Posts

So a couple of my good friends/loyal blog readers have commented to me in person that I have not had one of my relationship rants/discussions in quite a while.

Well, let's see.  I've covered so much - speed-dating, online dating, living together before marriage, how to propose, where to meet someone, how to break up with someone (it does not involve a post-it), unrequited love, settling for mr. good enough, how to handle it when one doesn't like her friend's significant other, the list goes on and on.

I think I've simply run out of material.

Or have I?  Any suggestions, my readers?  These are the meaty posts that I like to write the best.  I guess nothing's come to mind for me on this subject in quite a while.  Any thoughts?

Please give me a lead.  You can lead a horse to water; I just may drink.   Especially if the water is disguised as coffee, cherry coke, or riesling.

Busy Busy

Carrie Bradshaw to the random businessman who bumps her on the street:
You're so busy...you're SO busy!!!

Is it just me, or does it drive any of my readers nuts when people constantly complain on how incredibly busy they are?  What is this, an epidemic lately?  The reason it bothers me is not I don't believe these people are busy, it's that, newsflash, WE ALL ARE.  In theory, if 'busy' is an acceptable excuse for having not done something, then EVERYONE could use it for EVERYTHING.

That, and people who actually are busy don't need to say it.  You had a baby last week?  Yeah, you're probably busy.  You don't need to explain it.  And THESE people usually don't.  I hate it when you ask someone a simple, reasonable request and they give you a dissertation on everything they've been up to lately - in the amount of time he or she spent making him or herself look/sound important, he or she could have instead performed said task.  That, and some of these 'busy' folks have simply overcommitted themselves.  Not that that's a crime, but again, that was said individual's decision.  Didn't you know what you were getting into when you volunteered for 85 different projects?

That, and this reminds of an episode of Oprah (I know, blush) where they staged interventions on people who were hiding from reality in what seemed to be socially acceptable outlets.  There was a woman who worked 110 hours a week at 3 separate jobs.  She made it out that she was trying to make the extra money to support her family, but according to her husband, they didn't really need it to live comfortably. In reality, she was avoiding her home because she was unhappy in her marriage and constantly arguing with her kids.  Had she chosen to deal with this problem by say, drugs or alcohol, people would have been all over her from the get-go, however, since she was hiding from her life in a 'socially acceptable' outlet, people who knew her looked the other way.  I think this is probably the case of a couple 'constantly super busy' people I know.  Not that they're unhappy with their marriages/kids, but that they're just making themselves busy as a means of avoiding dealing with something.

Sorry for the rant.  I am not really sure where this came from.

The Million Dollar Question

So I was reading my Glamour magazine today, and there was an article that asked a lot of hard-hitting, up for debate questions. One of them being 'should you tell a friend when you don't like her boyfriend?'

This is really quite the question. Those who took the 'no' stance in said article articulated all my past experiences with the subject - the odds of it making said significant other go away are slim to none, it will only cause said friend to distance herself (or himself) from you, said friend will not be completely honest with you about future issues in the relationship because he/she will be afraid you are judging or will pressure him/her to leave, etc. Basically, it will only hurt the friendship.

Now - quick disclaimer. I have experience in both a) telling a friend she should get out of a relationship, then having said friend having lukewarm feelings toward me and b) not saying anything because I knew it would totally ruin the friendship, but watching a friend of mine be mistreated and silently wishing the bastard away.

I think the obvious answer is 'no, one cannot tell someone she doesn't like her boyfriend'. Said friend needs to reach the decision to leave on her own; she's a capable adult and hopefully will do so.

However.

A small part of me feels awkward sitting there in silence. Isn't it a friend's job to tell her friend she deserves better? Granted - no one is perfect, we all have different standards for what we want in a significant other, different non-negotiables, etc. However, recently a good friend posed the question to me, when speaking of her boyfriend, 'you like him, right?' Well, in this particular instance, I do. But, would I say something if I didn't?

If I was in a relationship where I was being mistreated, I would want my friends to say so. Although, also, a small part of me wonders that, if I was in a relationship where I wasn't being treated right, what kind of frame of mind am I in? Am I seeing clearly? I'm guessing no. Therefore, would I take my friend's advice the right way? Hard to say. What's more important, doing what one feels is right or putting the friendship first? However, if one were to, per se, do what she feels is right and then her friend stays in the relationship AND writes her off as a friend, there's no hope of helping the friend out of the relationship, ever. So it could be a lose lose.

What should one do when she doesn't like a friend's significant other? Is there anything that can be done? Can one ever tell a friend she doesn't like her boyfriend? Is there a way to do so without losing the friendship? What would you want if your friends didn't like your significant other? Would you want to know?

Traditions I Don't Like....

When the guy asks the girl's dad for her hand in marriage.

Now, don't get me wrong, this tradition is fine for others. I'm not criticizing other couples for having done it this way. However, I will not be having it.

First off, if I'm gonna spend the rest of my life with a guy, that's my decision and my decision alone (I get it that the asking of the dad is in addition to, not instead of asking the woman, but still). I know a lot of girls who have said they will be very upset if the guy does not ask her father. They feel it's tradition and it's cute and charming and will make the whole family happy. Fine for them. Not for me.

Second - the Jessie Spano in me does feel there's a slightly sexist component to this tradition. I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing this originated in a place where dowries were the thing and a man's wife was considered his 'property'. Why the father? Why not both the parents?! What is the old-fasioned thought at the base of this? One man has owned me thus far, now another man is asking to take me over, in a business-like transaction (in the same way one would buy or sell of a piece of a company to another)?

Perhaps a man sitting down both my parents asking them for my hand in marriage is a little more settling to me, but still, I am not a minor. It is my decision to make and their vote in the matter, is, in theory, moot point. Sure, if my parents really didn't want the guy I was dating in our family, it might affect my opinion, but if I had my heart set on him, it would not.

Anyhow. I know there's a lot of room for debate on a lot of these points and that some people just see this as cute/traditional/harmless. And, I suppose, it is all in the eye of the beholder. However, for me personally, as I said earlier - I will not be having it. If a guy were to ask my father, it would be an automatic no on my end. It would show to me that this guy doesn't really know me. It would also say that he cares more about following some soceital tradition than making me happy, which is a red flag to anyone. Actually, it would pretty much say he doesn't care about flat out pissing me off at a moment when he is supposed to be going out of his way to charm me and win me over.

However, as I said earlier, I know several girls who will be very upset/disappointed if their guy does not ask his future father-in-law's permission. Your thoughts? Does anyone else feel the same way I do on this tradition? Are there any other Jessie Spanos out there?

Can Guys and Girls be Friends? Part 2

Ok. So I've decided to re-explore this subject, since it seems to be one of my posts that got a good amount of feedback. The feedback got me thinking some more. I think I may have changed my answer (and the question, a bit).

Another potential complication has come to mind. Here's the problem I see - do I believe a guy and girl can get close to each other, emotionally, and enjoy spending time with each other without necessarily wanting to be more than friends? Yes. I mean, if one of them can, then why can't both of them?

However, I think, also, people having fragile egos comes into play. For example - I think both a girl and a guy can be fine with their own not wanting more than a friendship with the other, however, they might both be offended at the notion that the other party doesn't want them.

Now, I don't mean this in a funny way, but when I think of the hypothetical completely platonic guy friend, I am perfectly comfortable with my not wanting more than a friendship with him. And, in theory, it's ideal for him to feel the same way I do - to not want more than a friendship (otherwise, things can and would be awkward).

However. If I were to stop and think of the fact that this person enjoys spending time with me and feels comfortable confiding in me - to stop and think that this person, for some reason, doesn't want me in that regard can be a slight blow to the ego (for some people, at least). Is it that this person simply isn't attracted to me? That's totally fine - I certainly wouldn't expect a guy to be attracted to me just because he's a a guy and I'm a girl. However, even though I might not be attracted to him, even though I probably don't want him to be attracted to me, there's something a little frustrating about having to stop and think that this person, for some reason, knows me well and specifically doesn't want me.

Anyhow. I think at the base of a lot of these male/female friendships is:
a) one person is in a relationship so the complication of 'why aren't we dating' doesn't come into play
b) the two, at one point, dated and it didn't work out for some reason - so neither party can be offended that one deems the other 'undateable'
c) one member of the friendship suspects (or flat-out knows) the other party wants more; therefore the insecurity of not being wanted doesn't come into play
d) one member of the friendship flat-out wants the other party so much that the whole basis of the friendship is trying to transition it into more

Anyhow. Your thoughts? Is it possible to not only not want your opposite sex friend, but also be ok with your opposite sex friend not wanting you?

Editor's sidenote: As I've said before - I have a couple good guy friends (who read this blog, at least I hope). I do believe guys and girls can be friends, and I have enjoyed said friendships so much that I have not let my fragile ego and the point I raise in this blog get in the way. Anyhow.

Thought of the Day....

The above quote. Everything happens for a reason.

What do we all think of it? Do we believe in it?

Now, I, like almost everyone, can think of a couple distinct times in my life where a specific series of events led to a certain pleasant outcome - one example would be how I ended up in my current job back at my company. Once it all came together, it seemed to make sense why other job leads panned out, etc. Also, I just happened to run into my current boss at an event I hadn't planned on going to - everything was a very last minute, spur of the moment decision.

I know a lot of people will cite circumstances such as running late for work and then missing being part of a huge 5 car pile-up or having some hitch thrown into their plans that lead to them meeting their future spouse to argue that everything, does, indeed, happen for a reason.

However, what about the people who weren't running 5 minutes late and find themselves in the midst of some tragic accident? I'm guessing they don't find comfort in 'everything happens for a reason'.

Anyhow.

Now, like I said earlier, I've had multiple experiences in life that have really lead me to find some truth in 'everything happens for a reason'. For example, a couple years ago I experienced a tragic circumstance (I'm kind of kidding....), however, through it, I found a good friend, Emily, and, through her, the world of blogging. So, for all my readers - well, everything happened for a reason.

However, there have been a couple incidents in my life in which I just can't quite figure out why things happened the way they did. It's not necessarily that these were tragedies or even that big of a deal in the end, per se. It's not that I'm angry or bitter because, obviously, in life, we all have our moments of not getting what we want and being disappointed - it's not like I wasn't due for it. It's more or less that I still can't figure out the reason for things playing out the way they did. Maybe I'm foolish for thinking there should be one.

This makes me wonder - is it not that everything happens for a reason, but rather, is it just that people find connections amongst series of events at times when things end up working out for them? Or, do some people just sometimes make the best of a bad situation, instead of it 'everything happening' for them?

Anyhow. Does everything happens for a reason, or is this just something people tell themselves to comfort themselves? What do my readers believe? Your thoughts?

Serial Monogamists

Ok. You know what I don't get - girls who always have boyfriends. And I'm not talking the same boyfriend - they're never single and they've been in like 10 serious relationships by age 25. They break up with one guy and have a new one less than a week later. They have existed long before the world of online dating started, so that cannot be attributed to contributing to this group (although maybe it has made things easier for them).

I have known quite a few girls who fit this description. There is no one common denominator amongst them. I have seen some that I would describe as very pretty; I have seen some that I'd say 'not so much' to. It's not as though this group of girls is, specifically, as I'd see it, all of the girls who are simply the most desirable to men, although maybe I'm wrong on this - I'm not a guy and I don't know what's going on in their head.

I don't think I need to go any further - because everyone I know, male and female, knows the kind of girls I'm talking about. they are serial monogamists (and I know their male counterparts exist).

Here's what I don't get about these girls - do they REALLY like pretty much every guy out there? Could they fall in love with anyone? Anything?

For me personally, I haven't even really met that many people I've quote-unquote like liked. At least not seriously. I'm not talking about a little crush. And I don't really understand how other people can say they have. I don't think it's possible to be compatible with all that many people out there. For me personally, I don't understand how someone my age could have been in love more than 2-3 times. I don't see how someone could have been in that many serious relationships. For some of my friends who have been in multiple long-term relationships - some will say that for earlier relationships, they may have thought they were in love but they now realize that it was just youthful naiveté.

Anyhow. I actually really think these people are just too insecure to be single and they think they're in love with everyone who crosses their path because these people temporarily abate their insecurities. I really wonder what goes through this group of individual's heads - do they know, themselves, that they're not really crazy about each person? Do they seriously think they're crazy about each person? Are they trying to convince themselves that they are more crazy about this person than they were with the previous 11? All I know is that, with some people I know, I laugh when they introduce me to their 'new guy who is DEFINITELY the one - even though it's early, they've NEVER felt this way about anyone before'.

I realize I may sound like the angry single girl at the moment, but I swear that's not the case. I have a coworker who, let's just say, is at that stage in life where he says EXACTLY what he thinks, for better or for worse. The other day, we were talking, and he said 'You know, I really don't like that many people. My wife yells at me that I shouldn't be this way. It's not that I dislike people; it's more that there just aren't many that I can honestly say I really like." I think he and I are on the same wavelength on this one.

The Secret - Revisited

Ok, so two good friends brought up the subject of the book "The Secret" this past week.  I OBVIOUSLY can't resist revisiting it.

Ok, so I have some definite problems with the book/way of thinking, which I have outlined before in multiple posts, I know.  However, to summarize briefly - I have three main problems with the book.  1)  The notion that an individual has that level of control over one's own life.  2)  The absurd, arbitrary, ridiculous suggestions it makes as realistic steps toward achieving one's goals (i.e.  writing fake checks to oneself at a time one wants to better her own financial situation).  3)  The notion that the above suggestions actually work.  

I won't get into it any further.  I already have more than enough.  

Also, a several good friends have mentioned to me they've heard critiques similar to mine from various other sources - such as radio commentators, Amazon reviews, etc.  So my campaign is working.   I guess a combination of a couple things happened:  1)  People who think 'The Secret' is a load of crap got the courage to speak up and come forward.  2)  People who originally bought into 'The Secret' have reconsidered and reanalyzed the situation.  3)  People tried 'The Secret' and it didn't work (look at the general state of the country SINCE 'The Secret' has been on the bestseller list.  I rest my case.)

However - there is something I agree with about The Secret.  I agree with the idea of envisioning the life you want.  I agree with the notion that actually believing something can happen for you is an important step toward the goal.  So maybe I will take that away from this book for 2009; everything happens for a reason, and I didn't waste a couple hours of my life reading this book for nothing.  :)

Funny Stuff?

So a friend of mine recently brought up the point that she'd read somewhere - that guys are intimidated by funny women (kind of in the same sense that they are intimidated by women who make more money than them).  A lot of men will say a 'great sense of humor' is very important to them in the woman they date, but they really mean they want someone who will laugh at their jokes, as opposed to make them laugh.  

I kind of think this is true - not across the board with every guy but generally speaking.  I know there have been some guys I knew briefly who found me to 'not have a sense of humor' (because I didn't find them all that funny and didn't pretend to).  In reality, I think I have a pretty great one.   Also, I tend to be the kind of person who thinks I'm funny and I'm typically the type to be making the jokes - maybe this is one of those 'opposites attract' kind of things - two people who think they're funny don't jive because they are battling for the stage.  

Also, I regularly notice articles and studies saying women want a man who can 'make them laugh' - listing this quality as one of the most important ones a woman looks for in a mate.  For me personally, although of course it is important to find someone who I can laugh and enjoy myself with, I certainly couldn't say I'm specifically looking for 'someone who can make me laugh' - I couldn't even put that quality in my top ten.  

Anyhow, I guess, in short (well, at this point, can I even say that?), my question is this - do many guys pride themselves on being able to make the women in their lives laugh?  Are men intimidated by sarcastic women?  Do sarcastic women need to be with men who don't pride themselves on their ability to make a woman laugh?  

All I know is this - I am sarcastic and like to crack jokes (regardless of whether or not people find me funny at times), and I am not changing for anyone.  I am a feminist - I am not going to pretend to be some weak girl who is going to fawn over and fake laugh at some guy who thinks he is funny.  I have a sense of humor, but I don't humor the men who try to date me.  (However, as stated earlier - I don't really take into consideration whether or not a guy can make me laugh - the quality is not all that important to me.)

Thoughts?

Do Nice Guys Finish Last?

So, as all my readers know, my mother periodically saves me articles from the "other" paper.  Here was one I found particularly of interest:

Apparently, in a previous column (this is what I've gathered from what I read), a man, "Greg", wrote in expressing his frustration that....wait for it....Nice Guys Finish Last!  Hrumph!  He apparently is a self-described "5" out of 10 with a great sense of humor, and, of course, is nice, yet he keeps striking out with the women he pursues.  It must mean, of course, that women just don't like nice guys.  (Insert blogger's eye roll here.)  

  

In this column, both women and men wrote in with advice in response.  There was a general consensus amongst women and a general consensus amongst men, but not between the groups.

Women claimed that this, indeed, in not true.  Greg's issue is that he is going after the wrong women.   He is a 5, perhaps he is going after 8s and 9s...maybe he'd have much better luck in the 4-6 range?  Maybe the problem isn't women, but rather, the kind of women he's attracted to.  Maybe if he's nice but average looking and he really wants to be in a relationship he should look for a nice but average looking girl?

The men had quite a different take - yep, women like nice men when they need someone to drive them somewhere, listen to them, or fix their sink.  Nice guys are great when a woman needs to complain about the jerk they are sleeping with.  However, when it comes to someone to date/sleep with, women want the hot bad boy.  A twice-divorced fifty-something man wrote something to the extent that when women say they want a nice guy, they really are saying 'we want a really really good-looking nice guy'.  

Obviously, I find these men's views of women and what we want to be rather ill-contrived and almost humorous.  However, I could see men finding a lot of flaws in the women's views on the subject - we don't date someone just because they are fair match-up on the looks scale nor is someone simply being equally appealing as ourselves a good argument to date that person.  

I raise a question to "Greg" - what exactly is he looking for in a girl?  We will all say that it's important that we are 'attracted' to our mate - how much this involves actual physical attractiveness varies from individual to individual.  If he expects to lean on his 'niceness' to generate attraction - is he attracted to niceness?   What exactly IS he attracted to?  (Or, what are these other guys attracted to if they are being used for favors by these women they pursue?  I wouldn't call that the work of 'nice girls'.)   These men who complain women don't like nice men - do they like nice women?

So, here is my advice to Greg all of the nice yet romantically frustrated people of the world:  if you are a person whose greatest, and rather noble, selling point is that you are nice - perhaps this isn't an opposites attract kind of deal.  Maybe you should look for someone who, first and foremost,  possesses the same quality.  I can't help believing that he's not quite doing this at the moment, and maybe if he does, it will generate considerably less frustration.  

Friendship

Ok, an additional follow up to the post about the friendship book.  Again, my agent suggested I break my rants up into smaller posts for better readership.   Just kidding - I don't have an agent - anyone know of one? 

Anyhow, in this book, and another book I read a while ago (The Friend that got Away), it outlines that the loss of a friend is one of life's strangely unacknowledged tragedies.  There isn't a whole self-help section designated to it - and think of how many different life experiences DO have entire self-help sections (wetting the bed, anyone??).   Pet death seems to elicit more sympathy from the general population.  

I, too, find this strange - seeing 1) many people have friendships that have lasted longer than their current romantic relationship and 2) there is almost nothing more universally experienced - we all have friends and we all have most likely lost one.  There's nothing strange about mourning the loss of a romantic relationship that lasted six months, but mourning the loss of a friendship of six years seems to go unspoken.  The book goes on to outline reasons why it might be taboo to discuss the loss of a friend (usually your close friends are either mutual friends and don't want to take sides).  

Now, for me personally, I can think of three people off-hand who fall into the 'lost friend' category in my life.  And with that, I'm not talking people I've lost touch with or just grew apart from but if I ran into them it'd all be well and good and maybe I could even go have coffee with them on some odd occasion and even if not, thinking back to my friendship with them makes me smile.  

I'm talking people who, if they were once my boyfriends, a) it was probably a long, drawn out break-up, b) I probably told them to delete my number at some point, and c) if someone were to bring them up now, my reaction would be similar to Ms. Aniston's when being asked about how she feels toward Brangelina.  

Call it stubbornness or self-respect, or maybe a combination, but I would never reach out to these people.  If they wanted to reach out to me and patch things up, I'd hear 2/3 of them out.  But I know that won't happen.  Whatever.  My life has gone on just fine.  I have been no less happy nor successful.  There have been new friends.  Other friends.  Better friends.  I am perhaps better off without "friends" like them in my life.  However, there have been times I have missed them nonetheless.  

Frenemies - Part One

So, as usual, I have been reading a book.  It is book #8 of the year - I am getting back on track to my goal of reading 12 books this year.  Woohoo!

Anyhow, the book is entitled "Friend or Frenemy?" and it reads much like a magazine (which makes sense because one of the writers works for Cosmo), especially with the font variations and layout.  It offers up some hilarious observations about friend relationships.  I am not sure if this book is supposed to offer up some advice or has a thesis of any kind; however, it sure was a pleasure to read.  I do realize that MY readers might not be all that interested in hearing my personal detailed literary critique of every book I pick up, so I will save that for amazon.  :)

Anyhow, there is an interesting point from the book I'd like to touch on.    The authors talk about dealing with the end of a friendship; however, not just drifting apart, losing friends to marriage or geographical distance, or major fallouts, but also actually 'breaking up with a friend'.  They go on to give advice on how to do so (pick a neutral place to do it, not a location you frequented together during the friendship, 'it's not you, it's me', etc.).

Please correct me if I'm wrong - this NEVER happens this way.  I believe that my celebrity crush (if you've been reading this blog carefully, you know who this is) outlined in his early career that this just CAN'T be done.  Friendships can end for many reasons, but it's usually the result of some form of an angry confrontation ("I never want to speak to you again!")  or casual drifting (which can sometimes be an intentional way of ending a friendship with someone whom you no longer want in your life). 

However, the conversation we have to end a failing relationship - "it just isn't working, this isn't what I want right now, we don't have enough in common, it's not you, it's me, etc etc." - is never used to end a friendship, no?  I think mostly because we can break up with people we do genuinely like, just not romantically, and we can use the old 'let's just be friends'.  Cause, in theory, you can only be dating one person, but you can be friends with many.  If you don't want to be friends with someone, it's not that you don't like them enough, it's that you don't like them AT ALL.  

I'll elaborate more in a later post (I'm getting the message that people don't like long rambling posts), but I am just wondering - food for thought (I don't understand that expression either) - has anyone out there ever broken up with a friend? (without it being a major blowout)

Only Children

So, there was an article in, ahem, the other newspaper this past weekend about successful only children.  Although it was an interesting article, there was something funny to me about the premise - as if there is something noteworthy about an only child succeeding.  

Now, although I half-jokingly write this post - there is a definite widely accepted negative stereotype about only children that is almost starting to irritate me.  

A woman I work with was describing another coworker with a difficult personality - "She's a total only child," she said.  Funny because the woman she was describing is in her 30s with children of her own.   I once had a college acquaintance who remarked to me that she'd "never think I was an only child" - she meant it as a compliment.  (I DIDN'T say thank you - that probably made her re-think the statement.)

I have many times overheard the negative statements about only children - sometimes from individuals with no idea of my only-ness, other times from close friends (maybe I should rethink considering them that).    

I've overheard notions such as 'I want either two or three, but I'd rather not have any than have an only'.  I've often heard 'I'd never date an only child'.  I once had someone sincerely ask me that, since I don't have a sibling, would I understand that someone would be upset if his or her sibling were to die?  

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE.

Now, let me be the first to say - I agree that there are certain personality traits associated with birth order standing.  Perhaps the oldest child is used to taking charge, the youngest is the spoiled baby, and the middle child is the quiet appeaser to his or her bossy older and bratty younger siblings.  

However, I've never heard 'typical middle' or 'typical oldest child'.  I've maybe heard 'typical youngest child' a handful of times.   "Typical only child" is definitely much more pervasive.

Although, as I said earlier, there are typical personality traits associated with certain birth orders - but it's not a foolproof guarantee that someone in a certain position will most definitely have a certain trait - or that someone with a certain trait will most definitely sit in a certain position in his or her family.

I guess what I find most irritating and idiotic - there's a notion that only children are spoiled brats who ALWAYS must have their way and can never fully assimilate into society for this reason.  First off, I know plenty of "brats" who are oldest, youngest, and even middle children. 

However, more realistically - let's say, for arguments' sake, that even if all only childrens' parents are completely permissive of their 'diva-like' behavior - would their peers, teachers, friends, bosses, significant others, and coworkers be as accepting of it?  It's not as though parents are the only people who have an influence on our lives and the kind of people we become.  It's not as though our personality traits don't continue to evolve as we grow into new roles in our lives.

On that note - let's say there's an only child with an unfavorable characteristic - is it really their "only childness" that caused this trait?  Maybe it's the result of a failed friendship or romantic relationship - or something else entirely.  

The notion that only children might almost be fundamentally different as people from their sibling-ed counterparts is, in my book, utterly ridiculous.  Thoughts?  

Have You Ever Googled Yourself?

Now, I ask this because almost EVERYONE in my generation googles people. Especially before going on a date - laugh all you want, boys, I do not know a girl who DOESN'T do this. There's also a notion out there that potential employers will google job candidates.

People with overly common names have a luxury of being able to hide. I am NOT one of those people. If you google my first name and last name in quotation marks, you get me. All me. There are some people with my last name and a spelling variation of my first name. So people who can't spell my first name (and believe me, they are plentiful) who google me may think I am currently working as a computer science professor at Notre Dame.

So, about a year and a half ago, I was on the job interviewing circuit (I was with a different employer, where 75% of the company was on the job interviewing circuit). I had a job interview lined up at the behemoth itself (again, not my current company).

I figured at this company, getting Googled pre-interview was standard. Since my past is not speckled, I wasn't too concerned. However, the night before my second interview, I decided to check things out, just in case.

It was all me. I made the honor roll in high school; I went to dance camp. But WAIT.

Down at the bottom of the first (and pretty much only) page of results, there was a slightly, ahem, less than favorable listing about yours truly.

It was a guestbook entry on "Princess Sarah's Dreambook" (I do not know Princess Sarah personally). It said my name, spelled correctly. It said my screenname (yes, MY screenname, created over a decade ago on AOL - this was about ME). That was the extent of accurate information.

I will not go into full detail, however, to clarify - I do not now, nor have I ever, lived in Afghanistan. I do not operate the website http://www.dirtywh*re.com/ (replace the asterisk). AND, I would not say that my favorite movie is "Naughty Night Nurses 2 - it was so much better than the first" - I have not ever seen either movie so I could not fairly make such an assertion (maybe some of my readers could - no judgment).

(Editor's sidenote: Yes, I do know exactly who posted this. However, I do not wish to bestow any time, attention or energy on said individual/situation at this time.)

Do you know how much time and energy it takes to get something bad about you out of cyberspace??! First I had to email Ms. Sarah herself, only she hadn't logged into the site in about 8 years and her email didn't work. Then I had to contact the site operator and have them take this entry down. THEN I was told there was nothing I could do until Google updated it cache, which was periodic. Nevermind the fact that this existed out there for about 8 years - I am wondering how many dates/acquaintances/employers googled me and saw this and I'm wondering if of the above were ever influenced by this.

Moral of the story - maybe we can't judge a person by his or her google results, although I don't see the trend of googling pre-meetup to end any time soon.

The Secret - A Followup

This woman above is Rhonda Byrne, the author of "The Secret" - a New York Times bestseller endorsed by Oprah, Ellen DeGeneres, Larry King, etc. Not to judge a book by its cover (pardon the pun), but, well....

Ok, here's the deal:

1) A ton of people bought this book

2) If one goes to Amazon.com, a ton of people positively reviewed this book

3) Some influential, powerful, successful people have endorsed this book

(I think maybe all of the above should also check out "The Emperor's New Clothes" - but that's a whole different story. Why yes, I will go on with ridiculous puns FOREVER.)

A brief synopsis - and it hurts my head to even think back to this book - "The Secret" reference is the law of attraction. Like attracts like. With a loose interpretation (I am a liberal, after all), she possibly could be on to something. Positive people seem to attract other positive happy people and perhaps maybe a little extra good fortune - maybe a if one is really friendly, polite and perky, the barista will slip you a free cookie.

To take it a little further - maybe having a certain mindset does subconsciously affect our actions. Example: someone who strongly thinks "I am losing weight" will use this as a point of reference when it comes time to make a decision: Should I wake up a little early to work out? Yes, because I am losing weight!

However, Byrne does not take on a loose interpretation - no, not at all. She takes on a ridiculously strict interpretation. The law of attraction is pretty much failproof in her book - if you put yourself in a certain mindset - you absolutely most certainly will achieve exactly what you want, no two ways about it. Why yes, we really do have the much control over not only our lives but also the entire world!

The book is then peppered with some ludicrous examples (a man who would write himself fake checks every night, then real checks started arriving in the mail) and some desperate but necessary attempts to cover her ass - if you think something and it doesn't happen, you must not have been thinking it strong enough; if something bad happens to you, you must have been thinking it in the back of your head, EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T REALIZE IT.

I'm not going to dedicate much time to going over the obvious holes in this theory - what if I am going up against another person for a job - and we're both using the secret! What happens then? There wasn't a chapter about the secret's method of tie-breaking (this reminds me of in Bruce Almighty, when everyone won the lottery - $17 apiece!). What if a baby is born with, say, fetal alcohol syndrome? Was the baby thinking it on itself? Do babies even think?

I hate hate HATED this book. Although, as I mentioned earlier, it may have had some merits if it hadn't gone so far - this book was simply insulting to the intelligence of any adult of sound mind and body. The false guarantees she promises, the 'blame the victim' mentality - how desperate and hopeless does one have to be to believe this?

HOWEVER.

See my points 1, 2 and 3 above. People bought it and bought into it like mad. Is this a statement about our society? Are we in a place where we've become so desperate and pathetic to believe almost anything? (What's ironic is this book implies we can bring health, wealth, and happiness upon ourselves so easily - yet as this book's popularity soared, well, look at what's happened to the state of America's economy, etc. How come that positive thinking that this book recommended hasn't brought peace and prosperity?)

Anyhow - this book and the phenomenon surrounding it has raised several questions for me - how desperate are we for a quick fix? What can prevent us from buying into basically anything and everything these ridiculous self-help gurus are selling? Will we believe anything we want to?

Thoughts?

Re: Re: Pink Ribbon

So Matt posted a response to my Pink Ribbon blog here.

He raised some questions which I will set aside time (hopefully) to respond to.

However, one point he brought up in the blog is an interesting statistic, portrayed by this graph from the centers for disease control of the top killers of women:

(click to enlarge)

He brought up an interesting point - breast cancer fundraisers are EVERYWHERE in some way or another (ex:  buy this brand and a portion of the profits will go to the Susan G. Komen foundation).   Breast cancer research even has its own mascot (see blog title).

So now, why is it that breast cancer research gets so much more attention than some other (more)  prevalent issues?   One could come up a multitude of reasons, however, I think there's one clear-cut answer.

Now, I know some are going to stand up and say that the breast cancer walks, etc., were started by people whose lives were affected by breast cancer in some way - but what about people whose lives were touched by heart disease (the number one killer on the chart)?  Were they less inspired?

I doubt it.  Perhaps the inspiration started out the same, but the campaigns took off differently because of how they were received by the general public and corporate America.  Simply put, some causes are more marketable than others.  

When I think of breast cancer, I think of a relatively young, cute looking soccer mom (be it accurate or not).  When I think of heart disease, I think of a wheezing, heavier 'grandpa' like man.  Nothing wrong with this, but it doesn't put me in the same mood as the previous image.  

The general 'vibe' of breast cancer makes it easy for lots of companies to attach themselves to the cause - sponsoring events like the three day walk, donating a portion of their profits, etc.  Since many people feel good about helping a charity, it's a win-win-win??  (charity gets money, huge corporation makes more profit, people feel good  about spending money - everyone's happy, right?)

So what are the downfalls of this cause related marketing?  Is it a big problem that some causes get a disproportionate amount of attention?  These things I don't know.

However, I do know this - some real issues out there will NEVER get a substantial amount of attention because of their lack of marketability.  Frankly, some causes and the imagery associated with them make people sick to their stomachs - which certainly doesn't put one in the 'mood to buy'.  Anyone knows that associating your company's name with something with a negative connotation is a fatal sin.  Not to be graphic, BUT - can you see an entire city shutting down for a giant 'colon cancer' event?  Can you picture people sporting various colored 'ribbons for incest'?  Do you see a major corporation posting pictures of soldiers with missing limbs next to their logo (even with 'a portion of your purchase will go to help in this person's medical bill relief' in big letters next to it)?  

Didn't think so.  

Over-Education

So Obama keeps talking about how one of his objectives, as president, would be to make student loans more accessible. He then segues into what I'd describe as some nonsense about mandatory volunteer work in exchange for money for education. (if it's mandatory, are you really volunteering?)

Ok - I realize my parents paid for my college, and many don't have the luxury - so I realize some of you will write this off as out of touch.

I know plenty of people who took out student loans. I do not know one single person who wanted to go to college and wasn't able to because they couldn't get the money (maybe I don't know the right people for this). To the naked eye, it seems that student loans are too easy to get.

I realize the argument here is that some loans had huge interest rates, etc. Don't get me wrong - I understand that's a huge burden - having to write a check for hundreds of dollars every months for around 15 years of one's life.

However, this doesn't seem to be enough of a deterrent to some people uselessly educating themselves. I know it sounds weird - how can an education ever be useless....however, student loans, IN THEORY, is the government making an investment in students by giving them money for education - they are going to then use it to pursue a career that will give back to society, a career that will pull a good salary that can then be taxed, a career that will strengthen industry in the United States from an international perspective.

However, many people are going to college and continuing to work in retail and restaurant jobs (in non-manager roles). Too many people are going to college and taking on useless, non-vocational majors (sociology anyone? how about some leisure studies? or let's go for just plain, old fashioned English!).

EVEN WORSE - and I type this with COMPLETE and UTTER DISGUST (I'm sure those who know me know why) - I STILL, in this day and age, know a lot of women who are going to college for solely for an MRS degree. Seriously - huge waste of money - just go hang out at the bars on a college campus and don't waste tens of thousands of dollars.

That, and another issue - for some who have always excelled academically, going to school is easier than working. I know so many people who got straight A's, graduated, worked a year, struggled with it and defaulted back to becoming a full-time student. They might be happier, but they're burning money instead of making it. In the same sense that someone wouldn't purchase an $80K car and not plan on using - why are people doing this with college?

There's the old saying - college isn't for everyone, someone needs to be the trash collector.

However, on a more serious note - I do believe in the premise of a student loan - that someone from a humble upbringing who has a dream and works very hard can become the doctor, engineer, teacher, or whatever he or she has always dreamed of being - that these career options are not exclusive to trust fund babies. If I were in charge of this whole 'doling out student loan' business - I would base decisions on who gets a loan based on who has an actual career plan (sorry to the future 'undecideds' of America). Those who have an actual vocational majors in lucrative career paths would get the low interest loans.

Living Together Before Marriage

So aside from politics, I like to blog about things that annoy me. Here is one major thing that annoys me - people in my age bracket (let's say 21-30) who think they are EXPERTS on how to have a successful marriage.

Now, I would not live with someone before marriage. This is my personal choice. I don't want to offend my multiple cohabiting friends - I don't necessarily find there to be anything wrong with doing so, per se. I'll blog more about this later.

Whenever I say this to other people in the aforementioned group, I am usually met with the same response "Jaime, no, you HAVE to live with someone before getting married".

Or else what?

You're destined to divorce? I find this absurd - if you look at all the cute little old married couples who have been together for 40+ years - I guarantee less than 1% percent of these people lived together before they were married, seeing that it was very taboo back at the time when they were dating. I know plenty of couples who didn't live together who are still married (my parents, aunts and uncles, etc.).

Aside from this - look at other facts: as cohabiting before marriage has become more popular, the divorce rate has risen (not that I'm saying there's causation - but there's definitely an undeniable correlation). That, and many couples who do end up divorcing do it at varied times - let's say there's a couple who divorces after 15 years; would the one to two years of living together before marriage have broken them up before walking down the aisle?

Also, seeing that living together before marriage is a somewhat new phenomenon, relatively speaking, it's credibility is somewhat untested. Maybe 30 years from now we can look at all couples who have stayed married for a long period of time and see if there's a higher percentage success rate for those who lived together before vs. those who didn't - however, we don't currently have any statistical backing to theories that living with together beforehand makes a couple more likely to have a successful marriage.

I think what's most annoying to me is those who preach that "you have to" seem to speak as though they are some authority on the subject. Of everyone I know in their early 30s or younger - they fall into three groups: never married, divorced, or somewhat recently married. I would not classify anyone in any of these groups as an 'expert on marriage'. If someone who has been married 30+ years wants to pull me aside and tell me "Jaime, you HAVE to do x, y, and z before getting married", I'll give it consideration. However, for now, these delusional self-proclaimed experts thoughts will continue to hold little to no water with me.

Administrative Professionals Day

So today was the ultimate Hallmark holiday, Administrative Professionals Day (formerly Administrative Assistants Day, formerly Secretaries Day, etc.). I know this because, well, I'm an Administrative Assistant.

Now, I knew my bosses wouldn't remember. And I knew this Hallmark holiday existed - and I honestly was confident I wouldn't care when they very predictably forgot. Come on now - it's not Christmas or my birthday - it's not a time one "expects" something, for lack of a better word. It's certainly not a day I was eagerly anticipating.

However, when I got in to work and I saw all the other "secretaries" (I personally prefer this title - it seems to convey more importance, like secretary of state) getting flowers, gift cards, etc., from their bosses and all I seemed to get was a list of random "urgent" tasks, well - I'm not going to lie, I felt a little bit bitter.

Maybe it's because I know precisely the reason they didn't do anything for me - because they were completely unaware of the event. This is because they count on ME to point out things like this. They BLINDLY rely on me to remind and alert them of many important things. Had I ordered myself flowers and billed it to their department, they would have signed off on it without even reading it. However, this defeats the purpose.

The purpose of this holiday (and yes, I realize the term needs to be used loosely) ASIDE from Hallmark, etc., making money - is to remember someone - to show that her effort hasn't gone unnoticed. It's the thought that counts, if you will. It's not a matter of a tangible gift - it's a matter of thinking someone took five minutes of his time to do something to make me feel good, to make me feel remembered. And on this day, I feel, well, forgotten. :(

25 Things I've Learned In 25 Years

I made a journalistic mortal sin in this headline. I will buy a drink to anyone who can identify it.

Anyhow.

I almost made it. I said that today I would post my list of 25 things I've learned in 25 years. I'm only 40 minutes behind the deadline. I know - close, but no cigar. Anyhow, here it is:

1) Being half-heartedly, half-committed to a lot of things and being committed to nothing are almost one in the same.
2) Even though I’ve heard this will happen – that our wants and needs will change as we grow – one of the weirdest feelings is being virtually indifferent to someone or something I once loved and wanted more than anything.
3) Being complacent is sometimes much more dangerous than being unhappy.
4) No friend or family member will ever be perfect – but if they good outweighs the bad – it’s better to have the person in your life.
5) People are more honest and upfront than one might think – it’s more the human being’s innate ability to hear what he or she wants that gets in the way of realizing this.
6) It’s often more hurtful to not be honest with a person than it is to sugar-coat or not say something for running the risk of ‘hurting his/her feelings’.
7) At the end of one’s life, no one regrets not watching more tv.
8) Manners matter.
9) Style over substance may be quite powerful at times, but ultimately the cream will rise to the top. Those with all sizzle and no steak can only survive a limited time.
10) There are many different addictions one can have – and some socially acceptable addictions (such as being a workaholic) can be almost as dangerous as substance abuse addictions, yet few will intervene in these instances like they will in the latter.
11) Age has an undeniable physical effect, no matter what your spirit is like.
12) The expression ‘everything is 90% mental” can sometimes be more disabling than enabling.
13) Staying up late and then being able to sleep in is one of life’s simple pleasures.
14) We’re all freaking busy – if something doesn’t get done, in most cases it’s because it simply wasn’t a priority.
15) When it comes to finding long-term companionship, don’t look for someone you can live with – look for someone you can’t live without.
16) A friend can complain about another friend, significant other, family member, etc. – and you can listen and agree with her and encourage her to have a limited relationship with said individual – but the odds always are that a day later she’ll be back to being supertight with the individual and now you’re the jerk who doesn’t like him or her.
17) Nothing will bite you in the ass with the same kick as your own words.
18) It’s often hard but very necessary for people to admit that their mental and physical health may need a little professional help and attention.
19) It’s nice to be important, but it’s much more important to be nice.
20) In the world of news, regardless of how relevant, important or urgent some information is – if it isn’t interesting (or portrayed as such), it will most likely be ignored.
21) As the time goes by and the world changes, both people and businesses need be flexible and accommodating to our ever-changing society without sacrificing or compromising their spirit and core self.
22) I often say “I still don’t know what I want to do when I grow up”. Some laugh that I already have ‘grown up’ – I will catch people 20-30 years my senior saying the same line. I guess, in our minds, growing up is something always on the horizon.
23) The truth almost always comes out.
24) There’s nothing in this world quite as subjective as history and the news – yet many fail to realize this.
25) Granted, I realize this is the equivalent of the Letterman’s #1 on the top ten list (which is usually pointless and the worst item) – but it’s really really hard to think of 25 things I’ve learned!

Agree? Disagree? Favorite? Least favorite? Important things I've forgotten?