Let's Get Real

This is a post where I tell you why it's not my fault and the issue is more complex than is being presented. But, really.

More and more, people are speaking up in defense of families. Not in the traditional vs. equality way, but in the "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby" kind of way. Delayed adolescence and dropping birth rates are becoming things to be feared, apparently. (How are fewer pregnancies something to be feared in our overpopulated world?)

Everyone wants to discuss why young professionals are hooking up and partying into their thirties rather than settling down like their parents did.

Except.

Except people still generally get married around the same age their parents did (although, nowadays those marriages have a higher fail rate).

Except my generation didn't invent the hook up culture. I invite you to remember the sixties, since you were there and I wasn't.

Except college graduates with overwhelming student loans and rent to pay aren't partying as much as you think they are, because they can't afford it.  Also, the older they get, the less their bodies can tolerate the excesses of their college days.

But that's not what really bothers me about the crusade for me to find a mate before I turn thirty.  What really bothers me is how implicitly and, often, explicitly sexist it is.  Because it seems that the real complaint is that women want to work rather than have a husband and kids.

ARE YOU INSANE? No one WANTS to work, that's why it's called WORK. Women enjoy the freedom to make their own choices.  One popular choice is to wait for the whole family thing until you have a mate you can love and trust. No one talks about the qualities of mates when bemoaning the state of marriage. By following the apparent advice of those worried about my singleness, I would have been married several times over, because it's just the marriage that matters, not the person you're married to, right?

But the online dating scene tells a different story.  Yes, there are a lot of people hooking up. Newsflash, premarital sex has been around as long as marriage, for good or ill.  But there are a lot of people online trying to find a mate. What makes it hard is this culture we live in. This culture we inherited. Our values are the ones we were raised to have, either by our parents or by our society in general.  So, feel free to accept your share of the blame.

It's not like I don't want to get married. I grew up watching Disney, I'm fairly indoctrinated in the happily-ever-after tradition.  I'd have been cool with begin married by now.  But I've always been missing one thing: a groom.  Is it because women are seen as more family oriented and men as more career oriented that we don't see more articles about single men settling down?  I guess it's up to the women to tame the men and lead them to the altar. Except marrying someone who doesn't really want to get married is a TERRIBLE idea.

Another thing that kills me is the FACT that being negative towards singleness is both generally and specifically unchristian.  Obviously, it's just not nice.  And plenty of Bible character were single.  But both Jesus and Paul explicitly say that staying single, while tough, is not only a valid choice, but a good and holy one. So who are you exactly to find fault with my marital status?

Should we promote healthy relationships, the dangers of excess, financial management, and all the other things we associate with stable married life and not with the partying lifestyle?  Sure. Absolutely.  I am for those things. I also think promoting positive values will bring about more change than telling me to get married.

When am I going to get married? When somebody asks me and I decide to say yes.  Until then, I am going to work to eat. Probably after the fact, too.  Let's get real.

Cooking: How to Start

There is more advice than ever out there for the home cook that it can be overwhelming for anyone just looking to transition from frozen dinners to something they could serve a friend without shame. If you are NOT a cook, I am going to break down, step by step, what you will need to start.

First, you need a recipe. Not food. Not equipment. If you have an empty fridge and kitchen, start with a recipe. Actually, find 7 recipes, so you can have dinner for a week.  When selecting a recipe, look at the ingredients list. Will you eat everything on that list? No? Then find a different recipe. Especially if you are only starting to learn to cook, you need to cook what you like and with ingredients that you know how they should taste.  That way you're more likely to know if something is wrong. Only buy ingredients you have plans for. ONLY BUY INGREDIENTS YOU HAVE PLANS FOR. This goes for everyone. Indiscriminate buying leads to food waste and is a waste of money.

But before you go shopping, finish reading the recipes. Do you know how to do every step? Google unfamiliar terms and watch videos of specific techniques on YouTube. Until you get comfortable with your skill level, look for recipes with 6 or fewer steps.

Next, buy the equipment. Hopefully, the recipes you picked out make use of standard cookware. If a recipe calls for something specific, like crepe pan, maybe rethink that choice. Using recipes to guide your purchases may keep you from buying items that, while still "standard," you may never use. Like cooling rack, or steamer. Buy equipment the way you buy food: have a plan for how to use it first.

Hint: Some things you will need, like measuring cups and mixing bowls, will only be implied by the recipe.  So think through how you will do each step.

Once you have recipes and equipment, buy food. Make your dishes. Follow the recipe exactly the first time, then tweak for your personal taste. Find more recipes to use left over ingredients you may have.

Repeat.

The Ocean at the End of the Lane -Review

If you have heard of The Ocean at the End of the Lane at all, you have probably reached the conclusion that every reviewer has reverted to Romanticism by way of describing the book's emotional pull rather than what the book is actually about. Nostalgia, myth, melancholy, memory, terror, childhood: all vague terms that don't really tell you what this book is, only that everyone has instantly declared it art.

Usually I want to know what a book is about before I read it.

I was also concerned that Neil Gaiman had finally crossed out of genre fiction into popular fiction; in other words, the book would feel magical without actually having magic.

It turns out I needn't have worried.

But having read the book, now I understand what the reviewers were up against. Ocean defies summary.

On the one hand, it's too short to give much plot summary without spoiling the entire book. On the other, the plot can't be boiled down to a single sentence.

The narrative is reminiscent of both Bridge to Terabithia by to Katherine Paterson and Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury.  But what it's really like is a Studio Ghibli film.  The plot is no more complex than a longish Grimm's fairy tale.  Truly, for most of the book it is the tone that elevates the story, bringing the magic of both the extraordinary and the mundane to life.

Until you realize what the book's about.

The Ocean at the End of the Lane is the story of a boy as remembered by a man, told by an author (Gaiman) to his wife in an attempt to explain where his art comes from and what drives him to create.

The setting and a few characters are autobiographical.  As is the emotional story. Myths are not labelled thus because they are untrue, but rather they are attempts at describing truths that exist beyond mere facts. And by that definition, The Ocean at the End of the Lane is far from fiction.

To the Gate-Keepers of the Kingdom of Fan

I've been increasingly puzzled by continuing news stories and articles about sexism in fandoms.  I know it's there. I know it's dumb. But we hear a lot more about it on the internet (for obvious reasons) than sexism elsewhere. Actually, we don't hear a lot of people speaking out against sexism elsewhere, so go internet, points for that.

What I've noticed, though, is the tone of the responses to sexism in the nerd world. They fall into two camps: women writing to empower women and men writing to take men to task. And neither of those stances is wrong. But I'd like to take a moment to look at the issue from a different angle and speak to the guys directly and from a place of common ground. Not we-like-the-same-stuff common ground, but  we-have-been-dealt-the-same-hand.

You see, I know how you feel. You grew up in a world where athleticism and looks trumped grades and creativity. Where being yourself meant getting bullied. Where you couldn't find others who shared your interests and your interests weren't supported in the society you were in (high school).

So, it was really great to find an outlet, a community, a guild, a con, a game shop where you could interact with people who get you. You promote the stuff that makes you happy and the makers that provide that content.  Good for you.

BUT. I am you. I walk into a con and get bombarded by female figures I can't identify with. I get excluded by the cool guys. They bully me. They resent my existence and do everything they can to make their community closed to me. But this time we share interests, experiences, social preferences, etc.  What we don't share is gender.

I understand the idea of fake geek girl and at one point, perhaps, the concept had validity. When cons had to hire booth babes for any kind of female presence, for instance.  But the fact is, geekdom is not a small community any longer. It's not weird anymore. One of the most popular show on television has dragons in it. So it's time to give up the gate-keeping because the floodgates have opened and geek is mainstream. It's not just girls you have to worry about; it's everyone. The jocks are here now. The preppy girls. Everyone you hate is here, and all they really want is to fund that thing you love and not get anonymous internet threats in the process. Did you like Avengers? It never would have been made without mass appeal.

Yes, more money isn't the only thing that changes when you go mainstream. There are a few things that  are going to change. Most reasonable people understand why (overt) racism is bad in media. Well, sexism is bad too.  Our fictional heroes should behave by an ethical code that includes respect for all human life. So should our internet posters, con attenders, comic book buyers.

So, all we females really want is no threats and fully clothed role models. Is that really too much to ask?

Besides, do you really want to go back to only seeing guys at cons? 

Things I learned in the Holy Land

This is very behind the times, but some lessons from my trip keep turning up, and I thought I would catalog them.  Not a lot of great spiritual epiphanies here. I pretty much knew where I stood spiritually before I went over.

1. If the desert is hot enough the taps switch temperature. This is from overland pipes exposed to the sun and the water heater being insulated enough to keep water cool.

2. If you sweat enough, restroom breaks become unnecessary. Gross, yes. And scary. But true.

3. Long sleeves are the way to go in unbearable heat.

4. Germs matter less when you are running out of water.

5. When you are low on electrolytes from doing lots of hot, outdoor, manual labor, you will crave fruit.

6. It is possible to sleep through motion sickness.

7. If your country is new and going thru a certain amount of turmoil, an independent culture will take longer to develop. It is amazing how popular American oldies are in Israel.

8. Official signage in a foreign country is always hilarious.

9. Regardless of politics, a country that puts a humongous amount of effort into cultural and environmental development has a better concept of what it means to be a country than a lot of the rest of us (and, yes, that definitely breaks down when looking at how they treat their neighbors). Israel has one of the largest reforestation projects in the world.

10. Visiting countries that are not friends with each other while using the same passport makes for difficult travel.

11. Primitive construction is more similar to Minecraft than you'd expect.

12. I don't believe in a single, all-encompassing biblical proof, but it is amazing how many forts, wells, towns, tombs, encampments, etc. are uncovered right where you'd expect them to be.

13. How important a biblical town is in scripture has little relevance on how quickly it gets excavated/how important it is archeologically. Beth Shemesh is a mound on the side of the road. Gezer has a single sign and a gravel parking lot.

14. Archeology is limited by funds and human resources. Paleontologists analyze every find. Archeologists have warehouses of finds no one is analyzing, mounds no one is digging.

15. Archeology is more like Indiana Jones than anyone would believe. Mostly the shooting is done by armed escorts, though. From what I gathered, many top archeologists who dig in disputed areas have stories of being shot at. The stories get crazier the farther back in history you go. And would make for good movies.

16. Frozen lemonade and mint. You will just have to trust me on this one.

17. Israeli cats have pointier faces than cats in the US. Less inbred?

18. The most important travel plans involve eating during times the entire country shuts down, which covers four meals a week in Israel.

19. Paper maps beat GPS when it comes to pure navigating. (Driving while navigating is, of course, different.)

20. Nothing makes you want bacon more than being told you can't have it.

21.Germany, or at least the airport I was in, has an unreasonably high percentage of attractive people (and yes, I am aware of how racist that sounds). 

This One Is For The Makers

I want to talk a little bit about possibly the best artistic advice I have ever gotten.  Adam Savage, in a YouTube video posted by Tested.com*, talked about balancing work, his family, and his projects.  The solution for finding more time for projects, it turned out, was more about frequency than duration.  He advocates spending an hour a day in your studio/workspace, even if all you are doing is eating lunch and existing in the same space as your work.

Obviously, committing an hour a day would be difficult for many people.  The house needs to be cleaned; you brought work home with you; you can't leave the kids alone.  But what about a commitment to spending ten minutes a day in the area you have cordoned off for making whatever it is you make? I believe it really is frequency that matters.

I like this approach for several reasons. Instead of committing to finishing projects or spending lots of time in your studio, you commit to thinking about your art, looking at it, and giving yourself the opportunity to do some work if you feel up to it. Giving yourself permission to be in your space without forcing yourself to produce removes the guilt artists feel that they should always be making more.

In this way, you can structure your creative time like a workout regimen. Ten minutes a day comes easy, so you gradually up the time, until you are exceeding Adam Savage's hour goal.

Space is as important as time. Experts say bedrooms should be devoid of things that rob our sleep, like televisions and computers.  Your workspace should be a dedicated space, ideally with walls between it and dirty dishes, laundry, and other major distractions of adult life. There is a time to be responsible; take ten minutes to be creative.

If I told myself I should just organize my art room and get it over with, I would never do it. Cleaning for cleaning's sake as never come easy to me. But organization to solve problems, like "I can't find my sewing kit," seems to just happen naturally as I use a space.

Spending time in my downstairs room/art studio has allowed me to organize it for better productivity. As a result, I have created twice as much in the past few weeks as I have in the previous six months. And I feel good about continuing to use the space, because there is no pressure to create. I go there to be. I create because the tools are at hand, the space is inviting, and because I am, to some extent, an artist.

Now if only I could find a method that increased my writing output…

*I'd link to the video, but I'd never be able to find the right one. Check out Tested on Youtube and you'll see what I mean. 

Love Languages, Singlehood, and John Green

Words, time, gifts, service, touch.  Anybody who has been exposed to any pop-psy-self-help knows that those are the five love languages. Obviously, you figure which way you show love and how your spouse shows love, and voila! you get a better marriage. You don't even need to read the book.

Here's where I get in trouble, because I haven't read the book. However, I looked at the table of contents on Amazon, which like any self-help book is a straight forward outline of the material, so I will presume to comment on that material.

Whenever I see a love language quiz online, or hear people talk about the book, it is always in the context of how that person expresses love.  Simply, I give you gifts; you do the dishes. Now I know that you doing the dishes means you love me, or now you know that since gifts is my love language, you mix up dishes routine with some flowers and candy occasionally.  And like all self-help*, I find these conclusions pat and simplistic.

Complaint the first: My church is doing a love languages series for married couples and parents (those are the 2 versions of the book out there). I am single and childless, and yet I love and could learn to love better.  Aren't Christians commanded to love one another? I am not against classes for parents or couples, but it would be so very, very easy to make a class on love all inclusive. Shouldn't love be inclusive? Apparently, the class is also for people about to be married or planning to get married one day. I planned to have my first kiss before age 25, but life didn't work out that way. I refuse to plan to be married before I am engaged. This is not meant as an indictment against my church, but an illustration of common attitudes about love and singleness.

Complaint the second: Author John Green exhorts his YouTube followers to "imagine others complexly."  Love languages, as best I can guess, are meant to be a tool to help better understand the person you are trying to love.  They are not something taught in Psych 101 textbooks.  I would be interested to see studies of the dispersion of love languages on an introversion/extroversion spectrum or masculine/feminine values or stereotypes. Because our non-verbal communication is as every bit as complex as our psychological selves.

Take me for example.  I gift. Bringing joy to others through a well-thought gift is better than getting gifts.  So much so, that gifts I receive have to have a certain element of aptness and demonstrate the giver's knowledge of myself before I feel much in response. Does that make gifts my love language?

Recently, I realized that by showing love through gifts, carefully selected and wrapped, that I am holding others at arms length and passing my love over through objects. Those gifts may be appreciated, but I am holding back. One of the first things friends learn about me is that I don't touch new people. It takes an average of three months of contact with a new person before they can receive a hug. Allowing hugs is a rite of initiation into a closer circle of friendship. Does that mean touch is not my love language?

I would say that everyone has the capacity to understand how each of the love languages is an expression of love. I also believe that everyone shows love differently to different people.  My problem is expressing and receiving love in such a way that the other person can feel the exchange.

Because I'm not good at emotional shorthand. I make very bad first impressions. Ask people who have interviewed me for jobs. I get total strangers telling me to smile more.  I may have been completely content or having a horrible day, they can't tell the difference and want me to greet society in a more acceptable way no matter how I feel.  Friends still getting to know me have a hard time knowing whether I am enjoying myself at an event.

So, in the interest of imaging other more complexly, allow me to imagine myself more complexly for you.

I withdrew into myself a lot after splitting 7 weeks between ICU and a burn ward at the age of five. And I was predisposed by nature and nurture to be an introvert before that event. With whatever accompanying psychological issues from my injury, I didn't manage any kind of social competency until college.  Navigating my teen years with a sense of isolation (albeit largely of my own making) resulted in the arms-length love expressions and circles of trust that require years to enter.  This isolation  also developed a self-reliance I might not otherwise have.

My lack of trust ranks how I express love; the more I trust you the closer I allow you to come.  Gifts are farthest out,  then time and service.  Words are second only to touch because verbal expression of intimacy is only less difficult than a physical expression.

My sense of self-worth, however, ranks how much I value expressions of love that I receive.  Gifts are last again, because it is easier to give money than time.  Touch from others is valuable, but I recognize that if it is not as difficult for you as it is for me then touch becomes less precious. Words I value but have a hard time trusting from the experience of person after person telling me want to build a relationship (usually a friendship) then utterly disappearing almost immediately.  Time ranks highly because inclusion is so important to me. The idea of someone doing something to help me out is so rare that it remains an ever elusive prize.  But in any case, just being thought of is immensely gratifying.

All of which makes me sound incredibly high maintenance, but I would argue most people could create similar hierarchies. Doing so allows me to realize and accept how I relate to people and to challenge myself to find more effective modes of expression.

So, you tell me. What's my love language?

*He's Just Not That Into You is the sole exception and the best relationship book in existence.