Facebook withdrawal

I'm currently Facebook fasting because sometimes Facebook is addictive and I think that I spent more time on Facebook than its true-to-life value. As withdrawals go, I imagine, the thought occurred to me to check Facebook frequently after I first deactivated my account. That thought is gradually decreasing, so maybe someday I'll have the wherewithal to Facebook without being compulsive about it, and also fasting increases your self-control (so I hear). In the meantime, I'm enjoying the freedom. Now if I could just stop working at my job, I would have no reason to ever get on the Internet, practically, and my liberation would be complete.

Why is social media sometimes addictive? Don't make me feel pathetic by telling me that I'm the only one who is somewhat compulsive about Facebook (or instead insert other form of social media here) usage, and let's just humor the possibility that I might be a normal human being for the sake of this blog post. I may actually be pretty normal, only I might be a little more willing to admit that I have issues and describe them to you in minute detail than most normal human beings? That's weird, right? Anyway, this social media addiction: it's a thing, right? Why is it even a thing? Husband, being the great person he is, was willing to honestly entertain the question and said something about an unceasing flow of new content, and I think there's definitely something to that.

Also, I realized that most of the people who I see updates from most often on Facebook are actually people I was only acquainted with back in high school, and these are people who I don't know if I could have called real-life friends, even then. I wish my real-life friends presented me with a constant stream of new content about their lives, but alas, they're probably too busy living their lives.

women bodies, part 3

As was the inspiration for my last post about modesty, I read an interesting article shared on Facebook: this one's about pornography.

I don't really know much about porn, but I have been seriously wondering: Why isn't there more feminist agitation to change or eliminate pornography? How does pornography help improve equality and opportunity for women? Maybe no one is arguing that it does, and maybe it would be silly to, but it does seem like there is a broad swath of women who think that pornography is a normal, healthy sexual outlet for men, and even boys. Beyond being pernicious for its highly addictive nature, I don't get why so many people think pornography is okay, because disrespect to women seems like a pretty foundational and fundamental component of the industry. Aren't women just generally hurt by pornography?

It is frustrating to me that so many women who claim to be forward-thinking, self-respecting, and independent seem perfectly happy to participate in a very phallo-centric worldview of the nature of sex. I'm not expecting the whole world to agree with my moral code, but it does seem shocking that so many obviously anti-woman values reflected in the media and especially pornography are considered perfectly acceptable.

I'm just confused: can someone tell me why there isn't much of an anti-porn feminist movement? Not to diminish some of the heartfelt and honest movements that exist to improve things for women, but it's strange to me that there is so much emotion and effort going into some issues, and yet there is not a large collective, organized movement to at least combat the way sex is portrayed in the ginormous porn industry. Pornography seems like a much more glaring and obvious feminist problem to me.  

women bodies, part 2

There have been a couple of articles going around Facebook lately about modesty. Seems like that's always somewhat of a hot topic, actually. In a way, that modesty is even a raging debate seems a bit odd, because it it really anyone's business what I'm wearing? In a way, I think I should be able to walk around naked without drawing any unwonted (and unwanted) attention. But believing that I can is simply naive. Such is the world we live in.

At the same time, I'm actually pleased that this debate rages on, and I am interested and invested in the larger conversation as a woman and (dare I label myself?) feminist. I think we all should think about how we talk to and about women.

I read an article that seems to have instigated the most recent debate, "FYI (If you're a teenage girl)", and while I didn't initially have as much of a response to it (either positive or negative) I got to thinking and decided I both disagree and agree with the overall message.

Allow me to indulge:

I agree that young women should be aware that the way they present themselves matters and that modesty can have a big impact on the way they are viewed. The way women dress can invite objectification and sexualization. That is unfortunate, because I don't think that any woman really wants to be a sexual object. If a woman dresses in a way that draws attention to her sexual features, it does not mean she wants to be raped, star in a porn film, or work as a prostitute. So please let's not assume that any woman desires these experiences based on a misguided appeal for, I assume, some genuine love and attention. Or maybe she just wants to look pretty for her own sake, simply to feel good? Or perhaps she's just trying, heaven forbid, to make it easier and more convenient to FEED HER BABY? (Blargh. That is another topic, perhaps.)

I also agree that young men are biologically programmed to be sexually stimulated by visual cues, which presents some difficulty in the whole attempt to avoid objectifying women. It's an unfortunate fact, but one that has to be acknowledged. The author of the "FYI" article seems to claim that a tasteless Facebook selfie automatically reduces young women to evil objects of lust. While the prevalence of social media can create some problems in forging a very limited identity based on one's digital footprint, I definitely think we're sending the wrong message to women when we essentially tell them that what men think about them and how men treat women are the woman's responsibility ultimately.

I understand the need for men, young and old alike, to exercise some vigilance in actively avoiding salacious material. But to cut off contact completely with anyone who presents themselves in an immodest manner seems also to be problematic. We are not movies to be turned off and on at will. It reinforces the idea that the most important thing about a woman is her body and how she chooses to present herself, and it also refuses to acknowledge the reality that despite vigilance, you are never going to be able to completely avoid exposure to titillating images. Such is the world we live in.

It's a given that young men, or men in general, are not subject to the same considerations when it comes to modesty. There are a lot of people who are upset that the blog post from the mother of teenage boys, in her message about protecting their virtue, included pictures of her sons in bathing suits. Apparently the irony that her boys could freely gallivant at the beach with nary a concern about anyone else's virtue was initially lost on her. I suppose it's a little ironic, though it also isn't. It makes sense. As I mentioned earlier, men are generally stimulated by visual cues. Such is the world we live in. And I think I'm not much amiss when I say that this is not a biological trait characteristic of women. Seeing a man expose himself may actually be one of the worst ways to attract me. (Am I right, ladies?) So we may call it a double standard, but maybe the way women and men dress are not analogous, and we should acknowledge there are different standards applying to each.

I think we do both men and women a disservice: we teach them both to view themselves and others as purely products of their biology. Men are entitled to pursue their sexual desires in whatever format offers the most instantaneous gratification, and women are taught to consider themselves only as far as men can see them.

It is tricky to send a balanced message to both sexes that doesn't reduce an individual to a single-faceted being. But I loved this article written in response the "FYI" article: "Seeing a woman: A conversation between a father and son." Both articles use the line, "You are more than that." The ultimate message we want to send in this conversation is that we are all human and we want to respect ourselves and each other as human beings. Though influenced by our biology, we are who we choose to be.

ignorance about women bodies

Apparently a hot question right now is "Why does Kate Middleton still look pregnant?" It's possible some who ask the Internet this question wonder why the duchess doesn't act like a superhuman celebrity and have an insane body that doesn't follow the standard conventions of biology, but I think most people might just be ignorant.

I don't consider myself desperately ignorant, but I honestly did not know before I was pregnant that after commuting my spawn from fetus to newborn (surprise! a baby!), my weight would only regress about three months at first. I really didn't know!

And, honestly, I still know so few facts about women bodies. There is something very wrong-seeming about that. It might be just that my poor observation skills, as I'm sure I was exposed to hundreds of realistic postpartum figures even if not in my immediate household. But perhaps my attention was also drawn aside to more unrealistic models of womanliness as portrayed in the media I consumed. I don't know that I considered authenticity in those portrayals much at all before surrendering my body to pregnancy, birth, and my child's suckling lips. But these days I think about it a lot, and I wonder why there isn't more open and honest conversation about bodies and how they are made. 

I haven't really followed the press on Kate Middleton, but my impression is that she is authentic in the way she presents herself, unlike many other celebrities out there. It seems a shame that it takes more courage to be natural than to kill yourself (almost literally) to fit some crazy ideal that I'm not sure anyone, male or female, really believes in wholly.`Though we don't adopt such views wholesale, I imagine we all buy in to some degree. 

The older I get, the more I think that our bodies are way more interconnected with every other aspect of our lives than I ever imagined, especially women bodies. Since it's on my mind more these days, I feel like I'm slowly learning things that I really wish I had known and learned about a long, long time ago. And I just have to wonder: Why didn't I know?

Me, 7 days postpartum:

comma or no comma? adjective edition

Sometimes I get the urge to do blog posts about grammar topics as a public service, but my explanations would be no better than more consecrated grammar resources, probably, so I don't. Today is an exception, my friends.

Right now I'm reading Grammar Girl's article "Commas with Adjectives." It can sometimes be a confusing question: Do I put commas between these adjectives or not?

To summarize Grammar Girl's article, you can determine whether a comma is needed by determining if the adjective is coordinating (comma needed) or cumulative (comma not needed). Can you put the word "and" between the two adjectives? Then they're coordinating, and they each equally modify the noun. Otherwise they are cumulative, and the order of the adjectives is important, as some of them join with the noun to form a sort of unit.

So in case you were wondering about this, but you wanted to read fewer paragraphs than Grammar Girl's article because you're feeling lazy (and who isn't?), maybe this blog post is useful.

virtual pin: bedtime routine

Pinterest can't find anything pinnable, so I'll use my blog to keep this link tucked away for future use:

http://keltymentalhealth.ca/healthy-living/bedtime-routine

Cool customizable bedtime routine chart for toddlers!

wardrobe musings

Spring is in the air, I guess, so I decided to go through my closet and I've now got an itch to refresh my wardrobe because I kind of hate everything in my closet. Recently, new wardrobe acquisitions have come from Savers and DI, but I find when I do that, I strike out maybe just as often as I succeed. In my discard pile are a few thrift-store finds purchased in the past six months or so. I think I want to buy clothes sometimes, like right now, but I also really hate the process. Shopping ends up being pretty unrewarding because I'm terrible at it. Plus I don't feel like I have the time and money and energy to do it.

I actually have one pair of pants that I got at Costco recently that ended up fitting surprisingly well, and I love them. I think it actually does improve my quality of life a little bit to have clothes that I feel fit well and look good. I'm not sure if the cost-benefit analysis proves promising, though.

About half of my tops, or maybe more, are currently out of commission: either they don't facilitate nursing or they're fancier and uncomfortable, and I'm lazy. I don't really wear anything unless I can pull down the neck to nurse. The hidden cost of pregnancy and nursing is clothes; I find myself wearing three stretchy Down East v-necks most of the time, and they are showing considerable wear. Where does one go to find reasonably fitted, low-cost, stretchy-neckline, resilient tops anyway?

Whatever, though. If I don't analyze it too much, I realize I'm fine wearing the same clothes multiple days in a row, and that's what I end up doing. As long as it's not (noticeably) stained or smelly, who cares.

hair cut

I took the plunge and whacked off my hair. It is now shorter than I've ever had it.

Here it is:

Oh wait. That's Carey Mulligan. I showed this photo to the stylist cutting my hair, but I still looked pretty much like myself and not Carey at the end. What's up with that?

So here is a crappy web cam shot of me, really.

after-hours phone duty

As you may or may not already know, we are "on call" for the funeral home on a rotating basis (sharing the responsibility with the other resident apartment couple). This evening I answered the phone and said "Deathtime [not actual name] Funeral Home; this is Amanda." In response, I heard "Hi. This is Grim Reaper [not actual name]." Pause.

This particular pause was a little too lengthy for me to just feel comfortable carrying on in anticipatory silence. What I should have done was say "Hi Grim, how can I help you?" But I, being me, can't do something NORMAL spontaneously. Of course not. So my response? A chipper "Hi!" Then another pause. I giggle awkwardly.

Finally, Grim cut straight to the chase with the reason for his call: "My wife just passed away." 

Clearly I do not know how to handle this job.

 

 

i ♥ babies

I'm baffled by how precious newborns are. I never really caught the vision of babies until I had one of my own. And he is growing TOO FAST. I wondered if I would understand "baby hunger" after I had a baby, and I think despite feeling like I was about to vomit about 90% of the time during pregnancy (the other 10% was a combination of pre-morning-sickness, in ignorant knocked-up bliss, and also actually vomiting), and despite a somewhat horrific birth experience (which even now, a short 7 months later, doesn't seem quite so awful as it did at the time), I might want another someday. Because, well, newborns: aren't they just so sweet? If we have the opportunity to experience being parents of a new baby again, please bless he/she isn't colicky. But even if colic did encroach on Shep's sweet newborn qualities a bit, it was still super neat and so ephemeral.