend and he told me not to use an old sticker-bush branch and did anyway, just because I knew he'd be impressed.  I'm the only girl who the boys let play soccer with them at recess, because they knew that I could run circles around them.  And when more girls wanted to play too, I told the boys that they were going to let them or I wouldn't play anymore.  I'm the girl who felt intensely uncomfortable at parties with makeovers and girly movies and mean, cattiness.

I just didn't get along with other girls and so boys became my protectors, friends, and confidants.  No one whistled at me or catcalled me.  I was a person to them first and then a girl.  I went through puberty at the age of nine (it's always been early in my family) and not once did a boy make me feel uncomfortable about it (it's a good thing too, because that would have scarred me.  Being the only one going through that change at that age is hard).

And now, I've grown up and 2/3 of the year I work in a physically demanding, male dominated field, where the next closest coworker in age to me is a decade older than me and I have never felt unsafe with a male coworker.  Those men have seen me bring in a 600lb piece of scenery and then stop it on a dime. They've seen me lift scenic pieces that are taller than me.  They know I'm capable; I've been damn well obvious about proving myself.  As a result, those men are my friends and protectors.  I've never had an older brother, but I imagine this is what it'd feel like.

I can cry on their shoulders and they won't judge me or call me weak (they know perfectly well that if I'm crying, it must be something bad).  Hell, they can cry on my shoulder (not that they do often, but it has happened).  If they call me a bitch, it's to my face and because I have well and truly earned that title, in that specific instance.  And, if they're calling me a bitch, I've probably also called them an asshole/hat or douche bag/canoe first.  Being hugged by my coworkers has a feeling of protection to it, not of feeling uncomfortable (with a single notable exception I can think of).  If a guy messes with me in a bar, they will intervene.  But even more importantly (to me at least) they're not going to intervene until after I have had a chance to tell the asshole to fuck off.  I feel safe, protected, around these men and am grateful for their presence in my life.

None of this is to say that there aren't creeps, weirdos, real assholes in theatre, particularly technical theatre.  There are. That's not to say that one of my coworkers has never made me feel awkward and uncomfortable.  They have.  This isn't to say that female actors don't get leered at, hit on, cast for their looks, etc.  They do.  All the time.  But I am saying that these instances are the minority.

Women actors walk around in a bra, underwear, and a fishnet robe and feel safe and comfortable doing so (which is good since that's sometimes all there is to their costume).  I've told several people at work that I'm poly and A) they knew what that meant, B) didn't have to fear repercussions if the higher-ups found out, and C) they didn't call me a slut or shame me for being sexual being.  These are people who I've swapped sex stories with, talked about the practicality of threesomes, and on a good day, made men, decades older than me, blush.

Not all technical theatre is like this.  I prefer running shows, to loading-in and out shows.  Every single strike, it's a battle to convince the men in charge to treat me like I'm competent and have been working professionally in theatre for seven years (which, at my age, is pretty damn impressive).  I'm entering my third season working run crew for this theatre, and only now are the people in charge of strike finally treating me like I'm competent and not being condescending toward me.  I don't take bounce work (load ins, load outs, concerts, random work wherever you can get it through the union) because it's back-breaking, tedious, and because the men tend to be sexist jerks.

Theatre is not always a haven.  I've had plenty of bad experiences, but the bad experiences have been nothing more than unpleasant and I've handled them.  The run crews I work with are, in general, good people.  And I know plenty of theatre's where that's just not the case.  I'm lucky that I work with coworkers who I feel comfortable and safe around.  I'm lucky that I haven't had trauma in my past that makes me seize up at the thought of a confrontation with a man.  I'm lucky that the men I've surrounded myself with know that no means no.  The bottom-line is: I'm lucky.

So why have I written this post?  I don't want to undermine any woman's experience.  Women being stripped of their dignity, sense of well-being, and person-hood in men's eyes is disgustingly common.  But I am going to choose to be myself in spite of it.  I am going to stand my ground and I am not going to be afraid.  I want people to know that.

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.

How do I move on?

I wish I could stop crying.  It's not every day anymore, but that's mainly only because I've learned how to keep myself so busy that I don't have time to think.  Well, I've had time to think today, and as it normally does, that's led to tears and a break down.

I have never felt so trapped in my life.  The advice you always hear is: talk to them.  Well fine, yes, that's all very good, but what about when talking is more destructive than constructive?  What about when you go to someone, put yourself on the line, and say: "I'm hurting", "I'm broken", "I don't know how to function anymore".  And they tell you: "you're overreacting", "you're taking it too hard", "it's not that big of a deal", "just move on", "you shouldn't be feeling x".  Well yes! In an ideal world, I'd accept this all and just walk away!  Don't you think I want to?  If I could move on with my life, I would.  If I knew how, I would.  But I don't know how!  And worse, I don't know how to get to that point.

I don't know what I did.  I genuinely don't.  We used to get along.  And now we don't.  We didn't drift apart.  That I understand.  That, I've been through before.  That's not what this is though.  "What did I do to bring this on?"  I don't understand!  I've asked and asked, in those exact words, but I've literally been told: "you didn't do anything".  If I didn't do anything, then why am I being treated differently?  If I did do something wrong, why didn't you just tell me so I could fix it?  So what if I'm upset?  How is that even relevant to me needing to know the information so I can become a better person?

I need comfort.  I just want to be held and reassured.  Maybe I shouldn't need reassurance.  If you're secure, you're not supposed to need it, right?  But I do.  I don't care if I'm not supposed to, I do!  I need people  Life is too lonely without them.  I need people to care and hug me and tell me it's alright, they love me.  Why is that wrong?!  Why is needing other people wrong?  And why are people going to tell me: it's wrong to need reassurance instead of hugging me and telling me it's alright.  How does that reaction help anyone?

So what do I do?  I've tried to talk to them.  I honestly have.  I can't be the one who reaches out anymore.  It's killing me.  So I walk away.  But how do I do that?  I don't know how to walk away.  I have a deep need to understand my life.  And I don't.  If I understood, I could walk away, would know how to walk away.  But I don't understand.  And the understanding doesn't seem to be forthcoming.  Every time I try to talk to someone, every time I try to put myself on the line even once more, some how I never come away with more information.  And afterwards, every time, I break down a little more.  I need to understand what I did.  I need to understand so that I can get better and be a better person, so this never happens again.

Maybe I was too reliant on you.  Maybe it was unhealthy.  Maybe it was codependent.  I don't know!  But loving people isn't wrong.  It isn't!  And being hurt when someone you love no longer seems to care for you isn't unreasonable.  I'm hurt.  I'm broken.  And I just need a friend to throw me a lifeline and say: "I do care about you, despite everything, I do care about you."

Adult v. Child Actors

When I tell people I work primarily (though this will be changing shortly) with child actors the reaction I get is: oh that must really difficult.  My general response is: no, it's not really that much different than working with adult actors.

I've always sorta sad that flippantly, as a general statement about general actor.  Well, on my last show I worked with adult actors for the first time in close to two years and I realized how accurate that statement is.  I work with children a lot and as such get to know many of them quite well, and what has always struck me is how similar they are to adults.

They want respect, they want success, they want reinforcement.  And this is true of every actor and of every person I have ever met.  Perhaps the children are more insecure, but in my experience, that isn't always the case.  Perhaps the children are less intuitive, but this isn't always the case.

Part of the matter is that I generally with older children who are very serious about pursuing acting professionally.  That type of drive transforms anyone.  I have always had a belief that adults as a whole underestimate children.  Perhaps that was because as I child I wanted nothing more than to be taken seriously and treated equally with adults.

I have always found that if you lay your expectations out clearly for people than they will generally do their damnedest to meet those expectations.  In the case of actors (backstage) I expect that they stay out of the way, not be in the wings when they aren't needed, stay quiet backstage, perform all set changes that they participate in, and to inform the correct people if something is wrong.  These are fairly simple and straightforward and I've found that I get along with actors splendidly if we both work together on those goals.

I didn't really expect this post to turn into a talk on expectations.  I really did intend for it to be a comparison of young/child actors with adult/professional actors.  I suppose, what I discovered is, at the most basic level, the only difference is their age.

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.

Advice I Don't Agree with

Occasionally I get bored an do some google searches on stage management.  Sometimes I learn new things, some times I don't, but reading what other people have to say is fascinating for me.  However, in my most recent search, there were two things that kept popping up that really bothered me.

1.  The advice to never admit that you don't know something.  This obviously extends beyond stage management and into our general culture.  We're taught as children to "fake it till you make it", be "independent", and not to ask "silly questions".  With all this conditioning, it's not really a wonder why people have trouble admitting that they don't know something.  This is particularly troubling with people in authority, because they're told it's a sign of weakness.

 But here's the thing.  Sometimes you don't know something.  Particularly in regard to stage management, you have so much information thrown at you constantly, that sometimes you just don't know.  And saying so shouldn't be a sign of weakness.  It's a sign of humanity.  I am not a robot and giving the appearance of being one is going to get me into trouble when people assume too much of me.  So yes, I do say: "I'm sorry.  I don't know."  That statement however is almost (possibly without exception, but I can't be positive) always followed by: "But I'll find out" or "Let me get back to you about that."  or "Let me connect you with someone (usually a designer) who might know better".  Saying any of those things is infinitely better than just making something up and being wrong.

On that note.  I've also seen advice about not admitting you're wrong, which paradoxically is often paired with the advice of taking responsibility.  If there is a mishap, mistake, or miscommunication, just say that you messed up.  Just admit you were wrong, and that you're very sorry, and that it shouldn't happen again, but that you were wrong.  People seem to take an odd sort of comfort in these words and I've often said them, even when it really truly wasn't my fault.  They cost you nothing but pride and in all honesty, if you're serious about stage managing, you can't afford a ton of pride in being perfect/never wrong.

One more thing before I move on.  But saying "I don't know" or "I was wrong"  has not once lost me respect from anyone I've worked with.  Maybe I've been lucky, but in my experience, people appreciate you just being another person and not some untouchable demigod.  Like I said, I could be completely mistaken, but I'm less than a year out of college and have been hired for nine shows, so I must be doing something right.

2.  The other piece of advice I saw constantly was to wear appropriate clothing.  Is this really actually a problem?  I mean that question seriously.  I've met quite a few stage managers and have never once run into this problem.  I mean, theatre is more of a casual atmosphere to begin with, so wearing something that scandalizes people and that might be considered inappropriate seems highly unlikely.

The other thing is this piece of advice was always in relation to women.  No low cut shirts.  No exposed midriffs.  No short skirts.  No too-tight pants.  Men were only mentioned once and, frankly, in a  completely absurd manner.  The advice said that men shouldn't go shirtless.  Again, would that actually be a problem ever?  i just don't understand.  Also (and this is always my problem with dress restrictions) what qualifies as too tight, too low, too short? Is that definition based on a conservative man's?  A conservative woman's?  A liberal woman's? A liberal man's? Etc etc.

I would also like to say that if I was working under a stage manager that wore tight jeans, short skirts, and bare midriffs I wouldn't have a problem respecting them if they were competent and commanded authority with a calm, collected personality.  I don't really understand why conservative clothing should be a requirement.  Maybe in order for the director, designers, and actors to respect the stage manager.  But in my experience, those people respond most to competence and attitude, not pieces of cloth.

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.

Consent Post Number 3 (family)

Continuing on my theme of consent is: consent in regard to parents and children.  I mainly want to talk about consent for children who are self-aware (hence old enough) to reject being touched or to reject a decision made for them (either verbally or in body language).

Something I have never understood is why parents force their children to do something trivial.  "No, you have to take piano lessons, not violin lessons" or "no you have to focus on science, even though you hate it".  It just doesn't make sense.  Why is piano better than violin?  Why is biology better than creative writing?  Especially when your child tells you that they don't like biology and don't have the aptitude.  Teaching your child to eat balanced meals is important, but if they're going to refuse, then that is their choice.

Good parenting does not consist of forcing a child to do something for their own good.  That is just not good parenting, regardless of what society seems to think.  If a child doesn't do their homework then they get bad grades.  The bad action has unfortunate consequences.  But a bad grade isn't much of a consequence you say?  Well, for some people that's probably true, but if that bad grade is accompanied by a lack of freedom at home (no going out with friends, no tv, etc) then why is it a problem?  I'm oversimplifying by a lot and I know I was a relatively good (if not "obedient") child, so I had the drive to do well in school and eat my vegetables not to please my parents because it pleased me (the school work did anyway, and vegetables never tasted bad to me, so eating them wasn't a problem).

Lana is a vegetarian and her parents kept trying her to get eat meat as a child and she just never wanted to.  And being a vegetarian is such a valid choice, why force the poor kid to eat meat? It just seems ridiculous to me.  Not eating meat doesn't hurt anyone, yet parents object because it doesn't conform with their expectations.  Focusing on acting as opposed to football isn't actually hurting anyone.  Yes, maybe acting doesn't pay as well (in the long run) and it's less socially accepted, but that is the kid's choice.  Saying: "Well, you will be so much better off if you're an accountant than an actor" is financially true, but absolutely not necessarily true in any other way.  Wanting your child to be well off financially is valid, but forcing/coercing/pressuring them into doing something they don't want to do is just wrong.

Saying, "Well it's in their best interest, even if they don't want it" is a) totally subjective b) coercive and c) taking another person's autonomy away.  It's like fucking saying to your partner: "Well, you'll actually like sex once we start."  Here's the thing if you let your kid make their own decisions, even/especially if they're stupid ones, while they're still under your roof it means you can intervene/help when/if something goes horribly wrong.  You're their safety net.  If you wait until they're out in the real world for them to make their own decisions and they've never been allowed to do so before, it's far more likely they'll spend all their money on alcohol, get into a financial situation that's above their head, get involved with an abusive partner, etc.  And by that point they're legally adults and you can't do a damned thing to help unless they ask.

So many bad decisions have naturally bad consequences.  If you get your ears pierced and you don't clean out your ears then they'll get infected.  I'm not saying that you should stand back while your child gets gangrene.  But when my ears got infected, I can tell you the very first thing I did was start using my antiseptic as often as I was supposed to.  And I kept on doing so until my ears were fully healed.  I learned from my stupid decision and fixed it.

When I was 17 (right before going into college) I talked to my parents and said: "How am I paying for college?"  Their answer was student loans.  Well, here's the thing, even with the depression, I had enough money in my college account (which I hadn't even known existed until a few months before college) to cover my entire time at college.  And I argued with my parents and said: "Why can't I just use the money in my account?  If I take on loans then I have to pay interest?  Why do that when I can just pay for everything here and now?"  Well, they completely ignored me and said: "You'll need that money for the future in case things get really bad."  They made that decision for me since I was a minor and I couldn't have sole custodianship

Well here I am now and my student loan payments are starting and I'm not in a position where I have a lot of  money to cover them.  Through a fairly horrible series of money events (involving my parents) I still don't have access to my college fund account and still don't have a part-time job (and yes, I do swear to God, this is entirely my dad's fault (really long story)) and I'm just so mad at my parents.  I had a 4.0 GPA in high school, had a job, played two select sports for nine years, I even had a 3.8 GPA in college.  In short, I feel like I had completely proved myself worthy of making decisions about my own money, but my parents overruled me because I was a minor and they thought it was best for me.  What does turning 18 have anything to do with maturity other than being a kinda sorta maybe benchmark (this is something for an entirely separate post)?

So, this is a personal issue for me.  But no, my parents really didn't have my consent, even remotely, to do what they did and they did it anyway and they don't see anything wrong with that.  I might have been a minor but I was still a person, one who had more than proven herself capable of making mature, well thought-out decisions.  Why did they feel they had the right to take the decision out of my hands?  A decision that has had an extreme impact on my life and none on theirs?  The fact that they are my parents doesn't give them that right.

I've wandered so far off my original point, for which I have to apologize.  But parents often don't even ask their child about decisions.  And parents who do ask, frequently do so in a cursory manner and ignore their child's answer.  They have no say at all in their own lives.  Adults pick them up/hug them/pull them by the hand without asking.  They say "You're going to do Boy Scouts, it'll be fun".  And that is just not behavior that would ever be acceptable with adults, ever.  What is the harm in asking a child whether they want a hug?  And if they say no, why not just accept that answer?

This post was thoroughly a cluster fuck because I have really strong views on parenting that are difficult to articulate and that don't seem to match up with the rest of the populations.  I didn't even get to talking about half of what I meant to, but my bottom line is that children are people and if they say: "No" to something (especially trivial things) that should be respected (if not 100% always followed).

Labels

One of the big talks that I was given at least once a year in school regarded labels.  Jock, nerd, slut, prep, theatre kid, hipster, fat, indie.  I've read some interesting articles about how calling someone fat or a slut isn't technically an insult.  It's just calling a person what they are, and because our culture so stigmatizes those words, they  become insulting.

And the point that calling something what it is isn't a very creative insult is valid.  But, saying something shouldn't hurt because it's true is verging on the edge of ridiculous.  My friends always used to teasingly say, "It's not mean if it's true" (thankfully I haven't heard that phrase in awhile).  I have to vehemently disagree, that's why I think labels can be so incredibly harmful.  In many, many cases, saying something that's true can actually be more vicious and more harmful.

The reason?  If a person has a trait commonly construed as negative in popular culture, than I can promise you that they are painfully aware of it.  I know I'm fat, I am thoroughly aware of that fact and do not need it pointed out by every single person I encounter.  "Stereotypes are stereotypes because they have some truth" is another truism that I've heard and I agree to an extent.  Generally, a person isn't going to be given a nerd label or a jock label or a slut label without there being some truth to that statement*.  But labels and stereotypes take a person and brew them down to one particular quality and amplify it a thousand fold.

Thus you get the harmful mindsets like a football player can't like art because that's not how football players work.  Or nerd can't be failing biology because nerds are smart, everyone knows that, duh.  A fat person can't be healthy or play sports because they're overeating, lazy, slobs.  The fact that some people can't lose weight despite exercising and a healthy diet completely is invalidated because that's not why people are fat.  A slut isn't sleeping with people because they enjoy sex, but rather because they have deep-seated insecurities and a constant need for attention.

A person is more than their label.

*This is not to say that people aren't given labels that they completely don't deserve and this can be just as harmful.  A person who is the given the label "slut" but is actually a virgin has fallen victim to the assumptions and simplifications that go along with that label.

"The One"

So, I really would like to get a post with content in before going to bed, but I am really tired, so I'm just going to give it my best shot.

The way relationships are portrayed in tv shows and books and movies and advertising and and and...(I could go on for awhile) is so incredibly destructive and misleading, so I wanted to come up with a list of misconceptions that I had in the past (some of them fairly recent even) and I want to try to address why they're harmful.

The One/Soul Mates
This is one of the most common and most insidious beliefs out there.  It's one that every even slightly romantic young child (and I was a lot more than slightly romantic) believes instantly because it's just so tempting to fall into.  The belief that there is someone, just one person, out there who is absolutely meant for you.  And I did fall into this one and it wasn't a belief that was suddenly changed by a realization but one that occurred over time.

If there's only one person that you're meant for in a world of six billion, let's face it, you're screwed.  How are you ever supposed to find your "soul mate" in a world this big?  And then you realize that if there was only one person for you in the world then basically the vast majority of the world is settling for someone not as good, which is just depressing.  I'm with Boyfriend because I love him and I'm not settling, but can I imagine loving someone just as much, yes, yes I can.  This is all of course not even mentioning that this belief completely denies that polyamory could possibly exist in a healthy and happy form.

Chivalry is Not Dead
Apparently men aren't supposed to pull out chairs and slay dragons and things for women, but they are still supposed to pay for the check and get you flowers and candy, etc?  This seems like a bit of a double standard...okay...more than a bit.  I certainly enjoy all of the things mentioned above on occasion, but media does still frequently push the belief that this is what is expected of men in relationships.  I know many many people who split the bill and split movie costs, etc.  In fact I think most people I know do this, so why is this still so prevalent in the media?  Also what about gay men?  Are they just supposed to fight over the bill constantly?  What about lesbians?  Do they just never go out to eat?  Or do they dine and dash?

Every Happy Relationship will Result in Marriage
This is one of those ones that I honestly didn't realize was problematic till recently.  The problem with it: it denies that people in long-term, committed relationships but who aren't married exist and are happy.  I've met people who have lived together twenty or thirty years in a romantic relationship and haven't married and yet this still didn't click.  If people don't feel like they need or want to get married, that's perfectly reasonable.  I do want to get married some day, but that is a personal feeling, and it doesn't make non-married committed couples any less committed, in love, or happy.

Love at First Sight
Ahaha.  This is one I've always been skeptical of (there had to be one that I realized might be wrong).  I do believe that you can have strong, undeniable chemistry with someone from first meeting, but I have also seen those types of relationships fizzle out and die pretty quickly (not all of them, I'm not trying to say it can't work, just that it's not necessarily the norm).  Love is wonderful and you can love someone deeply and not be in a successful relationship.  Relationships are about love, but they are also about communication and companionship and trust and just getting along with another human being you share your life with; all of this takes work.

You have a Set Amount of Love
I was disabused of this one senior year of high school.  This is the thought that you only have enough romantic love for one person at a time.  Thus, if you like one person then you can't also like another because you only have so much love to give.  I realized that this couldn't possibly a universal truth when I had two people I was attracted to at the same time.  I remember being thoroughly confused and then realizing that liking two people at the same time didn't make either of my feelings less valid.

Being Attracted to Someone Else is Cheating
This one is related to the previous belief, but it also covers a pretty wide scope.  I've heard friends of mine say, "Well I can't be attracted to another person (frequently a celebrity even) because then my significant other would be jealous/consider it cheating".  It's just looking.  That's all.  Saying, "Wow, Ewan Mcgregor (I actually don't find Brad Pitt that attractive otherwise I would have used him) is really hot and sexy" to me is about the same as saying, "Wow, that car is really hot and sexy".  It doesn't mean you're going to cheat on your significant other with Ewan Mcgregor or that car.  It means you appreciate the way they look.

Also, being attracted to someone you know, but not acting on those feelings isn't cheating.  Certainly you can suppress those feelings but you still can't really help feeling them.  This idea relies a lot on the belief that you should be jealous of anyone else that your significant other looks at.  And, once again, a myth completely at odds with polyamory (they seem to be quite common).

Your Significant Other Should have Eyes for Only You
This one is similar to the previous myth and this belief is one that is just going to cause jealousy and arguments and codependent relationships.  I have never been a jealous person and thus haven't really fallen into this one ever, because Boyfriend is allowed to spend time with other people.  He's allowed to have friends with people who aren't me and, in fact, he should.  You're both going to be lonely if you don't keep any friends other than your significant other.

You have to Always be Doing Something Together
This one is one that took me forever to figure out and I still struggle with it some times.  You don't always have to be going out on dates.  You really don't.  You can stay in, you can watch a tv show, play a board game.  And, what is hardest for me, maybe you just sit in the same room enjoying each other's company but doing different things; this is very very possible.  This belief is slightly more subliminal than a lot of the others, but it definitely still exists.

Edit: Wearing the Pants
This one is generally about relationships where the man is quieter and the woman is more outspoken.  I have literally responded with: "No, we're both wearing pants" to people who have said this about my relationship. Boyfriend is quieter by nature yes, but he does have opinions and I try very very hard to respect them at all times.  It's a relationship.  Not a dictatorship.

Related is the question: "But which one's the man in the relationship?" asked of gay and lesbian relationships.  Relationships are different and not every one has to have a "man" and a "woman" in them, because genders are not binary and male and female are not opposite, god dammit.

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.

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.