May 12, 2014: Hungover at church
You are only feeling attached to [NAME 1] because you are in a vulnerable place right now. You realize that your self-esteem and worth have been compromised, and you have become dependent on others' approval for satisfaction with yourself. Because you are feeling insecure, you want someone who will be an anchor. Someone who will give you that approval. And because you are in this vulnerable place, your desire to date [NAME 1] has returned with more powerful force. You want to be known and loved, which are good things. But a relationship can be an easy and dangerous out when you aren't comfortable by yourself. It can only be a quick fix. It is so important to still be yourself in a relationship and not to conform to who the other person is. And if i were to get with [NAME 1], I fear that would happen. You haven't even talked to him about faith and whatnot. I bet there would be a discrepancy there.
People want what they can't have. And I want [NAME 1], but I can't have him.
Even if I could have him, I don't think I should go for it. He hasn't shown himself to be interested enough. I need a partner who will make time for me. Where I won't be the only one who calls him up. I don't deserve to be in a relationship where I'm the only one putting in effort. I'm worth a lot more than that. I'm worth someone's effort and time. Anything less would be me settling. I need to shoot high and hope that someone else can keep up with me. Someone who is sweet, caring compassionate, sympathetic, patient, cuddly, strong, intelligent, secure, and adorable.
July 18, 2014: At a club in New York
I can't do this. I didn't plan for clubbing. I'm not nearly dressed appropriately, I'm feeling insecure about my body, and I'm in a place I don't know. And I'm tired. And everyone here is so much more attractive than I am--and then there's me.
[FRIEND 1] is attractive and dressed fine. [FRIEND 2] got someone to say he was cute. And me? I'm just there. Being awkward.
November 14, 2014: Thoughts on the events of the last two days
[NAME 2] checked in on Facebook that he was at a dermatology place, and he provided the caption, "Time to play 'How many stabs in the chest does it take to make [NAME 2] cry.'" And my emotional reaction to that post took me quite by surprise. I had a vision of me sitting right by him in the dermatologist's office. I wanted to be the one to hold his hand and tell him it would all be over soon. I wanted to be the one who was embracing him as he felt the pain from the shots. I wanted to be the one to wipe away his tears as they slowly rolled down his cheeks. More generally, I wanted to be the one that gives him comfort and security. I wanted to protect him from getting hurt.
I had a similar reaction with [NAME 3] last night. I took him to the hospital for strep throat. And I wanted more than anything else to be confused for his partner. As we sat in the waiting room for his name to be called, I wanted to hold his hand. When he was called, he actually invited me to go back with him, but I decline, even though I wanted to be the one whom he trusts so much that I can hear his medical information.
But these desires will not be met. [NAME 3] has friend-zoned me, and [NAME 2] has told me that there is another guy that he is about to become exclusive with. These images that I have will never be realities.
But I cannot wait for the day when that person comes into my life.
November 14, 2014: Waiting for the BART train after a phone call
I
mean, I can't say I'm surprised that [NAME 1] has a boyfriend. But it
still makes me feel weird. Like, I don't really hurt that much, but I
sort of do. I can't figure out what I'm feeling. I'm trying to describe
what is going through my head, but I don't know. There's nothing. Like, I
don't know if I'm jealous, hurt, sad, happy for him, or if I
legitimately don't care and am over him. I can't determine it.
Also,
[NAME 1] said he wants to hang out. Only if he makes the effort. I now
have no reason to even try. And it's funny that hanging out with him
doesn't even come across his mind until I called him up.
July 10, 2015: Sitting in my car
We are learning life lessons: never go to a social gathering if the host is the only person you know.
Consider that one time you went to Town with [FRIEND 3] and a bunch of his friends. Or that time you went to [FRIEND 4]'s wedding. Or tonight at [NAME 2]'s party. I'm glad I left before I had an anxiety attack, but I can't help but feel that I should have known better. Of course that was going to happen.
Monday, July 13, 2015
Tuesday, July 7, 2015
Summer Vacation should be abolished
Summer vacation is a product of the early days of the American education system. During this period, many students lived on farms and were required to help at home with the annual harvest. Summer vacation was created to allow ample time for students to help on the farms without missing out on instruction. The vacation thus became cemented into the American education system, and it is a legacy which we have to this day. It is one of the most prized aspects of education, and it provides a tangible goal for students ("I just have to make it through three more weeks of school, and then summer!"). However, since we no longer live in an agricultural society, the annual practice of giving a vacation only continues because of tradition.
Tradition is not a good enough reason to keep doing something, especially when the harmful effects of summer vacation have been shown.
The negative effects of summer vacation's learning loss can be abated by parents placing children in various enrichment programs such as academic camps or private lessons, but studies show that lower-class families are less likely to take these steps, usually for financial reasons. Thus, while summer vacation hurts all students, it in particular hurts lower-class students more and students who are English language learners.
Aside from the scholarly arguments, I have some cases of my own for why summer vacation should be abolished.
First of all, having a summer vacation through college creates unrealistic expectations for adulthood. There is no such thing as "summer vacation" in the adult world, and it is ridiculous for us to raise children to practice having an extended break. Besides, when you are a student, that is your job--to study. It should be treated as such, without 3-month breaks. Instead, we could create "vacation days" for students just as there are vacation days for working adults. I will touch on this more near the end.
Second, abolishing summer could speed the educational process along. In elementary school in particular, there is a ton of overlap between different grade levels of math. Also, a lot of time is spent at the beginning of each school year reviewing the content from the previous year. If summer vacation were eliminated, a lot of instruction time could be saved. This could either allow students to learn more material in 13 years of school (perhaps it could become standard to introduce Calculus in the K-12 system), or it could reduce the 13-year process to maybe 8 or 9 years. Students could then spend some time deciding on a field of interest before deciding what to study in college.
Third, eliminating summer would eliminate the pressure that many students feel to find a summer job. The whole concept of a "summer job" is becoming increasingly rare, particularly since the Great Recession (I have had personal experience with that). My inability to find a summer job after I graduated high school was a leading cause in my depression spells that summer--I felt useless, worthless, and guilted by my parents.
On a similar note (this is maybe point 3.5), teaching could become a more financially intelligent career option. Even though teachers are currently woefully underpaid given the critical social work that they do, an argument goes that they are paid so little because they only work 9 months out of the year. True, but do you really think they are going to be able to find another source of income in the other 3 months? Teachers do a lot of preparatory work in the off-months anyway. Abolishing summer vacation would justify paying teachers a year-round salary. But won't increased public costs in wages be an issue? one might argue. I suspect that costs would probably stay about the same, if students finished the 13-year track in 8 or 9 years.
In my ideal world, what would a school year look like? The year should be divided into four quarters (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December), with one school year extending from January to December. (This way, we could say "the 2014 school year" rather than "the 2013-2014 school year.") There would be a week-long break after quarters 1 and 3, and there would be a 3-week long break after quarters 2 and 4. Three weeks is long enough for families to take vacations. As mentioned above, students could also have maybe 15-20 "vacation days" per year that they could use throughout the school year, in the same manner as for full-time adult employees. That could help offset the congested airports and roadways that would surely result from the 3-week semester breaks. Students would then finish the K-12 education in 8 or 9 years, and then spend a couple years working or figuring out what interests them so that they can be better prepared to select a college major.
Of course, this will never happen. Summer vacation is too treasured of a thing for the system to change, as evidenced by the movie Recess: School's Out!. It is nice to dream of a more sensible, equitable, and efficient education system, though.
Tradition is not a good enough reason to keep doing something, especially when the harmful effects of summer vacation have been shown.
The negative effects of summer vacation's learning loss can be abated by parents placing children in various enrichment programs such as academic camps or private lessons, but studies show that lower-class families are less likely to take these steps, usually for financial reasons. Thus, while summer vacation hurts all students, it in particular hurts lower-class students more and students who are English language learners.
Aside from the scholarly arguments, I have some cases of my own for why summer vacation should be abolished.
First of all, having a summer vacation through college creates unrealistic expectations for adulthood. There is no such thing as "summer vacation" in the adult world, and it is ridiculous for us to raise children to practice having an extended break. Besides, when you are a student, that is your job--to study. It should be treated as such, without 3-month breaks. Instead, we could create "vacation days" for students just as there are vacation days for working adults. I will touch on this more near the end.
Second, abolishing summer could speed the educational process along. In elementary school in particular, there is a ton of overlap between different grade levels of math. Also, a lot of time is spent at the beginning of each school year reviewing the content from the previous year. If summer vacation were eliminated, a lot of instruction time could be saved. This could either allow students to learn more material in 13 years of school (perhaps it could become standard to introduce Calculus in the K-12 system), or it could reduce the 13-year process to maybe 8 or 9 years. Students could then spend some time deciding on a field of interest before deciding what to study in college.
Third, eliminating summer would eliminate the pressure that many students feel to find a summer job. The whole concept of a "summer job" is becoming increasingly rare, particularly since the Great Recession (I have had personal experience with that). My inability to find a summer job after I graduated high school was a leading cause in my depression spells that summer--I felt useless, worthless, and guilted by my parents.
On a similar note (this is maybe point 3.5), teaching could become a more financially intelligent career option. Even though teachers are currently woefully underpaid given the critical social work that they do, an argument goes that they are paid so little because they only work 9 months out of the year. True, but do you really think they are going to be able to find another source of income in the other 3 months? Teachers do a lot of preparatory work in the off-months anyway. Abolishing summer vacation would justify paying teachers a year-round salary. But won't increased public costs in wages be an issue? one might argue. I suspect that costs would probably stay about the same, if students finished the 13-year track in 8 or 9 years.
In my ideal world, what would a school year look like? The year should be divided into four quarters (January-March, April-June, July-September, October-December), with one school year extending from January to December. (This way, we could say "the 2014 school year" rather than "the 2013-2014 school year.") There would be a week-long break after quarters 1 and 3, and there would be a 3-week long break after quarters 2 and 4. Three weeks is long enough for families to take vacations. As mentioned above, students could also have maybe 15-20 "vacation days" per year that they could use throughout the school year, in the same manner as for full-time adult employees. That could help offset the congested airports and roadways that would surely result from the 3-week semester breaks. Students would then finish the K-12 education in 8 or 9 years, and then spend a couple years working or figuring out what interests them so that they can be better prepared to select a college major.
Of course, this will never happen. Summer vacation is too treasured of a thing for the system to change, as evidenced by the movie Recess: School's Out!. It is nice to dream of a more sensible, equitable, and efficient education system, though.
Sunday, July 5, 2015
A reminder to myself about this blog
I frequently read articles and blog posts on the internet, and I often find myself intimidated. I am floored by the writing quality and poignant insights, and I compare them to what I write here. It makes me want to labor intensively over every single post so that I can capture my exact thoughts and make every sentence flow together seamlessly; or it makes me want to just quit because I know I can never compete with the other writers.
But then I remember that I am not writing these posts for other people. I am writing for myself. My blog is an exercise for me to find ways to express my thoughts, and to give myself validity to my insights.
I also think that my stream-of-consciousness, imperfectly-organized, shaky-logic posts would lose some of their authenticity and organicity (probably not a real word, but there is no noun form of "organic") if I were to spend hours over each post. Ain't nobody got time for that!
Besides, I'm not a writer. I'm an engineer. I simply don't have the gift for writing that others do. And that's okay.
So, what does it matter how my posts turn out? My thoughts on an issue are not less valid because they are less eloquent than someone else's thoughts on the issue.
But then I remember that I am not writing these posts for other people. I am writing for myself. My blog is an exercise for me to find ways to express my thoughts, and to give myself validity to my insights.
I also think that my stream-of-consciousness, imperfectly-organized, shaky-logic posts would lose some of their authenticity and organicity (probably not a real word, but there is no noun form of "organic") if I were to spend hours over each post. Ain't nobody got time for that!
Besides, I'm not a writer. I'm an engineer. I simply don't have the gift for writing that others do. And that's okay.
So, what does it matter how my posts turn out? My thoughts on an issue are not less valid because they are less eloquent than someone else's thoughts on the issue.
Friday, July 3, 2015
Three posts on LGBT stuff: "The personal story" (3)
This one is different from the previous two because it is not about practices that I have a problem with; it is a personal experience, and I am writing to process what I am feeling. I just included it in this bundle because it is related to LGBT stuff.
I had a friend and roommate in college who was super-Christian, but he also had a history with gay sex. He did not hide what he did his past, but he strove to suppress who he was in the past. This took the form of him searching hard for emotional intimacy in a girlfriend, while subtly disapproving of and condemning those of us who had made peace with our sexual identities. When I first met the guy, I respected him so much; when I heard of his past with gay sex, I respected him even more because I thought I had found common ground in him. But as I found out, he was unwilling to revisit his past experiences as a possible indication of his identity. He tried so hard to ensure his experiences were just a mistake, and were not part of who he was.
Because of his stance on gay sex/relationships and his past experiences, he was in the perfect position to be revered in the Christian circles we both found ourselves in. He was idolized as "the gay guy who had made it." "Look at him; he is proof that it is possible to overcome this struggle you are facing." That drove me nuts. His situation discredited all the experiences I had had and all the thinking that I had done to arrive at my beliefs on the issue.
I feared for his first girlfriend. I was never convinced that he was "over" his past, so I feared that she would fall for him, and he might fall for her; but the truth would eventually manifest itself and her heart would be broken. That is why when he finally met someone, I didn't want it to happen. Every time he described her as "so beautiful" and "so attractive," I was not convinced. It seemed to me as if he was trying so hard to force himself to feel this way about her because of his beliefs on gay sex and relationships. He did finally admit to me that he was probably bi.
Fast-forward two years. I get a text from him one night informing me that he and his girlfriend broke up because he realized that he is "just gay." He also included a brief apology because he said that he "was stupid and wrong . . . and it's good for people to have people."
I was shocked. I did not see that coming. I'm all for it, but I didn't expect him to change his mind on the issue. I thought he was going to get married to his girlfriend; they had started doing pre-engagement counseling. An evil part of me wanted to say, "I told you so!" or "I knew it!" but of course, that wouldn't be very tactful considering his situation. He still seeks intimacy and commitment, so he says he will see other people when he's ready. Now I'm having to forgive the person that he used to be. He could almost be called a hypocrite for disapproving of those of us who had stuff about ourselves figured out a few years ago. He had hurt me quite a bit in the past, but now it's ok for him to allow himself to feel the way that I have for years? I'm finding that that is hard for me to let go of, at least right now. I'm sure this is just reactionary, and it will disappear with time.
Because, ultimately, I am happy for him. I am happy that he is finally being honest with himself. I am happy that he got out of the relationship he was in before there was a marriage license attached to it. And I am happy that he now accepts a word to describe his identity--I remember how liberating that was for me, because it placed me into a community and let me know that I was not alone. Insert abrupt ending here.
I had a friend and roommate in college who was super-Christian, but he also had a history with gay sex. He did not hide what he did his past, but he strove to suppress who he was in the past. This took the form of him searching hard for emotional intimacy in a girlfriend, while subtly disapproving of and condemning those of us who had made peace with our sexual identities. When I first met the guy, I respected him so much; when I heard of his past with gay sex, I respected him even more because I thought I had found common ground in him. But as I found out, he was unwilling to revisit his past experiences as a possible indication of his identity. He tried so hard to ensure his experiences were just a mistake, and were not part of who he was.
Because of his stance on gay sex/relationships and his past experiences, he was in the perfect position to be revered in the Christian circles we both found ourselves in. He was idolized as "the gay guy who had made it." "Look at him; he is proof that it is possible to overcome this struggle you are facing." That drove me nuts. His situation discredited all the experiences I had had and all the thinking that I had done to arrive at my beliefs on the issue.
I feared for his first girlfriend. I was never convinced that he was "over" his past, so I feared that she would fall for him, and he might fall for her; but the truth would eventually manifest itself and her heart would be broken. That is why when he finally met someone, I didn't want it to happen. Every time he described her as "so beautiful" and "so attractive," I was not convinced. It seemed to me as if he was trying so hard to force himself to feel this way about her because of his beliefs on gay sex and relationships. He did finally admit to me that he was probably bi.
Fast-forward two years. I get a text from him one night informing me that he and his girlfriend broke up because he realized that he is "just gay." He also included a brief apology because he said that he "was stupid and wrong . . . and it's good for people to have people."
I was shocked. I did not see that coming. I'm all for it, but I didn't expect him to change his mind on the issue. I thought he was going to get married to his girlfriend; they had started doing pre-engagement counseling. An evil part of me wanted to say, "I told you so!" or "I knew it!" but of course, that wouldn't be very tactful considering his situation. He still seeks intimacy and commitment, so he says he will see other people when he's ready. Now I'm having to forgive the person that he used to be. He could almost be called a hypocrite for disapproving of those of us who had stuff about ourselves figured out a few years ago. He had hurt me quite a bit in the past, but now it's ok for him to allow himself to feel the way that I have for years? I'm finding that that is hard for me to let go of, at least right now. I'm sure this is just reactionary, and it will disappear with time.
Because, ultimately, I am happy for him. I am happy that he is finally being honest with himself. I am happy that he got out of the relationship he was in before there was a marriage license attached to it. And I am happy that he now accepts a word to describe his identity--I remember how liberating that was for me, because it placed me into a community and let me know that I was not alone. Insert abrupt ending here.
Three posts on LGBT stuff: "Pride Festivals" (2)
SF Pride is never that exciting for me.
Pride has lost its authenticity, in my view. It is always swarming with non-LGBT people who attend "just for the experience" and as an excuse to wear silly rainbow costumes and to get drunk. Additionally, the parade is pretty much a processional of corporate sponsorship for LGBT rights. It can be a huge positive marketing ploy if your company brands itself as an ally and marches in the parade. The freebies that many companies hand out while processing is also an easy way to advertise. And, groups that hand freebies out detract from other groups that perhaps are more legitimate for the LGBT cause but are not handing freebies out. The parade gives the impression that corporate allies are the face of LGBT rights.
All this wouldn't be that much of a problem for me if Pride would just be honest about what it is. But the fact that it keeps trying to brand itself as a community solidarity and bonding event is just plain misleading.
A friend of mine posted an on-point status:
"Dear non-queer people in SF today:
Today is not for you. Pride is not a rite of passage for you to get "cool points," nor does it exist so you can finally get turned up in your rainbow tutu.
In light of the recent SCOTUS decision, this day is even more for those who lived through the HIV/AIDS crisis without being able to visit their partners, and for gay and lesbian couples to finally know that should they choose to, their love is now protected legally in about 1,300 new ways.
Pride has lost its authenticity, in my view. It is always swarming with non-LGBT people who attend "just for the experience" and as an excuse to wear silly rainbow costumes and to get drunk. Additionally, the parade is pretty much a processional of corporate sponsorship for LGBT rights. It can be a huge positive marketing ploy if your company brands itself as an ally and marches in the parade. The freebies that many companies hand out while processing is also an easy way to advertise. And, groups that hand freebies out detract from other groups that perhaps are more legitimate for the LGBT cause but are not handing freebies out. The parade gives the impression that corporate allies are the face of LGBT rights.
All this wouldn't be that much of a problem for me if Pride would just be honest about what it is. But the fact that it keeps trying to brand itself as a community solidarity and bonding event is just plain misleading.
A friend of mine posted an on-point status:
"Dear non-queer people in SF today:
Today is not for you. Pride is not a rite of passage for you to get "cool points," nor does it exist so you can finally get turned up in your rainbow tutu.
In light of the recent SCOTUS decision, this day is even more for those who lived through the HIV/AIDS crisis without being able to visit their partners, and for gay and lesbian couples to finally know that should they choose to, their love is now protected legally in about 1,300 new ways.
Pride is for my community to be visible, to be celebrated, to reflect
and to re-commit to lifting up all in our community. We are grateful for
our allies and happy to have you at our party.
But this is still not your party."
And this article sums my issues up pretty well too:
When, Exactly, Did Pride Become A Party For Straight Teens?
But this is still not your party."
And this article sums my issues up pretty well too:
When, Exactly, Did Pride Become A Party For Straight Teens?
Three posts on LGBT stuff: "Gay Best Friend" (1)
I have issues with the whole "gay best friend" thing.
First of all, having a "gay best friend" is objectifying. Younger women are often super proud that they have someone that they can call a "gay best friend," and he is often used to increase the woman's social status. After all, every woman wants to have a "gay best friend"--a man that they can talk to about girl stuff without fear of any romantic attraction developing. In short, the gay best friend is a multi-use tool for the woman: useful for making other women jealous, useful for increasing her social status, and useful as a sounding board.
Second, "gay best friend" is a phrase that reinforces the differentiation from normal society that gay guys face all the time. The "gay best friend" has to constantly be clarified that he is the GAY best friend. Rather than holding the position of "best friend," the man is placed into a separate category that he can neatly slide into. His gayness is always emphasized, which effectively serves to continue differentiating him from the normal population.
Third, "gay best friend" reinforces stereotypes. Best friends are often best friends because they have a lot in common; a gay man often achieves the status of being "gay best friend" because he is a more effeminate man ("OMG that outfit is so cute on you!") and the woman feels that he is a safe person to discuss her thoughts and feelings with. Suppose a woman has an effeminate "gay best friend." Now suppose he was not as effeminate. In that case, he might never achieve the same emotional intimacy with her, and he might never have achieved the title "gay best friend." This implies that femininity of gay men is valued among women seeking a "gay best friend," which serves to reinforce stereotypes of gay men as effeminate.
Logic may have been a little shaky in the above points, but I hope the general concepts make sense. I had to pump this one out so I can get to writing the other two posts.
First of all, having a "gay best friend" is objectifying. Younger women are often super proud that they have someone that they can call a "gay best friend," and he is often used to increase the woman's social status. After all, every woman wants to have a "gay best friend"--a man that they can talk to about girl stuff without fear of any romantic attraction developing. In short, the gay best friend is a multi-use tool for the woman: useful for making other women jealous, useful for increasing her social status, and useful as a sounding board.
Second, "gay best friend" is a phrase that reinforces the differentiation from normal society that gay guys face all the time. The "gay best friend" has to constantly be clarified that he is the GAY best friend. Rather than holding the position of "best friend," the man is placed into a separate category that he can neatly slide into. His gayness is always emphasized, which effectively serves to continue differentiating him from the normal population.
Third, "gay best friend" reinforces stereotypes. Best friends are often best friends because they have a lot in common; a gay man often achieves the status of being "gay best friend" because he is a more effeminate man ("OMG that outfit is so cute on you!") and the woman feels that he is a safe person to discuss her thoughts and feelings with. Suppose a woman has an effeminate "gay best friend." Now suppose he was not as effeminate. In that case, he might never achieve the same emotional intimacy with her, and he might never have achieved the title "gay best friend." This implies that femininity of gay men is valued among women seeking a "gay best friend," which serves to reinforce stereotypes of gay men as effeminate.
Logic may have been a little shaky in the above points, but I hope the general concepts make sense. I had to pump this one out so I can get to writing the other two posts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)