Sunday, February 15, 2009

what's in a name

Names fascinate me.
I love the combination of first and middle names, and how you can love two names separately, but when you put them together, the flow doesn't work. Why is that?
Here is a list of some of my favorite first/second name combinations. I have an easier time coming up with girl names for some reason. I'll probably add to this list. Who knows... maybe you'll see one or two being used someday when we have babies. :) Some of the middle names are interchangeable. And some of the first names could also be middle.


Lydia Beth
Fiona Skye
Phoebe Rae
Violet Sea
Emma Scarlett
Alana Mildred
Rachael Anne
Juliet Marie
Hannah Monroe
Olivia Jane
Addison Grace
Natalie Rose
Isobel Care
Carrie Faye
Aurelia Margaret
Audrey Faith
Zoe Darla
Sophia Belle
Eleanor Paige
Elinor Mae
Sadie Ellen
Chloe Saige
Sasha Elisabeth
Ophelia May
Juliet Clare
Bridget Maeve
Nora Kate


Ezekiel Owen
Ezra David
Oliver James
Dylan Thomas
Elijah Maxwell
Christian Morgan
Liam Jude
Lucas Simon
Silas Cole
Jared Matthew
Sebastian Felix
Loren Jackson
Xavier Duncan
Elias Samuel

Sunday, February 1, 2009

a less than philosophical entry

I am a bad blogger. I would so much prefer reading about other people's lives on their blogs, and by doing so, neglect my own.

Ah well.

I am feeling myself in that doldrum of winter. That feeling of endless cold and darkness, when you feel like spring is just so far away. I am yearning for warm sunlight. Warm skin that smells like the sun, bare feet, the wind tickling my scalp. Heck, even going outside without a hat.

We are getting married in 202 days. On the one hand it seems as if there is so much to do, it feels overwhelming. But then I think to myself, "it's just a little detail, it doesn't matter." So hopefully I can remain calm. As long as people around me don't drive me batty (ie, Mom, Amy (FMIL), Charlotte (FFIL's wife).


I am trying to be healthier with my diet. I want to lose a few pounds. But more so, I want to tone up my body. I have been far too sedentary for the past few months. I joined the Y. I have a new workout DVD that I'm doing. I want to feel healthy and like myself again.

It's the superbowl tonight. We're going to a party. But the girls are planning to drink wine and play Apples 2 Apples in the kitchen while the boys drink beer and watch my least favorite sport in existence. Euro Football is far superior.

In any case, I should go get ready. I need to change my pants. And go pee.

Perhaps I shall make it a point to blog more often.

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Monday, November 3, 2008

on a previous topic...

Tomorrow is November 4th. November 4th is a special day. Election? Baaah.

It's the first day that me and Mr. Schnookums McScutchy Pants (hehe) kissy faced.


I'm a dork-face.

tomorrow, we vote.

I'm anxious about tomorrow. Like, literally I have knots in my stomach like tomorrow I have some huge exam. Except, as opposed to some big test I could study for, I'm being graded on this exam tomorrow based on how well everyone else in the country does.

All I can do is my part. And I can make calls tonight, and I can hope. If I prayed, I'd do that too.

In other news...I love sushi.

Also, I'm so deliriously in love with Sir Schnookums McScutchy-Pants. He tickles my fancy. Tee hee.

Romantic love. The "honeymoon" phase where four hours without a kiss is torture and hours spent together feel like minutes. You feel as if you'll never find a fault in the other, and everything seems perfect. It's all wonderful. Then, a fork in the road. Nurturing love, or addictive love. Which path will you take? Do you have the genuine desire for that person to better themselves, do you see their ultimate worth, do you want only the best for them? Do you nourish the love you cultivate together and strive for goodness and truth. Yes. You should.

It sends pangs to my heart to see others who do not see love as we see love. Or who do not feel love as we feel love. It is not that everyone should have a defined moment where they say, "ah-ha! There is love! We have struck it!" No. Rather, the awakening should a gradual gain of momentous glowing elation. Ahhhhhhhhh. No Ah-ha. Ahhhhhhhh.

This is entirely...blabber? I'm trying to distract myself. I have decided tonight that I'm going to call voters. I really hope I can feel as if I've helped.


Where is the love.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

and now, I take the lectern...along with Marilyn Frye.

This is taken from an essay by feminist activist, award-winning writer, and professor Marilyn Frye.

I first read Frye when I took Intro to Women's Studies with Liz Pacilio. This essay, "On Oppression" was one of the first things we read in that class. I'll post the article then give my initial thoughts after it.


Marilyn Frye

It is a fundamental claim of feminism that women are oppressed. The word "oppression" is a strong word. It repels ant attracts. It is dangerous and dangerously fashionable and endangered. It is much misused, and sometimes not innocently.

The statement that women are oppressed is frequently met with the claim that men are oppressed too. We hear that oppressing is oppressive to those who oppress as well as those they oppress. Some men cite as evidence of their oppression their much-advertised inability to cry. It is tough, we are told, to be masculine. When the stresses and frustrations of being a man are cited as evidence that oppressors are oppressed by their oppressing, the word "oppression" is being stretched to meaninglessness; it is treated as though its scope includes any and all human experience of limitation or suffering, no matter the cause, degree or consequence. Once such usage has been put over on us, then if ever we deny that any person or group is oppressed, we seem to imply that we think they never suffer and have no feelings. We are accused of insensitivity; even of bigotry. For women, such accusation is particularly intimidating, since sensitivity is one of the few virtues that has been assigned to us. If we are found insensitive, we may fear we have no redeeming traits at all and perhaps are not real women. Thus are we silenced before we begin: the name of our situation drained of meaning and our guilt mechanisms tripped.

But this is nonsense. Human beings can be miserable without being oppressed, and it is perfectly consistent to deny that a person or group is oppressed without denying that they have feelings or that they suffer….

The root of the word "oppression" is the element "press." The press of the crowd; pressed into military service; to press a pair of pants; printing press; press the button. Presses are used to mold things or flatten them or reduce them in bulk, sometimes to reduce them by squeezing out the gases or liquids in them. Something pressed is something caught between or among forces and barriers which are so related to each other that jointly they restrain, restrict or prevent the thing’s motion or mobility. Mold. Immobilize. Reduce.

The mundane experience of the oppressed provides another clue. One of the most characteristic and ubiquitous features of the world as experienced by oppressed people is the double bind – situations in which options are reduced to a very few and all of them expose one to penalty, censure or deprivation. For example, it is often a requirement upon oppressed people that we smile and be cheerful. If we comply, we signal our docility and our acquiescence in our situation. We need not, then, be taken note of. We acquiesce in being made invisible, in our occupying no space. We participate in our own erasure. On the other hand, anything but the sunniest countenance exposes us to being perceived as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous. This means, at the least, that we may be found "difficult" or unpleasant to work with, which is enough to cost one one’s livelihood; at worst, being seen as mean, bitter, angry or dangerous has been known to result in rape, arrest, beating, and murder. One can only choose to risk one’s preferred form and rate of annihilation.

Another example: It is common in the United States that women, especially younger women, are in a bind where neither sexual activity nor sexual inactivity is all right. If she is heterosexually active, a woman is open to censure and punishment for being loose, unprincipled or a whore. The "punishment" comes in the form of criticism, snide and embarrassing remarks, being treated as an easy lay by men, scorn from her more restrained female friends. She may have to lie to hide her behavior from her parents. She must juggle the risks of unwanted pregnancy and dangerous contraceptives. On the other hand, if she refrains from heterosexual activity, she is fairly constantly harassed by men who try to persuade her into it and pressure her into it and pressure her to "relax" and "let her hair down"; she is threatened with labels like "frigid," "uptight," "man-hater," "bitch," and "cocktease." The same parents who would be disapproving of her sexual activity may be worried by her inactivity because it suggests she is not or will not be popular, or is not sexually normal. She may be charged with lesbianism. If a woman is raped, then if she has been heterosexually active she is subject to the presumption that she liked it (since her activity is presumed to show that she likes sex), and if she has not been heterosexually active, she is subject to the presumption that she liked it (since she is supposedly "repressed and frustrated"). Both heterosexual activity and heterosexual nonactivity are likely to be taken as proof that you wanted to be raped, and hence, of course, weren’t really raped at all. You can’t win. You are caught in a bind, caught between systematically related pressures.

Women are caught like this, too, by networks of forces and barriers that expose one to penalty, loss or contempt whether one works outside the home or not, is on welfare or not, bears children or not, raises children or not, marries or not, stays married or not, is heterosexual, lesbian, both or neither. Economic necessity; confinement to racial and/or sexual job ghettos; sexual harassment; sex discrimination; pressures of competing expectations and judgements about women, wives and mothers (in the society at large, in racial and ethnic subcultures and in one’s own mind); dependence (full or partial) on husbands, parents or the state; commitment to political ideas; loyalties to racial or ethnic or other "minority" groups; the demands of the self-respect and responsibilities to others. Each of these factors exists in complex tension with every other, penalizing or prohibiting all of the apparently available options. And nipping at one’s heels, always, is the endless pack of little things. If one dresses one way, one is subject to the assumption that one is advertising one’s sexual availability; if one dresses another way, one appears to "not care about oneself" or to be "unfeminine." If one uses "strong language," one invites categorization as a "lady" – one too delicately constituted to cope with robust speech or the realities to which it presumably refers.

The experience of oppressed people is that the living of one’s life is confined and shaped by forces and barriers which are not accidental or occasional and hence avoidable, but are systematically related to each other in such a way as to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion in any direction. It is the experience of being caged in: all avenues, in every direction, are blocked or booby trapped.

Cages. Consider a birdcage. If you look very closely at just one wire in the cage, you cannot see the other wires. If your conception of what is before you is determined by this myopic focus, you could look at that one wire, up and down the length of it, and be unable to see why a bird would not just fly around the wire any time it wanted to go somewhere. Furthermore, even if, one day at a time, you myopically inspected each wire, you still could not see why a bird would gave trouble going past the wires to get anywhere. There is no physical property of any one wire, nothing that the closest scrutiny could discover, that will reveal how a bird could be inhibited or harmed by it except in the most accidental way. It is only when you step back, stop looking at the wires one by one, microscopically, and take a macroscopic view of the whole cage, that you can see why the bird does not go anywhere; and then you will see it in a moment. It will require no great subtlety of mental powers. It is perfectly obvious that the bird is surrounded by a network of systematically related barriers, no one of which would be the least hindrance to its flight, but which, by their relations to each other, are as confining as the solid walls of a dungeon.

It is now possible to grasp one of the reasons why oppression can be hard to see and recognize: one can study the elements of an oppressive structure with great care and some good will without seeing the structure as a whole, and hence without seeing or being able to understand that one is looking at a cage and that there are people there who are caged, whose motion and mobility are restricted, whose lives are shaped and reduced.

The arresting of vision at a microscopic level yields such common confusion as that about the male door-opening ritual. This ritual, which is remarkably widespread across classes and races, puzzles many people, some of whom do and some of whom do not find it offensive. Look at the scene of the two people approaching a door. The male steps slightly ahead and opens the door. The male holds the door open while the female glides through. Then the male goes through. The door closes after them. "Now how," one innocently asks, "can those crazy womenslibbers say that is oppressive? The guy removed a barrier to the lady’s smooth and unruffled progress." But each repetition of this ritual has a place in a pattern, in fact in several patterns. One has to shift the level of one’s perception in order to see the whole picture.

The door-opening pretends to be a helpful service, but the helpfulness is false. This can be seen by noting that it will be done whether or not it makes any practical sense. Infirm men and men burdened with packages will open doors for able-bodied women who are free of physical burdens. Men will impose themselves awkwardly and jostle everyone in order to get to the door first. The act is not determined by convenience or grace. Furthermore, these very numerous acts of unneeded or even noisome "help" occur in counter-point to a pattern of men not being helpful in many practical ways in which women might welcome help. What women experience is a world in which gallant princes charming commonly make a fuss about being helpful and providing small services when help and services are of little or no use, but in which there are rarely ingenious and adroit princes at hand when substantial assistance is really wanted either in mundane affairs or in situations of threat, assault or terror. There is no help with the (his) laundry; no help typing a report at 4:00 a.m.; no help in mediating disputes among relatives or children. There is nothing but advice that women should stay indoors after dark, be chaperoned by a man, or when it comes down to it, "lie back and enjoy it."

The gallant gestures have no practical meaning. Their meaning is symbolic. The door-opening and similar services provided are services which really are needed by people who are for one reason or another incapacitated – unwell, burdened with parcels, etc. So the message is that women are incapable. The detachment of the acts from the concrete realities of what women need and do not need is a vehicle for the message that women’s actual needs and interests are unimportant or irrelevant. Finally, these gestures imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock women, who are in most respects the servants and caretakers of men. The message of the false helpfulness of male gallantry is female dependence, the invisibility or insignificance of women, and contempt for women.

One cannot see the meanings of these rituals if one’s focus is riveted upon the individual event in all its particularity, including the particularity of the individual man’s present conscious intentions and motives and the individual woman’s conscious perception of the event in the moment. It seems sometimes that people take a deliberately myopic view and fill their eyes with things seen microscopically in order not to see macroscopically. At any rate, whether it is deliberate or not, people can and do fail to see the oppression of women because they fail to see macroscopically and hence fail to see the various elements of the situation as systematically related in larger schemes.

As the cageness of the birdcage is a macroscopic phenomenon, the oppressiveness of the situations in which women live our various and different lives is a macroscopic phenomenon. Neither can be seen from a microscopic perspective. But when you look macroscopically you can see it – a network of forces and barriers which are systematically related and which conspire to the immobilization, reduction and molding of women and the lives we live….

From: Marilyn Frye, The Politics of Reality (Trumansburg, N.Y.,: The Crossing Press, 1983).

My thoughts....

Humans are social creatures. We are shaped and molded by our social interactions with the many people and situations which cross our daily paths. In her article “Oppression,” Marilyn Frye does not try to dispute that only women have been oppressed across time. Instead, she attempts to clearly define what oppression is, and how human pain and suffering is not the same animal. More specifically, she claims that the term oppression connotes that there is a barrier of sorts, something which forces one’s life into a position beyond self control.

Frye’s definition states oppression to be when one’s life is “confined and shaped by forces and barriers which are not accidental or occasional and hence avoidable, but are systematically related to each other in such a way as to catch one between and among them and restrict or penalize motion in any direction." It is important that Frye distinguishes between suffering and oppression because the world is constantly run by language, definitions, and the desire for every aspect of society and culture to have a specific name. By explaining the differences, Frye shows that indeed, women have been oppressed by the sheer fact that they are women.

The article’s structure is built on symbolism and Frye’s ability to write with tangible examples. Frye makes clear that oppression functions by way of certain groups which control the barriers she explained earlier on. She explains that certain racial groups or minorities can be oppressed, (and have been) and that in order to understand if a group really is oppressed beyond their control, you must “look at the barrier or force and answer questions about it. Who constructs and maintains it? Whose interests are being served by its existence? Is it part of a structure which tends to confine, reduce and immobilize some group?” Frye makes an interesting remark which is that much of the suffering which individuals harbor every day is wholly self-internalized. This is interesting because it can help explain why many people don’t understand how women can be oppressed purely because of their female sex.

Why is this even important to understand? Well for one thing, how can a there be a societal shift in ideas and functionality without a clear comprehension of the problems? I believe that so many of the conflicts which arise in between any number of demographic groups are constructed purely out of misunderstanding or ignorance. It is only by educating one and other and being aware not only of the self, but of the groups each one of us belong to that we can start to break down the barriers that Frye speaks of.

Finally, this article makes the point that yes- men have been and still are oppressed within particular groups. However, Frye stresses the point that it is not because they are merely men. I think what she means is that it is not purely because of their sex, but by some other characteristic which may define a person. It made me think about sexual orientation. For instance, if a man is homosexual, is he being oppressed because he is a man or because of his orientation? In my opinion (and I think Frye would agree), it is not because of his biological sex, but because of his personal orientation. For me, that is the clearest example in understanding the differences of oppression between men and women.

Sunday, October 19, 2008

Pablo Neruda

"I do not love you as if you were salt-rose, or topaz, or the arrow of carnations the fire shoots off. I love you as certain dark things are to be loved, in secret, between the shadow and the soul.

I love you as the plant that never blooms but carries in itself the light of hidden flowers; thanks to your love a certain solid fragrance, risen from the earth, lives darkly in my body.

I love you without knowing how, or when, or from where. I love you straightforwardly, without complexities or pride; so I love you because I know no other way than this: Where “I” does not exist, nor “You”, so close that your hand on my chest is my hand, so close that your eyes close as I fall asleep."

I find that so beautiful. It has always been one of my favorite passages of Neruda's poetry.
I want to use it in our wedding ceremony, possibly.

Anyways. It's been a nice weekend, albeit tiring. Friday night Heather came up from Salem and we had some girl time at Kate and Crystal's. Fun times with board games. Saturday involved breakfast, Vera Bradley obsessions, traipsing through Target, sour cream and onion potato chips topped with Cool WHip, The Little Mermaid, Panera, Lab, Red Sox eventually, crashing into bed.

Jeffrey and I got our new car yesterday too! 2006 Chevy Malibu. It's nice. We took it for a drive through Bellows Falls and Brattleboro, and had some good discussions in the car. We have yet to come up with a good name for the car though.

I can not wait to be married to my soul partner. For now, it's time to do laundry and maybe take a nap so I can stay up for ALCS Game 7 tonight.