L.Y. Levand's Blog, page 9

When Silence is Golden

I wasn't even involved in the conversation. In fact, I had no idea what they were talking about. I was happily minding my own business, looking at this adorable picture I found, when it came. Despite the fact that I was in another room, busy doing something that was of the utmost importance (everyone knows that adorable pictures are high up on the priorities list), they decided they wanted to drag me into the conversation.

"Isn't that right?"

Um, no, it's not. But maybe it would be if I was actually PART OF THIS CONVERSATION.

But, instead of screeching at them that I have no idea of what they're talking about, which would be rude (quite as rude as them interrupting my adorable picture session), I ask them what they're talking about and answer their question. Then I can finally go back to looking at cutesy pictures.

Five minutes later, I realize that they are still talking to me. But not only are they still talking to me, they still require my input. "Isn't that right?" No, I won't say you're right until I know what in the world I'm even agreeing to. So, again, I answer their question, and go back to what I'm doing. Which, by this time, is sending that picture to a bunch of people I think will enjoy it almost as much as I did.

The third time, when they start talking to me, I'm aware of it,. because I know from experience that if I don't hear it all the first time, I will be interrupted, again, with another query as to my thoughts on it. If I don't have the answer, they will, again, have to repeat it. All of it. Which will, of course, disrupt what I'm trying to do even more.

There's only one problem with this masterful theory. Now that they have my attention (as divided as it is) they want my approval on everything. EVERYTHING, I TELL YOU.They expect me to hear everything they say, and be able to answer that I agree with everything, every time they ask. By this time, I've started this blog post to complain about it. By now, there are two of them. TWO. And now they're both commenting on how loudly and fast I type. And, of course, they require my agreement that I sound like I'm pounding the keyboard half to death.

The only thing that saves me is when those two people refocus on each other instead of me. Although this is a limited salvation, since it's usually only a matter of time before they start a debate about something and ask for my opinion again.

It drives me insane. It's not too bad when I'm doing nothing, but I do hate to be interrupted. I take my cute pictures very seriously.

As a self-defense mechanism, I've learned to ignore the chattering for the most part, while still managing to catch the gist of what they're talking about. This doesn't eliminate the interruptions, but it makes them a little more bearable. And when I say bearable, I mean that I can agree to whatever they're saying without breaking my concentration on other things.

I've always found it annoying that people can, and do, drag me into conversations in which I play no active part, and am making no effort to be heard. It's especially annoying if I'm doing something else, and am obviously not paying the slightest attention whatsoever to what they're talking about. If I wanted to be involved, I would at least be listening. If I wanted to talk, I would talk.

Now, I would be the first to agree that listening is important. Everybody deserves to be listened to, and there aren't many good listeners out there right now.

However, it's also wearing when you have to listen all the time. If they never shut up, you shut them out. Not only is that detrimental to them, but you may miss something important buried in all of that other stuff they feel the need to constantly talk about. If they feel like no one listens, then they'll probably just talk even more. Which (at least in my case) results in me blocking more of what they say. It's a vicious cycle.

I don't know why these people feel the need to seek out validation for everything they say with people who are not listening (I'm far from the only victim). What I can say, though, is that if you talk too much, people may stop listening. If all you have to say is chatter that has no real purpose but to fill a silence, eventually someone will stop listening.

Talking is a means of communication. And while it can be enjoyable, it's not there to be noise. It's there to serve a purpose. And that purpose is not to drive other people absolutely bonkers. Just FYI, in case you didn't know. It's also not meant to be used as a form of torture on unwilling and unsuspecting victims who are just listening to music with sound-canceling headphones. (Been there, done that - headphones need to come with mandatory "do not disturb" signs.)

If you need the opinion of another person to validate everything you're saying, whether they are listening or not, then be prepared. Your talent for irritation will soon be recognized. Allow me to suggest that you at least ask someone that's participating in the conversation, and not the random person who is not listening in the next room.

Perhaps you should also ask yourself why you are so vastly uncomfortable with silence that you feel the need to fill it with chatter, even if no one is listening. Maybe you should ask why you need to drag unwilling participants into this conversation.

There is not a need for constant talking, just like there is not a need for constant communication. Sometimes, silence truly is golden. Especially for those people that don't hear it very often. If you think a little more about who you're talking to, and if they're busy, maybe they'll be more likely to listen when you do want to talk. If you don't try to force them into participating, they'll probably be more willing to listen when there's something you really need to talk about. Then, it will be communication, not chatter, not noise, and a lot less annoying.

So, remember...silence is golden. But duct tape is silver. :P

Entertainment Value?

A few years ago, I was blissfully unaware. That was before I got really involved with the internet, you see. I didn't go online on any kind of basis until I was sixteen, and it wasn't until years later that I realized the horror of what exactly the American public defines as entertainment. Or news.

I, personally, find it very annoying that the Kardashian family has hijacked the letter K for their own nefarious purposes. I couldn't match the name George Clooney with a face until just recently, I still am not certain what Channing Tatum looks like, and I identify most actors and actresses by the characters they play in movies or television shows.

Go ahead, mock me if you wish. I also don't watch sports, and am the person who would cheer for the team wearing the color closest to purple, because we all know how important colors are, and purple is pretty. Who needs a better reason?

Most of America, I guess, because some people read that and are currently resisting the urge to "educate" me. I assure you, if you try, you will be the proud recipient of a glassy stare and a possible lecture on how the only sport I care about has "martial art" somewhere in the definition.

Entertainment in America has been elevated to a position far above it's actual value. Entertainers, the successful ones, make more money than those who offer more valuable services. Which, frankly, I think is stupid.

Now, before you go all rabid on me, I know that the people who make lots of money work hard for it. 'Kay? Someone who plays sports for a living has to be good at it, and they have to train far more than the average person. Someone who's a professional singer had to work hard to get that far. I'm not lessening the amount of work that goes into it, because I know it's not easy.

I do think, however, that the state of the entertainment industry points to an imbalance of our priorities.

Rather than playing sports ourselves, which is a fun, healthy pastime, we spend millions of dollars a year to watch other people play them, and get worked up when our favorite teams lose. Rather than use our imaginations to put images with stories, we watch them portrayed on a screen in an adaptation that took millions of dollars to make, and develop ridiculous fangirl/fanboy crushes on the actors/actresses.

Once upon a time, we had to entertain ourselves with imagination and ingenuity. Now we pay people to do it for us.

Oh, and we get obsessed with the people who do it, too. The rules of what is and is not creepy are suddenly warped if you're stalking a famous person. And you judge their "famous-ness" based on how many stalkers they have. Does no one else think this is a little crazy?

Don't get me wrong, entertainment is a great thing. And the people who can entertain us are very talented people who deserve to be paid for their efforts.

But don't you think these people are being turned into something they're not? Our constant attention is turning them into role models for our kids. And, just looking at what most of these stars are doing in their personal lives, do you really want your children to emulate them? Should you really be giving them that kind of power? They have their faces pasted on billboards. Wouldn't you rather your children have role models that aren't famous for their sexual exploits or risque fashion?

Sure, there are a good number (I'll even say a lot) of famous people who are famous for other things. But they aren't as famous, are they? Because they don't set gossip columns on fire with their behavior as often.

We give these people the power of influence and the power of money.

Before you buy that next ticket, or that movie, or that song, perhaps you should ask yourself if there isn't something more important you'd rather spend that money on. Before you buy that star's merchandise, perhaps you should wonder if you're giving more power and money to someone who will use that power and money for something you disapprove of.

You should also ask yourself if you're fueling the giant monster that is the entertainment industry. The monster that distracts adults and children alike, and takes their attention away from things that are more beneficial. And you should wonder if you or someone you care about is obsessing over one of these stars in a way that might get them thrown in jail if it was their next door neighbor.

What if we put that much effort into real life?

What if, instead of playing that game for hours at a time, you took your kids outside and taught them to play a real game? What if, instead of watching that cooking show and daydreaming about all the high-priced food you can't afford, you bought healthy ingredients and actually made something? What if, instead of obsessing over that movie star, you gave all that attention to your significant other? What if, instead of spending hours yelling and screaming at the TV while watching sports, you spent more time actually out there doing it yourself?

Stop swooning over good-looking stars. You probably won't ever meet them, let alone date or marry one.

Stop freaking out because two members of the Kardashian family wore the same outfit. Who cares? I share clothes with my sister all the time, and we don't have to worry about some familial explosion. Stop obsessing over the issues of famous couples and their kids. It's none of your business. If they've got problems, shut up and let them deal with it. If they want your advice, I'm sure they'll ask.

Some people make a living out of provoking people. Some people make a living simply by having a life full of drama, and a willingness to drag others into it. Are you going to reward that? Most people try to avoid those kinds of personalities in real life. But then we buy popcorn and watch families dissolve as if it's the most interesting thing in the world. If your family was falling apart, would you want the world to stand witness?

If you were playing a game, would you want the country to judge every move you make? It's a game, people. It's supposed to be fun for the people playing. It's supposed to be competitive, yes. But if it's not fun, what's the point? If you're getting so worked up about it you'd start a riot, then you're doing it wrong.

Same thing for video games. If you're throwing the console across the room, you're putting too much importance on it. If you want to put the controller through the window, you're not having much fun, are you? Again, it's a game. It's not going to kill you if you lose.

Entertainment is not as all-encompassing as we've made it out to be. We don't need to be entertained, we're all perfectly capable of entertaining ourselves. Provided our imagination hasn't all been sucked dry by the gossip and drama of what passes for television. Our heads get so full of it that there's no room in there for our own thoughts. For our own stories. Drama, dysfunctional families, promiscuity, and bad language replace creative stories, and people grow to believe that these things are what makes a good tale.

It's enough to make a writer weep.

Take all these games, movies, television shows, and electronics away, and you'll find that people get so bored they learn to entertain themselves again. Their creativity will come back, because they won't be able to solve their boredom simply by buying the newest gadget on the market. Ever wonder how most little kids can be perfectly content for hours just playing in gravel or mud? Or with the wrapping paper of their presents, while the presents themselves sit to the side? Their creativity is intact. They haven't been taught that they're supposed to be more amused by a screen.

Of course, it's difficult to just take away some kid's electronics.

...although you could always try throwing a ball at their face, and enjoy a spirited game of who-can-bloody-the-other-person's-nose-first. That should at least get them off the couch.

I Am An Introvert, And I Have Something To Say

All you have to do is ask my mother, and she'll be able to give you harrowing eyewitness tales of how I deafened her from across the room and was heard over ear-blasting music on the other end of the house. Anyone that knows me well is well aware of how loud I can be if the situation calls for it.

But, generally, I speak with a soft voice. I'm asked to repeat myself regularly, and the first time I sat next to the human bullhorn (who shall remain nameless) I flinched and felt like they'd blown out my eardrums (never sit right next to a human bullhorn).

I also don't talk much. I spend most of my time with acquaintances making comments like "I can understand that" or "wow." Or, sometimes, just nodding my head in complete silence. A family member complains about that, actually. Says that I need to say something, to respond. They want me to talk to them, and don't like it that I say very little.

I am introverted - according to some standards. I am not extroverted, unless I'm comfortable both with the situation I'm in, and the people I'm with. And even then, I don't naturally possess the mega-watts of energy necessary to do that for more than about an hour. I typically go hide in a cave somewhere once I hit my limit and growl at anyone that comes too close. (I don't bite, though, promise.)

So people often come to the (erroneous) conclusion that I have a hard time making myself heard.

The misconception here is that because I don't talk to you, I don't talk at all. Or that I am afraid to talk, or incapable of talking, or even that I have nothing to say.

This seems very common where introverts are concerned. They get a label slapped on them, with no question about whether it's true or not. They're told they're shy, and avoided. They sit in the corner, and people look their way, but rarely approach. They're the silent fixtures of any institution, the wallflowers. They see it all, and yet aren't a part. They watch the people who are, at first glance, so much more vibrant and lively than they, and they do it in silence. Because they don't engage, don't speak, people believe they have nothing to say.

We have plenty to say.

I write a blog. I've been writing blog posts for years. Obviously I have things to say. And obviously I'm not afraid to say them, since I'm literally throwing them out into the world to be read. If I was afraid to say them, I wouldn't have a blog, and I wouldn't be writing this. You would never have read this far, or read any of my other blog posts, because I never would have written them, let alone posted them for the world to see. And I am not the only one.

So why, then, do these people think we have nothing to say? Why do they lecture us about our silence? About our volume? Why do they think that we're shy, reserved, frightened, or have nothing to say?

I can't presume to answer for all, or even most, introverts. But I can certainly answer for myself:

1: I don't have a huge need to talk everything out. I do need to talk about things, but not to the extent that some people do. I work out a lot of things in my head, and have no need to talk about them all to anyone who will listen. My drama should, for the most part, stay my drama. Sure, I might be having a crummy day. But I don't need to tell all of Facebook about it. I get migraines. I don't make a status update about it unless I can make people laugh with it. My problems are my problems, and I don't have to make the general public suffer with paragraphs of complaint, hurled like cannon balls. I understand that's how some people handle things, and that's fine. It's just not my way.

2: I prefer to watch and listen when I'm in an unfamiliar situation or place, or with people I don't know very well. If I don't understand the dynamic between people or the situation, my immediate response is to watch until I do.

3: Only one person can talk at a time. If I'm with a talkative person, or one that interrupts a lot, my response is to be silent and wait for them to finish before speaking. It's unfortunate that that moment never seems to come with some people, since I was raised to believe that interrupting is rude. Trying to talk in that kind of situation is like getting flattened by a semi truck driven by an ignorantly happy person, chattering away at me from the window while I wave a white flag of surrender. If you never give me space to speak, I won't do it. So if you're talking, and don't leave me enough space to get a word in edgewise, I won't make an effort. If I'm interrupted while I'm talking, I don't keep talking. If I continue talking at the same time as someone else, nothing will come of the conversation but confusion. Since they don't stop, I have to. Otherwise, they'll just talk over me, and since my voice is usually so soft, it's not difficult.

4: If you have no interest in what I'm saying, I just won't say it. It's a waste of my time and energy. You have no interest in listening, so I have no interest in talking. The same goes for giving advice. If you don't listen and never take it, then I'll stop giving it. There's no point. I've wasted my time giving advice and talking to people who really don't care what I'm saying. It's very frustrating, and I'd prefer not to repeat the process.

5: When people interrupt me, something that was intelligent can be turned into something that makes me look like an idiot. This has happened. I wasn't allowed to finish my thought, and suddenly something that otherwise would have made perfect sense was made the butt of a joke. I have a good sense of self-deprecating humor. I do, however, get ticked off when I'm made a laughingstock because someone was too rude to let me finish. This is a much smaller consideration, but if I'm in company where it's happened before, I'm less likely to speak again.

6: Talking involves being around people. To say the things I want to say verbally, I have to endure situations that would normally send me scurrying for cover (see cave comment for reference). As you could probably tell, I post about once every one and a half  to two weeks. I could survive, quite happily, on that amount of social interaction with the world at large. I would rather spend my time learning Japanese, how to play the guitar (and cello, and violin...) writing my books, drawing my pictures, talking to my close friends and family, and practicing my martial arts than dealing with the general public, simply because the general public exhausts me.

There are lots of introverts in the world. And most have gone through the usual "oh, he/she is shy" spiel many, many times. And they've probably all wondered just what was wrong with them. Why that part of themselves needed to be changed, or was made out to be something negative. We get run over because we're quiet, and that only confirms it. There must be something wrong, right? There has to be something wrong with us, because no one is listening.

If we don't speak up, we're not heard. And we don't speak up because it goes against the grain. We're quiet people. We think more than we speak. And when we do speak, a lot of us speak softly. Because we get trampled by our more talkative friends, we believe that there's something wrong with us. Everyone around us is loud, and everyone around us gets a certain amount of attention. Because we don't get that attention, we believe it's a problem with us. We believe no one wants to listen, because no one has taken the time and effort to do it.

And, in some cases, we believe we are worth less. Because no one wants to listen, and we're so quiet, we have fewer friends. Why do you suppose quiet people have a reputation for low self-esteem? Many of us blame ourselves for that. We think it's because people don't like us. And we think people don't like us because there's something wrong with us.

But...maybe it's not the fact that we're quiet that's the issue, but the fact that most of the world is so busy talking that they can't hear us. Maybe it's not that we need to speak up, but that the rest of the world needs to quiet down. That we all need to slow down, and learn to appreciate the silence. To hold back the words that aren't necessary, so that the ones spoken truly mean something. So that chatter changes into conversation, and noise becomes communication. Communication is a two-way street. It involves both speaking and listening. If you're listening now, then here you go:

Introversion is not a disease to be cured.

It has some unsavory aspects, to be sure. But then, so does extroversion. Introverts are not less than an extrovert. Just because a person is quiet doesn't make them shy. Just because they're quiet doesn't mean they have nothing to say. Just because they're quiet doesn't give you the right to interrupt them, treat them like what they have to say is unimportant, or believe that they have nothing to say at all.

Because introverts are quiet, we get overwhelmed by those who are louder. We get little consideration from them, and they rarely ask us what we think or pause to let us speak because we "never say anything."  I've been talked over and drowned out because I choose to talk softly. I've been interrupted, constantly, to such a degree that sometimes I decide not to speak at all.

But I assure you, it's not because I have nothing to say.

Jealous Much?

It eats at your heart. It bothers you. It can affect your relationships. It can make you do incredibly silly things, like stalk a boyfriend/girlfriend on Facebook. But it's even worse than that.

People will make you feel as if it's not natural, not okay, and that it's a problem that needs to be fixed. The guilt makes it worse. You feel like your emotions are invalid, and you need to fix it. People tell you you need to get over it. You look up articles detailing how to do it, and get told it's a psychological problem and will take a long time to remove.

I'm talking about jealousy, of course.

I've experienced some pretty debilitating jealousy myself. And, at the time, I was made to believe that I should suck it up and get over it, or suffer in silence. I tried to get over it, I tried to convince myself that logically I had no reason to feel the way I did. And I certainly didn't want to feel that way. It was making me miserable. But it didn't work. So, I chose to suffer in silence rather than complain and be made to think that my emotions were inappropriate and wrong.

It turned out, as some of you know, that I had good reason to be jealous.

I was put in a position fairly recently where I felt a flash of jealousy for the first time in a while. I did not like that. I was brought forcibly back to the time when I was feeling similar - and the time immediately afterward when I discovered I'd been cheated on.

My first response was to try and reason with myself again. That didn't last long, since I knew it hadn't worked before. My second response was to look up articles on how I could get rid of it. I didn't want to feel it again. I didn't want to put myself through that.

There are millions of articles on it out there.

And when I started reading, all that happened was I felt worse. There was something wrong with me. I shouldn't be feeling this way. It's not right. It will mess up my life and make the lives of others difficult. And it's my own fault, because I can't control my emotions.

It wasn't a very pleasant day after that.

In the relationship where I was cheated on, that's what happened. I was made to feel as if my emotions, my jealousy, was wrong. My feelings were belittled and made out to be nothing, as if I was feeling things for no reason and I needed to stop believing in fairy tales.

I realized, after about an hour of searching, that what I was doing was going to make it worse. Everything I read presented jealousy as a problem. As something undesirable. As a negative.

But that's not true. In the Bible, God is described as a jealous God, is He not?

There's a distinct line between envy, which is condemned, and jealousy, which is an emotion God is described as feeling. Envy is wanting something that belongs to someone else. Jealousy is wanting something that's rightfully yours (or that you believe is rightfully yours) but has been given to someone or something else.

In my past situation, I was fully justified in being jealous. The attention that was rightfully mine, as that man's exclusive girlfriend, was being given to someone else. Several other people, in fact.

Jealousy is considered a problem because there are differing standards about what kind and how much attention belongs exclusively to us. Not because jealousy is wrong.

I was jealous and had every right to be. I was harmed emotionally because the attention that belonged to me was being parceled out to people other than me. By entering into an exclusive relationship with me, he was bound by certain restrictions on his behavior, just like I was.

Standards for that kind of attention vary wildly, from people in "open relationships" where they're allowed to or even encouraged to date other people, to men and women that don't want anyone else even looking at their partner. There are extremes on both ends of the spectrum.

Either they have far too stringent a boundary, or not enough. And perhaps I'm swimming against the current to say that I think the second is worse than the first. Having no boundary, or one that's too loose, is like saying you simply don't care. Having too much of one is evidence of how much you do care. Perhaps it's just me, but it's easier to loosen a tight boundary than to create one where it wasn't before.

On the various dating sites I've visited, most people view jealousy as something unhealthy in a relationship. I disagree. That jealousy exists proves several things. One, the person is clearly invested in the relationship to some extent. Two, they have the clear idea that some amount of your attention belongs only to them, and they are willing to fight for that portion. Your attention matters to them.

Jealousy itself is not bad. What's bad is when their standards for that attention are too stringent or restricting, or if they're willing to go beyond the limit for sane behavior. It's not jealousy that needs to be gotten rid of, it's the unrealistic boundaries that need revising and the way breaches of said boundaries are handled.

For myself, I would feel unloved and unwanted if I had a boyfriend that never had a problem with jealousy. A certain amount of my attention, and certain types of my attention, would belong exclusively to him. If he didn't feel the need to ever defend that, then I would feel as if he didn't want it. As if he didn't care if I took parts of myself that should only belong to him and gave them to others. My love and attention are valuable, and I don't want either to be treated as if it's cheap. If he won't fight for it, then what is it worth to him?

My standards for attention that belongs only to myself, or to a boyfriend/husband are far stricter than most people would encourage me to have.

However, I grew up in a family that at this point in time has two fifty-year marriages and three twenty-five year marriages. I also have been close to families that have strong marriages of similar length. I watched what they did, what kind of attention they reserve for each other, how they behave around members of the opposite gender to whom they're not married. I think it would be foolish to say that my boundaries are unrealistic, when they're based on such vibrant examples.

One of the qualities I noticed and admired in those marriages was the men's attitude toward naked or scantily-dressed women. I remember hearing about one who gets Sports Illustrated. When the swimsuit issue comes, he gets it out of the mail, hands it to his wife or daughter, and says he doesn't need that one. My own father has my mother fast-forward through sections of movies with naked women. All of these men avoid looking at women dressed immodestly or not at all, and the women do the same where men are concerned. That type of attention belongs only to their husband/wife.

Another quality that sticks out to me is the fact that opposite gender friends are not, physically, spent time with alone. Socializing is done as a couple. Friendships are, for the most part, formed as a couple, and maintained as one. Friendships are healthy, friendships are good. But these couples guard against a growing emotional attachment to their opposite gender friends, because that kind of emotion is reserved for their life partner - and no one else. And part of that guard consists of being very careful when dealing with opposite gender friends. In some cases, they don't have any at all. This not only prevents the possibility of an extramarital emotional attachment happening, but it prevents the possibility of a spouse fearing it might happen.

These qualities make up a large part of my own boundaries, simply because I've seen that marriages work when both sides adhere to them. Not only would I expect these things from a boyfriend or husband, but I would expect him to demand them of me as well. And I would expect him to experience jealousy if I did otherwise, and gave away attention that should be his.

Jealousy is not a bad thing. It's well-designed to help keep a marriage together. It is the human element that causes problems. Obsession, loose morals, fear - all affect the boundaries you set. It is the boundary and reaction that cause the problem, not the jealousy that comes when it's crossed.

It took me a while to reach this conclusion. I was afraid that my jealous instincts were too strong, too potent, and that they had become that way because of prior traumatic experiences. In truth, while some aspects of my jealousy may now have been affected adversely by fear, and my reactions may occasionally be blown out of proportion, the foundation for my jealousy is the same. And it is neither unrealistic nor wrong.

Jealousy can cause problems, if the boundaries set are too tight. And trauma can make it worse by bringing fear or insecurity into the picture. An obsession with making sure those boundaries are not crossed is a trust or self-esteem issue that can be triggered by jealousy. But alone, the emotion is not wrong.

In Which I Make a Fuss About Yogurt and Shoelaces

It was the shoelace that did it. It completely ruined my day. ...Okay, maybe something small like a shoelace isn't enough to ruin my day entirely. But it did tick me off.

I work in retail. I work in a music store, where we sell shoelaces to tie to guitar straps for people who don't have two strap knobs on their guitars. These strings are kept right above the row of straps, in a neat little line.

The shoelaces that got to me were in the section of reeds for woodwinds. It looked like a customer had picked them up, carried them over to look at reeds, decided they didn't want them after all, and then left it there. Which was, literally, only five steps away from where they got them in the first place.

Five steps away and you couldn't take the time to put them back?

I saw something similar that very night in Wal-Mart. I was looking for fresh fruits and vegetables. As I was looking at pears, I accidentally knocked a box down behind the display where I couldn't reach it. I tried to pick it up and put it back, but when I realized I couldn't reach it, I stood up - and saw that someone had just dumped the lunchables they didn't want in a box of pears.

In another store, I saw a pack of frozen yogurt that someone had just left to go bad on a shelf of room-temperature goods. It was melting into a puddle on the metal shelving, in the noodle and canned goods aisle.

Really? Are you so lazy that you're going to leave stuff you don't want, that could go bad, for someone else to find? Because you don't want it?

Really?

After seeing the shoelaces and the lunchables while I was shopping, I made a choice. I had a bag of cherries I'd decided I didn't want. The produce was all the way on the other side of a Wal-Mart superstore. I walked all the way back, and put them in a display of cherries. It took me less than two minutes.

I had to put those shoelaces back where they belonged. Is it my job? Yes. Yes it is. But what if I hadn't found them there? What if I hadn't found them there, and that was our last one? What if a customer had come in and wanted them, but left angry or upset that we 'didn't have any' because it wasn't where it was supposed to be? In that situation, the customer could have gotten what they wanted and left happy. But it wouldn't have happened that way, all because one person didn't put the shoelaces back where they belonged. Now imagine that you were that unhappy customer. Pretty annoying, isn't it? You could easily have gotten what you wanted, if only that last person had put them back where they belonged - five steps away.

I didn't mind putting them back where they belonged. I shook my head a little bit, but it wasn't having to put them away that bothered me.

It was the inherent laziness. They didn't take the five steps and two seconds to put them back, but instead set them where they were and left them there. The thoughtlessness of people who leave refrigerated foods to rot because they're too lazy to go and put them back.

That bugs me.

Are we really so lazy and selfish?

If we're so cavalier about that, what else is falling by the wayside? If we're so selfish and lazy that we'll set an item that's worth a few dollars on a shelf and leave it there, then why should any of us believe we're to be trusted with bigger things?

A small thing like refusing to put away an item we've discovered we don't want is a symptom of a bigger issue.

Why? Why did it get left?

Because someone didn't want to put it back. Why didn't they want to put it back? Because it would take too much time? Because they were too busy? Because they didn't feel like walking all the way back to where they found it?

These reasons all stem from one, and it's one that most people probably wouldn't want to admit, even to themselves.

Selfishness.

Selfishness with their time, selfishness with their energy. They refuse to take the two minutes (or less) it would take to put something back, because they want to hoard their time and energy. They don't want to expend a few minutes of their time making life easier or cheaper for some unnamed and faceless stranger. They don't want to walk to the other side of the store and put their item back where they found it, because they're thoughtlessly acting only for themselves.

Yes, I am making a big stink over shoelaces and yogurt. No, I don't think it's ridiculous.

If you're going to be so selfish and stingy with your time that you can't take five minutes (or, in some cases, five seconds) to put back what you've gotten out, then I have a hard time believing you'll come through for others when things get really difficult. I don't foresee you doing very well.

Or, to be more accurate, I see you doing very well at what you have been practicing for days, months, years. And if that thing you've been practicing is laziness or selfishness, then those are the traits you will display when it matters. You will have spent years, in some cases, decades, building a habit, and habits can't just be tossed to the side when they no longer suit you. It's not that simple.

When you discover that the orange juice in your hand isn't what you want, an immediate mental exchange takes place. You don't want this. You don't need this. But the refrigerated aisle where you picked it up is four aisles away. There's an empty space on the shelf next to the cereal. It would be so easy to just set it there, wouldn't it?

Some people go no further than this. It's easier, therefore it's what they do.

What they fail to realize is that that orange juice, if left there, will spoil. They will have wasted the store's money, they will have wasted a perfectly good carton of juice, they will have wasted the effort of every worker that helped put that carton in their hand, all because it's easier than putting it back.

Is that a good reason?

Forty percent of the food in the US alone goes uneaten. Yet there are hungry children all across the nation.

Is ease a good reason to drop refrigerated items in places where they will rot?

Is ease a good reason to make the lives of employees harder by forcing them to track down purposely misplaced items and return them to their places? Those of us who work in retail are already dealing with the people who come in and swear at us because they didn't get exactly what they wanted, due to no fault of ours. We don't need to clean up after people *cough*children*cough* who, for some unfathomable reason, seem incapable of putting one thing back where it belongs.

I understand some people have physical limitations. There is, however, an alternative to just dropping whatever you don't want someplace it might never be found. And that is taking it up to the cashier, telling them you no longer want the item, and asking them politely to put it back. At least then you will have demonstrated the courtesy of recognizing the existence of the people who have to clean up after you.

It's time to grow up, people. Stop leaving things where they don't belong because you were too lazy to put them back. For everything you just drop someplace, there's a person who's going to have to put it back, or pay for the waste. Get over your desire to do nothing, get over your 'they can deal with it' attitude, and just get over yourselves. Because that's the real problem, isn't it?
Like what you read? Support me on Facebook! You can also buy my most recent book, Isomorph, here. :)

Newsflash!

As adults, we've (usually) outgrown the idea that the world is a safe, beautiful place populated with fairies and leprechauns, where everything always has a happy ending. Usually, as we get older, we realize that not everything good is pleasant, and that sweets are bad for you, no matter how good they taste. Santa Claus doesn't bring you presents on Christmas Eve, the Easter Bunny doesn't present you with chocolate eggs, and the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist. There are no unicorns hiding in the woods, the letter from Hogwarts will never come, and being on the receiving end of love isn't always pleasant.

Wait. What? What do you mean, love isn't always pleasant?

Oh, you hadn't gotten that far yet? Sorry, I thought all adults had realized this. But I guess I should have known, when everyone claims that Christians aren't being loving when they refuse to accept gay marriage or abortion, that it's a regular occurrence.

Apparently, love has been redefined as "the act of giving people whatever they want, regardless of whether it's good for them or not, meekly and without protest."

This is a cotton candy and lollipop version of what love is. The nutrients and substance of it has been stripped away, leaving us with a piece of sugar and fluff that has no practical use.

The world cries that Christians are unloving when we condemn certain things.

And some Christians do it too. No, we can't tell them it's wrong, it might hurt their feelings. No, we can't take action to stop this from happening, they'll hate us. We can't preach against this, because it's uncomfortable. We have to draw people in with entertainment, because we have to compete with the world. I don't have to believe what the Bible says about this action and enforce it, because that's not loving my neighbor.

Um, really?

We are not here to fall down on the ground and let people walk all over us. We are not here to win some cosmic popularity contest. We are not here to fight for fans, or attendance, or money, or to be the most popular church, or the most popular "brand" of Christian. We're not here to entertain, or make people feel good, or use secular, popular modes to draw people to our churches. If they aren't drawn by the truth, by the gospel, then they shouldn't be there. Period.

You want to draw people with music, entertainment, games? Fine. You have yourself a great time. Really. I'm not against having fun. But don't be surprised if that's all they come for. Don't be surprised if they have no interest in the truth, and no interest in furthering your good intentions. Don't be surprised if they don't accept faith, don't grow, don't change, don't better themselves.

Just like with clothing, what you advertise determines what you get. If you advertise for fun, easy, entertaining, then you'll get people who are looking for that. And if your purpose is to spread the gospel, then aren't you utilizing false advertising? If what you really want is people on fire for God, people dedicated to truth, people with depth and strength of character, then shouldn't you be advertising toward that end?

And, with that said, should you really be advertising at all? It's not a business, people. Come on! If you're in this to make money, then you're in the wrong place. A church is not a business, invented to turn a profit. If you feel you have to advertise in the usual sense of the word, you're missing the point.

The point is not money, or attendance, or popularity. Those are selfish, self-seeking motives. Those are an attempt to justify yourself, and make yourself important. If that is the point of the church, then I quit, here and now.

Advertising is the art of luring people in who might not ordinarily make the choice to be there on their own. Or, in some cases, present deliberate misinformation. It's designed to convince people to buy what you're selling. Even if it means influencing circumstances, placement, display, and color to do it. It's manipulation, pure and simple.

But manipulation is the perfect way to convince people you're telling the truth! Being motivated by money or attendance or popularity is the perfect way to convince people your motives are selfless!

Somebody help me, I think I broke my sarcasm.

Try to wrap your minds around this:

Shouldn't you be actually teaching the gospel, and not worrying about what people want? People are notorious for not wanting what's good for them. Just try to feed a little kid vegetables. If you're trying to make the word of God more palatable, then aren't you completely disregarding it's purpose? Aren't you being disrespectful by saying it's not good enough as it is, you have to add seasoning? You have to change the flavor, so that people will eat it? Food corporations do the same thing, and that's why there are so many unhealthy people in America today. They wanted to make money, so they added things to food that was perfectly fine the way it was. And now it's those chemicals and additives that are killing us.

Some things simply shouldn't be sugarcoated. It ruins their integrity and their purpose. One of those things is the truth. Luring people in with sweetness, laughter and light is all well and good for big corporations, but if you try to get people into church with those things, by coating the unsavory bits in cotton candy and powdered sugar, what's going to happen when that sweet goes away and they get hit with a fistful of reality?

Are you killing our faith by trying to make it "taste good" for everyone?

The things that are good for us aren't always pleasant. But removing them because they aren't pleasant is a terrible reason. No good parent will remove all fruits and vegetables from their child's diet because they don't taste good. Why? Because only eating the stuff that tastes good is the quickest way to an unhealthy diet and an unhealthy lifestyle. And loving parents want their children to be healthy - even if it's not particularly enjoyable for the child in question.

You want America to have a healthy spiritual life? Then maybe it's time to bring back the things that don't taste so good, and cut out the unhealthy ones that everyone loves so much.

And if you're going to point a finger and say that we can't do it because it's unloving, then maybe it's time you figured out what real love is. If you're going to call us perpetrators of hate-crime, then you are sadly misguided.

If we didn't care, we would watch you on a path of self-destruction and say nothing. Maybe you don't believe you'll destroy yourself, but that's not the point. The point of this is our motivation. We believe that. We're not fighting you out of hatred. We're not preaching against the things you want because we don't want you to be happy. We preach against them because we believe you're going down a road of pain, difficulty, and emptiness. And - get this, if you can - it's because we actually care.

Just like the parent that will discipline their child for running across the road without looking, the momentary pain of your dismissal and dislike is far better than the alternative of watching you commit what we view as spiritual suicide.

But you know what's just as sad?

Watching, listening, as people who claim Christianity act and make decisions that are in direct opposition to the Bible from which they claim their faith comes. And then proclaim it to the world, as an act of love.

...no. I'm sorry. That's not an act of love. It's an act of selfishness. And love is not selfish. You're conforming to the world, because to be different is to be uncomfortable. To tell people that they are wrong is to be attacked, provoked, and made fun of.

Someone who truly loves will fight for what's best for you, even if it makes them uncomfortable. They won't attack you physically or call you names, but they also won't bend on what is right and what is wrong. To call that hatred is to be fully ignorant, perhaps on purpose, of what an act of love really is.

But, naturally, people are incredibly good at being stupid on purpose.

So. Are you going to feed the world the sugary sweetness that could be their downfall and have them cheer you on as being loving? Or are you going to present them with the vegetables, facing down their complaints and fighting, to be truly loving?

And the rest of you. Are you going to simply accept this unhealthy, selfish version of love? Are you going to suck down the toxicity of people who think that giving you whatever you want is really love? Or are you going to look for people who will act in your best interests, regardless of what you want?

Choose what you will. But you'll have to face the consequences sooner or later. And it just might be facing all the people you've handed sugarcoated truth, demanding to know why you didn't love them enough to speak out. Accusing you of knowing the truth, and presenting it to them flawed. Telling you that their lives are skewed, warped, in ways they shouldn't be, because you lacked the courage to swim against the current.

Or, you might be the victim. The one pointing a finger at those who misled you. And a lot of the responsibility is theirs. But answer me this: Do you have to follow them? Were you so wrapped up in hearing what you wanted that you refused to search out people speaking the truth?

What are you going to believe - the reality of love, or the fairytale?

I Think You Need a Woman's Perspective...

"That's strict."

"That's harsh."

"I don't have to do that."

I've heard these things. I've also heard:

"Men need to control themselves."

"It's hot outside, I can wear what I want."

"If you've got it, flaunt it."

To be honest, my response is disgust. I'm talking about modesty, of course. Yes, again. But you know what they say - the squeaky wheel gets the oil.

Allow me to offer a woman's perspective on this issue. Yeah, my views are strict. Yeah, they're harsh, and difficult, and to some people annoying or some weird attack on feminism. How they get this I have no idea, but there you go.

Anyway, the first thing I'd like to say is this: men do need to control themselves. But my belief that this doesn't give women the right to parade around in little more than their underwear and scream "PERVERT!!" at any man that dares stare too long is, apparently, unpopular. I can't imagine why. It's just having a single standard, as opposed to a double.

OH WAIT. I'm not supposed to have only one standard. Sorry. I'm supposed to say that women can do whatever they want, and men just have to suck it up and deal with it. Because I'm a woman. Right? Because that's what feminism is, right? Because I have the power to make them suffer and it's a shame not to use it every chance I get. Right?

Well, if that's the case, then an attack on feminism it is. If that's the view, then it's selfish, self-centered, egotistical, and demeaning to men.

That clear? No? Then let's try this again.

Men are visual. A man, if given the choice, will choose to stare at a woman in a bikini over a woman in jeans and a t-shirt. They will also remember the women dressed scantily more readily than the ones dressed modestly. Because they are visual, and they are hardwired to find a woman's body attractive. I don't think anyone can successfully argue that this isn't true for most men.

So, knowing that, let's take a look at this study. You know, the one that proved men who see scantily-clad women have certain parts of their brain slow down - or even stop. Oh, and that's the part of their brain that thinks of women as people with thoughts and feelings. Did I mention that? It also increases activity in the part of their brains that have to do with objects.

Some women want this. They feed off that attention. They want to "look good." And some people defend the wearing of those clothes with the same reasoning. "They only want to look good."

But that's not really true, is it?

Because looking good doesn't hinge upon the showing of skin. Neither does it hinge upon the open flaunting of sexuality. Those two things are done for one of two reasons. Because they want to show off and get attention, or because they want other people's positive reactions to prove their own negative opinions of themselves are incorrect.

I'm a woman, okay? I understand this. I know, understand, and have felt the urge to dress in such a way that draws attention. And I'm well aware of why that urge exists. I'm also aware of how selfish indulging that urge would be.

Some women have "good" reasons for wearing something like a bikini. I've heard it defended because someone got a rash from wearing a one-piece. My question is this: Why choose the bikini? Why not go for a looser-fitting one-piece or a more modest two-piece? They do sell them, you know. Or even go for a different fabric, since it could have been an allergy.

In cases of that nature, modesty is less important than comfort. Why?

I've had rashes before. I had chicken pox as a kid. I had a rash everywhere, and it was uncomfortable. But I didn't run around naked, either, saying "I have a rash" as an excuse. "I get a rash from wearing modest clothes, therefore I have reason to wear immodest ones" is like a man saying "lack of sexual relief is uncomfortable, therefore I'm allowed to rape." Discomfort is not a good reason to abandon a virtue. And modesty is a virtue.

People aren't making enough of an effort. Period.

Modesty just isn't important anymore. Not to most people. And a lot of men aren't going to argue for women to wear more modest apparel. They like it when we wear things that are immodest. They are visual, remember? They like to look at stuff like that. We know this, of course. It's one of the biggest reasons we do it.

What girl/woman hasn't seen a chick flick with the girl that's unpopular until she goes through a makeover, and suddenly the guy she likes notices her for the first time? We're raised to use beauty and our sexuality to draw men. We're told that to get a man's attention, we have to be thin, wear makeup, and show skin. Lots of skin.

But the men you attract are the kind that are drawn to that sort of thing. I can speak from experience. Allow me to give you a personal example.

Most days, I wear clothing that is casual and puts no emphasis on how I look. A pair of jeans and a t-shirt is normal. It's comfortable, it's functional, it's clean, and I don't look like I just rolled out of bed. Usually, I don't have to endure stares from men or creepy compliments. They can tell I'm not fishing for them, and won't welcome flattery. I like this. I'm treated as a person, and no different from my male counterparts at work.

But one day, I got a new blouse. It was a very nice blouse; it went well with my coloring, and it was flattering on my shape. It wasn't tight on me, so it didn't show every bump and bulge, and it was a comfortable fabric. It's neckline was a little lower than I'd usually wear, simply because bending over and having someone able to look down my shirt is something I find extremely uncomfortable, but it wasn't too bad. So I decided to wear it to work one day.

You know what happened?

Some people really creeped me out. That's what happened. It's practically scientific. If I wear a nicer blouse to work, some random guy tries to flirt with me, or shoots some creepy compliment my way. I have done this. I have tested it. All through the winter, I wore loose, shapeless clothing, and enjoyed my happy anonymity. The instant I started wearing blouses like the one I described, creepy males popped out of nowhere, asking if all the women in my family were beautiful, or if I just hit the lottery (true story).

They are visual. The bait you put out determines the compliments and attention you receive. Wearing the shapeless sweater, I got complimented on my patience, on my listening skills; they had nothing to go on but my personality. Wearing the blouse, I got complimented on my body - and my face. Which is interesting, because I don't wear makeup to work. Ever. That never changed, so why didn't they notice my face before?

Simple, really.

What you wear determines what people see first. What you wear tells people about who you are as a person. The blouse told people "I want to be attractive" while the sweater told people "I really don't care" and they tailored their responses according to what was important to me at the time.

What do your clothes tell other people? If a simple blouse change provokes such a large shift in perception, what are your clothes saying? My new blouse was loose and billowy. What if I wore a tight one next? Do you think the creep-factor would increase? What if I wore shorts, and they got shorter and shorter? Do you think any of the visual men out there would care if I was patient? Do you think they would even notice?

What's even more interesting is the compliments on my personality stopped entirely. I wore something that put more emphasis on my body, and people stopped noticing my personality.

I once read that you could tell a woman was well-dressed if you never even noticed what she was wearing.

I whole-heartedly agree. The focus of such a woman is her personality and character. She takes the time to look nice and put-together, but in such a way that being sloppy, messy, or clashing colors and patterns don't detract from who she is as a person. In the same way, something too flashy, provocative, or attention-grabbing isn't worn, because that would, again, detract from who she is as a person. It changes the focus - not necessarily of herself, but of those around her. It draws attention to the body, taking that same attention away from the person herself.

For those of you who read the Bible, here are a few little gems to think about:

1 Timothy, 2:9 - Likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire...

1 Peter 3: 1-4 - Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious.

Our goal when dressing should not be to fit in, to be called hot, or beautiful, or attractive. It should not be to get attention from anyone, whether positive or negative. Our thoughts should not be about what we want to wear, what's comfortable for us, or what's going to look the best. Those are inherently selfish reasons, used to justify selfish action. Those reasons are used to excuse behavior that can, and does, make life difficult for others.

I've heard several men say that immodest clothing on women doesn't affect them. Allow me to ask you this: Can you speak for all men? Can you say that women are all right to wear immodest clothing, just because it doesn't affect you, personally?

And I have another one: Between two and four percent of women feel that they're beautiful. This is due, in large part, to the lifestyles of the rich and famous, as well as our fellows that dress to flaunt their physical attributes. Knowing this, can you condone action that makes the problem worse? Can you, with full knowledge, perpetuate a fashion that can and will make your daughters feel like they aren't good enough? That they have to wear those things, be skinny, wear makeup, to be pretty?

Do you want them to grow up in a place and time where, in order to fit in with our society's idea of beauty, they have to wear things that turn off the part of a hostile sexist's brain that thinks of them as a person? You want men hostile toward women to think of your daughters, sisters, mothers, wives, as objects instead of people?

Can you let this happen? Will you let this happen?

My woman's perspective is this: Women need to accept responsibility, and face the consequences of what they wear. And men need to stop enabling them to make bad choices. We do it for you! We try to look good for you! Are you going to allow us to do and wear things that put us in danger simply because you like to look? Or because you're afraid of feminists?

Hold us accountable. Stop enabling us.

You're strong. You can do it. We're strong. We can handle it.

When Complaining on Facebook is a Bad Idea

The image was an innocuous one. Not a pretty picture, but not one to stick out, either. In the mountain known as my Facebook newsfeed, I would have gone right past it, if it weren't for the caption accompanying said picture.

It was an accusation and a complaint about the content of the image. Something regarding a household appliance had been done in a way that the poster regarded as "not good enough." To strike back, they posted the picture, calling for their friends and family to like it, so that the person who had fallen short would learn their lesson and not make the mistake again.

If it had been a major infraction, or one that was unfixable, I might have understood. I might also have understood had the perpetrator been someone other than the poster's spouse. But since it was a relatively small mistake that was easily fixed, and it was the poster's spouse, I had a slight problem with this. This problem only increased when this post was commented on with varying degrees of ridicule, aimed at a person not present to defend themselves.

Last I checked, Facebook was not the correct place to air out family issues or arguments with your spouse. Last I checked, offering up an opinion and choosing a side on something so biased wasn't a particularly wise decision. And last I checked, acting in this manner was a show of extreme disrespect.

If you have issues with your husband/wife, asking Facebooik to take your side is the first step to an all-out war. And an unfair one at that. And if you're willing to take up sides on an issue to which you've only heard one side, how are you sure it's the right one?

Think, people!

If you were in the position where your husband/wife was going to Facebook to complain about you and all your shortcomings, and then asking for people to gang up on you, would you like it? Would you like it if you saw a post from the person you'd promised to love and live with the rest of your life, detailing a small shortcoming and begging for help from their friends to teach you a lesson?

It's disrespectful. It's rude, thoughtless, and self-centered.

And how about those of you who immediately jump on the situation? Instead of offering advice on how to fix the problem, you malign the person responsible.

Think about what you're doing!

What you say in that kind of situation could seriously hurt the person the post is about. It could cause damage to a marriage, and you're helping.

Facebook is not a drama where the actors all go home friends every night. These are real people, with real feelings. You can't just spew all of your frustrations with your significant other to the world and expect no fallout. They will see it. And then what will you tell them? What defense will you offer?

In this situation, which infraction was worse? Was it the simple, easy-to-fix mistake, or was it shouting it out to all of Facebook and publicly shaming someone who should have your utmost love and respect?

It's not that hard, people. Figure it out.

Support your friends. But remember, other people are affected by what you say. Are you going to support a blatant act of disrespect? Are you going to support something that you know will hurt someone else if they see it? Are you going to indulge your sadistic desire to watch drama unfold by encouraging action that could destroy lives?

Not all friendly support can cause problems, and in many cases, it's extremely helpful. So I'm not saying to just shut up and ignore your friends when they have complaints.

But you have a choice as to how you will handle it. Instead of jumping all over the person who may or may not be responsible, for what may or may not be a problem, offer constructive advice. If you know a way to fix the issue, tell them. If you know a way to make the situation easier, then by all means, offer it up. But, for goodness' sakes, remember that you're dealing with people. Remember that they think and feel, and that the person responsible for making your friend complain might not be as much to blame as you think. Traditionally, the truth is somewhere between the two extremes.

And before you hit that blue "post" button, ask yourself if your motivation is selfish. Is it revenge? Is it a desire to be right? Is it a desire to make your significant other look bad or feel guilty?

Then ask yourself this: Is it worth it? There are some things that need to be done. I'm not going to lie. Some things need to change, and sometimes it's only the power of public opinion that can do it. But is it appropriate? Is it something huge that needs the enormous power of a public post to change, or is it something small that you can fix yourself? Is it something that can be handled without making it public knowledge and embarrassing someone?

And, lastly, is it going to hurt the person it's about if they see it?

Think about it. If your motivation is selfish, it's something that can be handled perfectly well in private, or the damage isn't going to be worth it, then maybe you should consider keeping your mouth shut.

Happy Father's Day!

I get along better with my mother than I do with my father. Probably because my mom and I understand each other better, or even because we're both female and my dad isn't. I'm pretty sure this isn't an isolated experience, but because of that, Mother's Day stuff comes easier for me than Father's Day stuff. I always know what will make my mother feel special, so it's easier. My dad is far more difficult. 

As a result, I've consistently done more for my mom on Mother's Day than I have for my dad on Father's Day. This year I did some pretty big stuff for my mom that I hadn't been able to do before. But one thing I didn't do was write a blog post for it. I did that for a reason - and it's not because I forgot. It's because I wanted to do one exclusively for Father's Day this year. I may not know what to get for my dad (my mom picked something out she thought he'd like and I paid for it) but I thought it might be even better if I did this with him in mind. 

It's not directed only at him, since there are a lot of good dads in my life, but it is primarily for him. 

One night after a Bible class, my dad was late picking me up. He was really late. The people there wouldn't leave me by myself, and a few of them offered to take me home. I turned them all down. I told them he would come. They asked if it was possible he forgot me. I told them no. 

At first, I didn't understand why they were so worried. Of course he would come. He'd said he would. But because he was so late, they were worried that he forgot, and that I would be stuck there, alone and at night. I was the only one not worried about it. I kept telling them he would be there. I could hear them, talking about it, with multiple volunteers to take me home if he didn't show. 

I was touched by their concern. These people cared, and cared enough that multiple people were willing to take me home, and several of them decided to stay with me until I either decided to take them up on their offer, or my dad came. But, at the time, I felt it was unnecessary. 

My dad forgets to buy shampoo at the store. My dad even forgets to stop by the store entirely. My dad forgets to tell people what's going on sometimes. But there's one thing he has never - ever - forgotten. I couldn't let those people take me home. Because my dad would get there, and I would be gone. He always comes. He might be late, but he always comes. It wasn't until just recently that I realized how much I could trust him to be there. 

My dad isn't the only one I can depend on, either. 

Another time when my dad was running a little late, this time getting me from work, my manager refused to leave me in the parking lot. 

My manager is a very nice, older gentleman who's like another grandfather. He never questioned that my dad would come, but he didn't leave me there by myself. Despite the fact that it was broad daylight and in a busy part of town that was completely visible, he didn't leave me there. He waited with me until my dad came. 

When I went north to train for my black belt testing, I stayed with my cousin and friends. While I was there, my cousin looked after me. If you know this particular cousin, you'll know that he doesn't immediately appear to be the super-caring type. But he always made sure I had food to eat, and I knew that if I needed something I could ask him. He's not overly affectionate, but he shows it in different ways, like his near-supernatural patience when working with me on board breaks, and the way he found a million different ways to help me figure out what I was doing wrong. He wanted me to succeed. 

The truth is, I've grown up surrounded by men, young and old, that have bent over backwards because they loved me. My dad, my grandfathers, my uncles, my cousins, and even random men that I've met in my journey through life. Wherever I go, there's always been a man willing to look after and protect me. Wherever I go, whatever the situation, I can go to one of them and expect assistance. My dad is late. A lot. But I can always depend on him to come. My cousin doesn't show affection readily, but I know that if I was in trouble and I asked him for help, he would be there, too. 

I'm not a feminist. I see these things and think of them as chivalry, and a show of love. I can take care of myself, but these men don't want me to have to do it alone. Regardless of whether I need their protection or not, they don't want bad things to happen to me, and I can depend on them. 

Many of the men I can depend on are fathers. Some of them are the fathers of friends. But the things that make them good fathers also make them good men. And being a good man is not limited to fathers. 

So, in a time and place when holding a door for a woman is looked down on, "because she can get it herself" and a lot of women feel that they're treated as inferior by men, I'd like to thank the men that aren't afraid to be kind and protective anyway. Specifically, I'd like to thank the ones in my own life. The ones I can trust with my well-being - emotional, physical, and mental. Thank you, for always being there, for your courage, and your strength. But, mostly, I'd like to thank my own dad, for always being there.  

Happy Father's Day.

To Mourn the Death of...A Spider

Yeah, yeah, a spider. I know. The screech-worthy, eight-legged critter that some people I know are deathly afraid of. 

To be fair, I don't particularly love spiders myself. But I'm also the one that while everyone else is still busy screaming, will go for a shoe. (True story.) In fact, there's been a lot of spider issues going on in my life the past few days. The mysterious spider that my sister found and was tentatively identified as a camel spider, as well as the two my coworker and I found while cleaning instruments. 

This particular spider was safely on the other side of glass. 

My uncle arrived to take me to work, and I climbed into his car. I didn't notice it at first, but as we headed into town, I realized it was on the window. It was hanging by one, glistening strand of web. 

I'd seen numerous bugs fly off the windshield or windows on the drive to town. It's a ten-minute drive at fifty-five miles an hour, so they don't usually last very long. So I watched it, to see when it would fly off. 

The little bugger had one end of his web attached to the window, and as we flew down the road, it got longer and longer. After about eight minutes, I started hoping he would still be there when we stopped. I was planning on removing him from the car, and putting him someplace a little safer for a spider than the outside of a car.

When we passed city limits, we hit the first red light, and he started to move. It looked like he was trying to get down to the ground, but he wasn't moving very fast, and the light changed before he made it very far. So he hunkered down again as we went on our way. 

My uncle had a pit stop to make before work, so he parked the car and went to run his errand. I waited in the car, and watched the spider. He wasn't moving. Hadn't moved since the red light. Despite much tapping of the glass, he remained motionless.

When my uncle came back and we went to work, he was still motionless. I was sure he was dead. I'd never seen a bug last as long on a car during that drive. And after he'd tried to get down to the ground at the last stop, I didn't understand why he wasn't moving then, when it was actually safe. 

When we finally arrived at work, I'd decided that I would check and see if he was, in fact, dead, before going inside. I pulled out a piece of paper, and scooped him up.

He immediately uncurled and ran at my fingers. Because, apparently, the fact that he'd undergone a near-death experience had rattled his little bug-brain into thinking rushing at a human wasn't going to end in instant death. Luckily for him, it was me holding the paper and not various other relatives and acquaintances, because he probably would have been squashed into prompt oblivion.

I dropped the paper, of course. A suicidal spider crawling on me wasn't exactly my idea of a good time. I did not, however, stomp on or swat at it. I'd just gone through a few stages of grief at thinking the poor thing was dead. I wasn't going to make it a reality.

He was alive. And yes, I was happy that he was. This spider's body was smaller than the nail of my pinkie finger. It clung to a car, traveling at fifty-five miles per hour, for ten minutes. And that's not counting the amount of time he spent hanging on at a lower speed. That little spider hung on for dear life. It wanted to live. It persevered, it held on. It's ordeal had made it go a little daffy, but still.

How many of us are shamed by the spider? 

Would you have held on that long? Would you have given up and fallen to your death at some point during those ten minutes?

How many of us, when faced with an obstacle to something we want or need, give up because we can't see the end?

Yes, sometimes we should give up. Sometimes it's better for us if we do. Sometimes what we want is not good for us. BUT. But on those occasions when it's something important, when your life or peace of mind could hang in the balance, would you hold on like the spider?

Would you hang on to a happy (or grateful, peaceful, joyful, positive, etc.) attitude with the determination of a spider to save its life? Or would you let it go when it gets hard?

I was (silently) cheering for that spider. I wanted it to survive. Do we cheer for own fellows during their times of difficulty? The spiders can't understand us, but the people can. A strong cheering section can be a very powerful thing. Encourage each other.

But, like the spider, don't depend on your own cheering section. He couldn't hear anything, and if he could, he wouldn't have understood it. But that didn't stop him, did it? If you don't have a cheering section, keep going. That's no reason to give it up. But if, like the spider, you hang on, you might find that you end up with people encouraging you anyway.

Most people don't really like spiders. There's something creepy and off-putting about them; in fact, I don't really care for them. I don't like to kill them, but they're not my favorite creatures. You have to admit, however, that there are things we can learn, even from the weirdest, strangest, or creepiest creatures.

But I think going a little nuts isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure we can all do that without help. ;)