Tuesday, July 31, 2012

Commitmentphobia


Is life committed to you?
No!
It could leave you at any moment,
Suddenly deciding that someone else
Is far more attractive and deserving
Of its time.
And yet you come to life each day
And as if you’ve been promised forever,
Making yourself sick and saying,
“I’ll enjoy myself tomorrow.”


Tuesday, July 17, 2012

A Day in the Life


When I spend the requisite 8 hours a day at my desk, writing copy about dental practices (mostly ones in Texas or New Jersey), how can I possibly avoid becoming petrified of cancer? It’s not like my mind is occupied. I allow my fingers to type out everything they know about porcelain dental crowns while I turn my head from side to side and wonder, “What’s that odd feeling when I turn to the right?” Or I stare at information on dental implants (information that I’ve stared at before) while listlessly palpating my neck for strange lumps – and then vigorously poking at stranger offenders when they’re apprehended. I list off all the other things every ache and pain could be – allergies, vision problems, carpel tunnel syndrome, TMJ dysfunction, the common cold – all of which make far more sense than cancer. But I mostly just worry that if I settle for one of those diagnoses, I’ll be fooling myself and wasting precious treatment time. “It’s too late, Ms. Kirkpatrick,” I imagine the doctor saying, looking somewhat guilty because she turned me away so many times with prescriptions for Zoloft or nasal spray. The only time I don’t think it’s cancer is when it’s the chest pains; that’s clearly due to a heart infection I once heard about on This American Life. The woman boarded a plane 10 days after seemingly recovering from the flu only to fall asleep and die because the flu infection had taken over her heart without her knowledge, her death only discovered when a flight attendant tried to wake her upon landing. It doesn’t matter that the internet says it’s stress and I’ve been diagnosed with gastroesophogeal reflux. 

At some point you learn to stop trusting Google. Every physical symptom can’t be due to anxiety. 

I’m not even supposed to be talking about this. Whenever I discover some ache or pain, I’m supposed to ignore it and go play with the dogs or something. That’s what my therapist said. Think about happier things that are not cancer or the inevitability that my husband will die before me, leaving me to make my own sandwiches and deal with that weird empty space people leave behind when they go. I almost started crying into my frozen yogurt last Saturday night just thinking about it. I didn’t say anything. It tends to ruin date night when you tell your spouse that you don’t ever want them to die and then burst into tears. You’d think it would seem romantic, but it doesn’t.

I remember once that I read somewhere or heard on the radio someone said that we shouldn’t all live as if we might die at any moment. Thinking about our inevitable death all the time doesn’t really inspire acts of greatness – it just leaves us rocking back and forth in the fetal position, afraid to leave our house. 

I’m one of the few people in the world who probably responded by thinking, “Finally! Someone really GETS me!”

Friday, June 22, 2012

You're Annoying Everybody

While looking through my Facebook feed, I noticed the confluence of bitching posts. Not "bitchin' posts," but posts wherein the poster is bitching about something. Bad driving, ugly people, stupid people (always a crowd fave), sensitive people (which is funny?), and on and on and on. Not in-depth bitching. Most people have the good common sense not to publicly bitch about their true personal problems in such a superficial forum. I probably only think it's superficial because I'm over the age of 27 and still reflexively pay for my music. Anyway, the takeaway: people like to bitch! About everyone, and mostly about people they don't really know that well! So I started thinking: every time we're bitching about the crappy waiter, the crappy waiter is probably bitching about the sucky customer. When I start thinking about it that way, I feel waaaaaay less inclined to just reflexively bitch about other people. I don't want to live in a world where everyone is going around bitching about me! And they are! I just know it! I know it because I apparently know a lot of people who like to bitch about a lot of other people. I wasn't really good at stats, but I can see which way the wind is blowing.

So you're annoying everybody. I mean, not everybody ALL THE TIME, but even that person who sleeps in your bed with you every night and swears he loves everything about you is annoyed by you no matter WHAT he says. He just has the decency not to bitch about you on Facebook. I'm reminded of that Modest Mouse lyric: "If you knew everything they thought I bet you would wish that they would just shut up." And thanks to Facebook, I'm far more aware of just how much all of my friends like to bitch about every other person in the world. Not that every one of my friends bitches constantly, but if you figure that what you see is just the tip of a possibly gigundous ice burg (I didn't try very hard to come up with a less cliche metaphor -- go ahead and bitch), then you realize HOW ANNOYED THEY ARE BY EVERYTHING. Pretty soon you're walking around the grocery store contemplating how alone you truly are, no matter how many people claim they love you, and you start tearing up a bit right there by the lettuce because you're JUST NOT CYNICAL ENOUGH FOR THAT TO BE COMPLETELY OKAY.

We've all known at least one person in our lives who no one likes but everyone tolerates. When I worked in a bar, there was a young lady about whom all the regular bar patrons would BITCH A LOT when she was absent, but she'd show up and become like any other member of the group. And she was completely oblivious. And that person could be ME or YOU and we would MAYBE NEVER KNOW! I'm not saying we should all just stop bitching, although research has shown that "venting" isn't actually helping us be less miserable and may be making us MORE miserable. Let's face it; modern human kind has embraced misery as an inescapable trap. Lord knows I have no faith that this back pain is going away any time soon. I'm just saying that your bitching is born of you feeling that your comfort is somehow the entire world's responsibility. If you didn't think so, you'd just shrug and say, "Oh, well! I guess that guy has important places to be, too!" And really, the world doesn't give a shit.

It's too busy bitching about you.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Why? Because it Feels Good.

I love gossip. I don't really care much for spreading the stuff, but if I catch a whiff of a story, I'm immediately on the trail, asking, "Ooooh, what's up? What did he say? What did she say? OMG WHAT WHAT WHAT?!" I like knowing everything about everybody else's business. I can keep a secret, but I can't stop myself from asking you not to.

Earlier Sean was telling me he'd listened to an episode of Real Time with Bill Mahr on which Jon Hamm was a guest. Bill Mahr asked Jon Hamm all these questions about how he and his girlfriend, Jennifer Westfeldt, have been together for, like, forever, and aren't married and have no babies. And my gut reaction is a big fat...so what?

It never occurred to me growing up that my adult love life wouldn't look however I wanted it to look when I got there. I remember spending my 12th year OBSESSED with the idea of growing up to get married, have babies, be a STAY AT HOME MOM...but then I got my period for the first time, decided I hated everything, and swore of marriage and babies FOREVER. Now I'm 32, married, and still sworn to no-babyhood for the foreseeable future (i.e. forever barring any unforeseen birth control malfunctions. LET'S GET PERSONAL.).

I moved in with my boyfriend when I felt like it. My parents gave me what appeared to be obligatory speeches about how they disapproved, but they seemed to understand that they couldn't do much about it. I just don't remember it being a big deal. I remember it going pretty much exactly as I'd pictured it -- without much fanfare.

It wasn't until all this cultural what the fuckery started with the birth control and the apparent OMG WHAT'S IT LIKE LIVING WITH YOUR GF AND NOT MARRYING HER AND PUTTING A BABY IN THAT SHIT? moment we seem to be having that it even occurred to me that we were still living in the shadows of a land where the Supreme Court actually had to decide that unmarried folks could legally possess birth control. I just figured grown ups decided how they were gonna live their lives based on their own ideas of what was right for them. Looking back, was I just incredibly naive? I mean, I understood there was supposedly some cultural pressure lurking out there somewhere saying something about babies, but I'm not actually supposed to take that so seriously that I let it influence my behavior...am I? And is it really all that interesting to everyone if it doesn't? One day, when I am famous, is Bill Mahr going to grill me on OMG NO BABIES NAN REALLY?

I found myself pondering earlier why all the hysteria. To be clear, if someone says, "I just don't want to pay for anyone else's shit ever, okay?" I can understand this ideological argument. But that doesn't seem to be what this conversation is about. People aren't just trying to avoid spending money on other people's shit -- they're trying to avoid spending money on birth control for women, and they're using language to defend this that includes phrases like "moral objection." A woman using birth control has no real substantive impact on anyone but herself and her partner. So why all the freaking hysteria? I'm going to need a better reason than "because God said so." I can't think of a single logical one.

But I can: because it feels good.

Apparently a bunch of people are pissed because there are black people in the Hunger Games movie. Characters they didn't think were black turned out to be black, and they wrote some racist stuff on Twitter in revolt. Why? It's so silly, and I just can't imagine why anyone would just spout off awful...wait. I can. I can think of a reason. Because it feels good.

Operating under an us vs. them mentality is attractive, and we all do it. I may feel all morally superior in the face of the type of racism I see on Twitter or folks who have nothing better to do than worry about the sexual habits of people they don't even know. But I can understand the impulse to say hateful things about people I don't like -- and I can justify not liking the people I don't like much more easily than I can justify other people not liking the people they don't like. I read a piece recently calling out Bill Mahr for calling Sarah Palin a "cunt" and a "twat" during his standup routine. The writer called this sexist and on-par with Rush Limbaugh and his "slut" slur. And dang it, I think that author was right! You can't justify calling one woman a "cunt" just because you disagree with her while denouncing calling another a "slut" because you do agree with her. Sexist slurs are either sexist or they're not. And while I would love to denounce what I see as evil while believing myself righteous, my duty is always to do the opposite -- check myself for where I have done evil before anything else. I can change my own behavior. I can do fuck all about society most of the time.

My "because it feels good" theory isn't meant to be an excuse. Instead, it is meant to be an understanding -- an understanding of this impulse that lives inside of all of us. Sometimes I decide to try not to ask questions about things that are none of my business, and that's when I realize how hard it is not to do things that feel good, even when I believe they're wrong. Far from an excuse, understanding the failings that all humans house may be the seed of the compassion we all need to actually change that against which we scream to no avail.

"Small people talk about other people." So wouldn't it be really great if we didn't?

Monday, March 19, 2012

Doing the Best They Can with What They Got: Thoughts on the Work of David Simon and Co.

Tonight I watched the fourth episode in season one of Treme, a series brought into the world by the same folks who brought us The Wire. After I watched the episode, I called my mother, and then I started wandering around the house, preparing for a bath. It was 9:30. I stayed home sick today, so I was feeling tired, foggy, and a little anxious with the knowledge that I'm one day down for the week at work.

As I wandered around, preparing, my mind was turning. I was thinking about how my first impression of Treme was not good. It seemed kind of...boring. I couldn't pick out a single character I cared about. But when I had that reaction, I remembered that I'd had the same initial reaction to The Wire, which turned out to be one of the best series in television history. And these shows have something in common, and it's what I loved about The Wire and am growing to love in Treme: everyone is just doing the best they can with what they got.

I first heard that phrase in AA. I don't know if they made it up -- they probably didn't. But that's where I heard it, and it's still one I find extremely helpful. Like most phrases one hears in Alcoholics Anonymous, I didn't really get it at first. But the more I hear it, the deeper I understand its meaning to be. For a control freak, it's at first the worst news in the world, but in the end, it turns out to be the most important.

The scene that got me thinking about all of this involved Wendell Pierce, who played Bunk on The Wire but plays Antoine Batiste, a no good trombone player, on Treme. He's leaving Baton Rouge to return to New Orleans after visiting his young sons from a previous marriage. Back in New Orleans, he's got a baby mama and can barely make enough money to take care of his child -- in large part because of the formally mentioned no good issue. He just wants to party. While in Baton Rouge with his kids, he drives them around in his ex-wife's now husband's Land Rover and takes them to the Olive Garden with borrowed money. He tells them he wants to help them go to college. He tries to play the good, supportive, sacrificing dad over pasta and soda. But when he boards the bus back to New Orleans, the older woman next to him asks if the trip is for business or pleasure, and he responds, "Pleasure. New Orleans is always pleasure." It's where he lives and works and has a baby, but it's always about pleasure. And the immediate gut reaction would be for most a feeling of contempt, but I got the sense that he was just doing the best he could with what he had.

The Wire and Treme are full of this kind of moral ambiguity. Perhaps not everyone would read that ambiguously, but I do. He seems to sincerely want to help his kids when they're at Olive Garden on someone else's dime and pretending feels like the truth. But inevitably, entropy takes hold, and he takes the easiest route -- he goes back to New Orleans with the hint that it's right back to playing the trombone in a strip club for little money, cheating on his woman, and ignoring his other children. But while it would be easy to act as if his problem is one of being a very bad person, don't we all have a thing that pulls us in a different direction than the next right thing? If we look at it globally, isn't this a struggle we all face? I suppose we could say some issues of morality are worse than others, but for me, that's just an excuse to ignore my own seemingly petty problems because, hey, at least I didn't murder anyone! Or have kids then abandon them! But the Bible says a sin is a sin is a sin (paraphrasing, yo -- but all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord), and the shit I do dirty is no better than the shit someone else does dirty.

Besides...there but for the grace of God go I. If I'd ever had children, who's to say I would not abandon them for a good time? Prior to my awareness of my alcoholism, I could see myself taking that path of least resistance.

And that's doing the best you can with what you've got. Some people have hurts and wounds and don't know any better. We find that hard to believe. I find it hard to believe when people don't know any better than to miss too much work or to ask me before they drink the last Diet Coke in the fridge, but if I'm honest, that's because those are my issues. I'm a perfectionist afraid of what other people think, so I work sick and take less than my allotted PTO every year. And for me, not asking if you can drink the last Diet Coke in the fridge is tantamount to you forgetting I even exist. On the surface, these things seem like moral absolutes -- it's rude to drink the effing Diet Coke! But really, the person who drank the Diet Coke didn't know I'd feel forgotten, and the person calling in sick to work might actually be sick and not have my issues. We're all just doing the best we can with what we've got, and it's taken a lot of work to get to the understanding of what drives some of my reactions.

But that understanding is nothing without going a step further and having compassion for those who push my mother-effing buttons. That's what, "They're just doing the best they can with what they got," is for. It shows me that they deserve some forgiveness...and, if I plug myself into that equation, so do I. All forgiveness is is letting it go.

But what does this have to do with the works of those who brought us The Wire and Treme? These shows are full of scenes like the one mentioned above -- people who want to do the next right thing but grew up with drug addicted parents and can't keep fighting that fight; people who look like they're going to end up gang bangers but get adopted by cops instead; cops doing the next wrong thing in a effort to arrest someone who is morally on the up-and-up but on the wrong side of the law; drug dealers going to college (haven't we all been told college is a cure for supposed social ills) so they can be better at their business -- of selling drugs; people who have heart but get no breaks. It's just like life. It just is what it is. And while doing the best with what we have as of right now involves having laws that do not make nuanced distinctions about the very different levels of morality that can apply to the very same act committed by dozens of people, we don't have to believe that legal and moral are even remotely the same thing. Most of us run into issues of legality very rarely, but we run into seemingly imperceptible issues of morality constantly. Problem is, our first instinct is to call out the immorality -- the rudeness, the laziness, the supposed negligent ineptitude, the indifference -- of others rather than turn the light on ourselves. All I can think when I watch a show like The Wire or, to a lesser degree, Treme (there are slight differences in the way these two shows approach moral ambiguity) is that some of my choices have been made easier by sheer luck, and doing the next right thing is hard for us all. For instance, I've never done crack cocaine at least in part because I've never been offered any, known anyone who did (until after they quit using), or even known where to begin to get some. Some people grow up with it in their house.

If anything, these shows call out the great immoral other. True immorality -- evil -- isn't born of individuals but of systems. My mother and I were talking about how any time you have a group of people working together, you have problems. That's not a suggestion we should disband and all go off to find our own, solitary caves in which to live and eek out an existence. It simply means that our nature comes into the spotlight the moment we all start working together to create systems, such as a government. But if we can bring compassion into the mix -- the kind of compassion only fostered by hearing the very messy stories of other people's lives and relating them to our own in some way -- then we can escape what causes the problems. We can stop reacting to other people and their immorality, real or imagined, and start doing something about our own.

Until then, we'll all just be doing the best we can with what we've got.

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

In Honor of Valentine's Day: The Plight of the Married Lady

Dallas' public radio station, KERA, recently ran a pledge drive, and I finally pledged. I've been a regular listener for a while now -- in fact, I consider popping in a CD every once in a while, but I have a panic attack at the thought of what I might miss if not listening to NPR. It's kind of nuts, considering I've started having panic attacks due to some of the things they regularly talk about on NPR (a running series seems to focus on people who've been unemployed FOR YEARS -- my poor heart can't take it). Alas, however, I'm probably doomed to panic attacks over some such thing for the rest of my life. I deal. And I gave to my local NPR station because I listen all the time. They finally guilted me into it.

And then they promptly shat all over my good graces.

I filled out the donation form using my name -- Nan Kirkpatrick -- as the primary contact. Actually, I was technically the only contact. And I gave them my personal checking account information. Sean (my husband) and I do have a joint checking account, but he was donating from his own funds. We're modern like that. So, so far I've given them my name and my personal checking account information. Then I saw a small, not required space for "Name of Spouse." I put "Sean Kirkpatrick." Looking back, this was my big mistake. At the time, however, I thought nothing of it. I'm a good test taker, I guess -- I don't leave anything blank.

A couple of weeks went by, and I got my membership information in the mail. What I saw turned my blood to ice. The envelope was addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Sean Kirkpatrick.

I was livid. Absolutely aghast. Completely at a loss for words. I'd taken the time to give those...those...assholes my hard earned money -- money that I, NAN Kirkpatrick, put in a lot of effort to obtain -- and I didn't even receive recognition except as a "Mrs." Heck, Sean received first-name recognition, and based on my knowledge of the world, my paycheck, personal bank account, and time do not belong to him. He didn't have anything to do with the giving of that money. He was a not required blank. He was, in this instance, an afterthought.

He also seemed a little at a loss when I was ranting about the situation. I know. This is not something that on the surface seems like a big deal to dudes, and I cannot say that I blame them. They walk through life knowing that if they put their spouses name in the not required blank, the envelope will always come addressed to them...and some unnamed other. They know that if they give THEIR MONEY to an entity, the entity will not then treat them like a possession, a mere Mr. to someone else's Mrs. And that reminds me...I always fill out forms as "Ms." Those jerks couldn't even get that part right.

Throughout history, women have been barred from financial independence. Actual laws kept women dependent on men for financial stability. I cherish my right to earn my own money and keep it where I please. And I don't appreciate the societal standard trampling all over common sense -- it should've been obvious that I was the one to be thanked based on my name being the primary contact alone -- to keep from me what I am owed: KERA's gratitude for my fucking money.

I sent them an email letting them know how I felt. I don't remember the specifics, but I do remember that it ended with, "This is 2012. Get with the program." They still haven't responded. And I'm still livid whenever I think about it. I'm livid because it's just a very obvious reminder that I am not even considered an equal partner in my own marriage by society, let alone as a complete and separate individual.

Happy Valentine's Day!

Monday, January 9, 2012

I sometimes make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.

Wow. I almost lost an entire night to an internets' comments section. Again. God, I'm such a sucker for arguing with random strangers in an anonymous format where people can't even appropriately measure sarcasm unless you actually say, "I WAS BEING SARCASTIC!" because tone of voice doesn't exist. These are the arguments punctuated by emoticons. These are the arguments where EVERYONE takes EVERYTHING to the most extreme conclusion because they can. These are the conversations we're starting to have more often than the regular kind...and people wonder why Tea Partiers actually get elected!

I mean, just as an example of how ridiculous these internet comments discussions are: The post in question is on the topic of why older men are attracted to younger women. Of course, we can't think about this in any other terms than "SEVENTY YEAR OLDS LOVE FOURTEEN YEAR OLDS, OKAY?!," so it's automatically a whackadoo conversation, most especially since I've been led to believe that a lot of 70-year-old men only have fond, wistful, and vague memories of sex when they see 14-year-olds, not actual boners. The argument twists and turns, and several commenters mention how age is all relative an' shit. Like what we think is young now was like how old grandmas were in the 1200s. At some point, a commenter says this: "Most animals die before becoming old." Okay. I'm not really sure what that means? I googled life expectancies for animals (seriously, just like that: "life expectancy of animals"), and there's a kind of parrot that has the average life expectancy of 104 years. Sounds kinda old, right? Sure, your cat will probably only live to be maybe 20, and your dog, if she's big, could only live to be nine (the larger the breed of dog, the shorter the life expectancy), but PARROTS, MAN! They live to be OLDER THAN PEOPLE DO ON AVERAGE. So that commenter did what people do in internets' comments sections around the virtual globe: he said "most," and then made some really vague argument based on some seriously generalized, vague knowledge of the world. Some other commenter said at some point that until recently, people only lived to be 20, at which point I'm thinking, "DEFINE RECENTLY!"

But let's discuss the topic of the actual post. Older men think younger women are hot. Real yawnfest. One of the things I noticed was that the author of the post points to research that shows that bonobos like established females, not young ones. Why is this important? Well, if you follow this stuff, many people like to claim that we can learn a lot about our sex drives from the bonobos, our "closest evolutionary relative." We're actually just as close to chimpanzees as we are to bonobos, but they're jerks, so we try to forget that as much as possible. Chimps are like our weird uncle Joe Bob who wears overalls with no shirt underneath and makes meth in a trailer near a lake. Meanwhile, bonobos are like your slick uncle Rick who has a different date EVERY SINGLE NIGHT with some HOT BITCH. People love to point out that BONOBOS ARE NOT MONOGAMOUS, like, constantly as proof that we are not meant to be monogamous. But here we see that they also like old ladies. Hmmm. What's so interesting about this is that a lot of the same commenters to this post who immediately cry, "WE ARE HUMANS, NOT ANIMALS!" have previously said, "BUT I CANNOT BE MONOGAMOUS BECAUSE BONOBOS!" I mean, make up your mind, folks.

I know that because they're all regular Savage Love commenters, an internets' comments section with which I'm very familiar.

As I started to get REALLY WORKED UP about a lot of stuff going on here -- the complete inability of the privileged to admit to their privilege, the fact that people say "MANY" and "MOST" like that shit is SCIENTIFIC FACT, the fact that people so very much want to believe in their autonomy that they refuse to admit to the influences of society on their thinking, the fact that our constant framing of everything sexual in terms of the male appetite even when discussing the female appetite just allows the male appetite to continue to dominate the discourse -- I realized something. I'm tired of this conversation. Men like young women. SO WHAT. Most older ladies I know either have dates or have husband or don't want either. I don't know that it necessarily damages women for me to find younger women attractive. Now, if a man over the age of, say, 30 actually wants to date a woman under the age of 25, I say, "Good luck to you!" While it's not unheard of for this arrangement to work, it's...generally tenuous. The reason we have this conversation is because it's indicative of a historical power imbalance And research has shown that in societies where men and women have more equitable relationships, the age differences in couples will begin to diminish. In other words, most of the cultures in which we see 58-year-old husbands of 12-year-old brides are the ones where women can't legally drive, either. But for the most part, the average age of first marriages for men and women are fairly close in age, especially in the United States. What does that tell me? Older dudes may be jacking off to porn of younger ladies, but they aren't really pairing up with them.

So, really, it's a STUPID ARGUMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING. And focusing so much attention on the sexual preferences of males who can't have the 14-year-olds they so ardently desire and the supposed damage that does to American females (this conversation has to be had in terms of western culture and specifically American culture, as the article and corresponding comments section were generated in the west) just continues to put the focus in the worst place. The underlying message here is that I am supposed to care that "most" men prefer "young" women...even though this bit of information has absolutely no discernible bearing on my life whatsoever unless I WANT TO BE PERCEIVED AS SEXY ABOVE ALL ELSE.

Having a conversation wherein it appears that women have something to gain by "proving" that men are attracted to older females instead of younger ones keeps us objectified. It tells us that we must prove our desirability in order to prove our worth. Why not simply say, "Who cares?" This is supposing simply that men find young women attractive. It does not allow that a 40-year-old man having sex with a 14-year-old should therefore be legal or moral. It simply supposes that as long as the average trends hold true -- most adult Americans seem to be in relationships with other adult Americans relatively close to their own age -- then it doesn't matter what men think. Countless jokes I've seen on shows such as Arrested Development and Community make light of the fact that women with low self-esteem are more amenable to focusing solely on male pleasure at the abandonment of their own (it would stand to reason both sexually and non-sexually). Going, "It isn't faaair that men like young women!" keeps us right where society wants us: amenable to abandoning other pursuits in order to pursue the most important pursuit -- desirability.

The best counter to this conversation is to promote discussion of what females find sexually preferable. Which is a lot of different and varied things, and this discussion will probably require many more years of the, "Yes, women can like sex, too!" conversation (as elementary as that fucking seems to me). But let all of this be a lesson to you guys.

Next time you feel like taking shit up in an internets' comments section, write a blog instead.