Ten pounds of personality in a five-pound bag
This column is a great defense of having your own sense of taste or style or whatever.
As a side note, I would like to observe that the author’s use of “basic” doesn’t line up exactly with the usage that implies “middle to upper class white woman with UGGs and a cup of Starbucks.” Here, the given examples are a little lower class than that.
Which is NORMAL. Living like that is NORMAL. This is how most people live their lives.
Saw a TikTok today that explains Misogynoir (the name for the specific oppression that Black women face) in a very simple way (“for cavemen”).
At some point I’ll write a little more about intersectionality and what that means, but for now, I’ll just share this.
A little while ago, I heard about a useful term for discussing the issue of cultural appropriation versus appreciation: closed practice.
In brief (others can link to longer explanations if they wish), the idea is that some things are a Closed Practice (that only people in that culture can really appreciate and participate in), and other things are an Open Practice (anyone is free to do the thing, without censure from anyone except overly enthusiastic 14yos on Tumblr).
As an example: tattooing is not a Closed Practice. Many, many cultures have tattooing as a tradition, and it’s not appropriation to get a tattoo. However, there may be specific tattoos that would be considered closed practices. Like something related to a coming of age ritual, or similar.
I’m not using specific real examples in this post, because I don’t want to get bogged down about one culture or another. But in general, if you’re trying to have a good faith discussion with someone about whether a given thing is appreciation or appropriation, ask: Is this a closed practice or an open practice?
I’ve had best friends before.
One, or six, or fourteen at a time?
At this stage in my life, I think the whole concept of a best friend is children play-acting at monogamous marriage before they’re ready or interested in a romantic relationship with anyone.
I still remember the agonizing feelings I had when someone else got to be The Best Friend when I wanted to be.
And I remember the guilt I felt when I drifted apart from my closest friend of childhood. Was I, somehow, divorcing her?
I’ve had “friend breakup” talks, as an adult. They were painful, but a necessary part of being compassionate to someone you once (and still) care(d) about.
One of my friends in college told me, “Best Friends isn’t a single job; it’s a tier.” I didn’t believe her then. I do now. (And her husband is the person I’d pick if I was forced to pick a single best friend, which is an amusing bonus anecdote.) For the most part, I don’t have a single best friend; I have a rotating cast of friends who are all close to me in different ways. One friend is my local emergency contact for everything. The other (aforementioned) is my advance directive POA. Yet another pair are the designated guardians for my child in case both my ex husband and I pass away.
A friend today shared a post about how “best friend” is a term that imitates monogamy, and it made me think about all this. (I don’t have the link handy, but I’ll add it when I do.) It’s been percolating in my mind for a while, but I haven’t really put it into words.
It’s not realistic to expect one person to be all those friends for you; different people are different, and every dyadic friendship has its own shape. They don’t take away from each other, except inasmuch as time and energy are limited things.
I am grateful, though, for all the friends that I do have, and for all the friends I used to have. You have all touched, shaped, my life in one way or another.
I’m glad that I don’t have to pick one friend to be a Best Friend.
Recently, my browser decided to give me this article from Psychology Today.
Why your adult child treats you like dirt
It gives some really thoughtful suggestions for the parents who actually do want to reconnect with their children, and who are willing to be introspective and to think about what their behavior may have contributed to the current situation.
Continue reading “On parenting adult children, and estrangement”Something I reference a lot is the essay from a few years back: the Geek Social Fallacies.
My personal demon is #4 (Friendship is Transitive), but I’ve seen all of them at play in my social groups, so it’s good to remember them periodically.
Last night, I accidentally taught my kid about the difference between Rules and Boundaries by using my cat as an example. See, my cat (Cloud, 2M) is a bit of an asshole sometimes. He likes to jump up on my dresser while I’m sleeping and bat things around and make noise. As a result, I’ve started locking him out of my bedroom at night, so that I can have good sleep hygiene (a serious issue for me right now in my life).
So last night, my daughter was like “Why are you punishing him? He’s just being a cat!” And, you know, she’s right! But also, I have the right to sleep without disturbance. So I launched into the explanation that I cannot control Cloud, but I can control what doors are open or closed in my house.
Then, I realized that this was a perfect way to segue into the difference between making rules for someone else versus setting a boundary for your own self!
I emphasized that I cannot control Cloud or his actions myself. I can say ”stay off the dresser” until I’m blue in the face, but ultimately I’m not the one that controls his actions. What I can control is my actions. I can lock him out of my room in order to be healthy and get enough sleep. That’s within my locus of control.
Then I drew a parallel to a real life conundrum she might face someday: say, dating a person who is a smoker. She can say “You can’t smoke in my house.” She can say “If you smoke, I will break up with you.” But she can’t say “You are not allowed to smoke.” That’s not within her locus of control.
Anyway. I hope this lesson sticks with her as she grows up and makes her own way in the world.
One of the ways that I try to plan gatherings with my friends is a style I’ve taken to calling “nuclear” in my head: basically, you create a solid nucleus of reliable people who are able and willing to commit to attending the event, so you know it’s gonna happen regardless; and then, from there, you can slowly expand your guest list with people who might have more going on in their lives, or whatever, that makes them more of an Uncollapsed Social Waveform. (They’re your electrons.)
If the event involves accomodations, you can pick a specific date with your nucleus (perhaps via a Doodle poll or similar), and then pick a general geographic range before telling your electrons the plans. Have a firm RSVP deadline so you can book your lodging before the event itself! Alternatively, if you’re not wedded to the idea of renting one house together, you can just all get hotel rooms individually.
In the reading I’ve done on non-monogamy, there’s a concept that I really like called the Relationship Escalator. I don’t have the link with me right at this moment (will add later – here is the original essay!), but the general gist is that in our society, we have this concept of RELATIONSHIP that goes from DATING to COHABITATION to ENGAGEMENT to MARRIAGE to BUY HOUSE to HAVE BABY, with only minor deviations or reordering permitted.
The idea of “stepping off the relationship escalator” means that you are allowed to opt out of any or all of these steps, without guilt or feeling like you are Doing The Relationship Incorrectly. For monogamous people, this can mean accepting that it’s fine to never get married, if that’s what you want! Or even never cohabitating – some people are just happier living alone. It can also even help with framing around asexual relationships: not every relationship needs to involve sex in order to be considered just as important and valid!
For non-monogamous people, more specifically polyamorous people (who are concerned with the construction of multiple loving relationships), stepping off the Relationship Escalator can mean establishing a different kind of relationship with different partners, according to the varied needs and desires of the people involved. Having the explicitly-outlined option of “we don’t HAVE to do all of those things in order to be in a loving relationship together” allows for a lot more flexibility in creating long term relationships.
I have a set of polyamorous friends where one married couple has been together for fewer years than the wife has been with her non-marital partner. Number of years together is not assumed to be an indication of the relationship’s Seriousness, or of any Expected Next Action To Be Taken. She has dated one person for longer, but she has married and had children with the other one, because those are the choices all of them made.
Carolyn Hax (one of my favorite advice columnists) calls it the Conveyor Belt: https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/advice/carolyn-hax-they-are-ready-on-paper-for-a-baby-but-what-about-the-real-thing/2021/03/23/a0e198b4-836a-11eb-9ca6-54e187ee4939_story.html – different word, but same concept.
I think this is a good framework for anyone who’s in (or wants to be in) a relationship to reflect on: what do you want, out of your relationship(s)? How much do you want one thing versus other things? What are you willing to compromise on?
Other people have called this concept the Relationship Smorgasbord (to avoid defining various choices as Above other choices). I’ll find that link, too, and add it here. It’s a good thing to talk about with potential partners, to think about what you want with someone else in general or in specific.
Bonus links:
https://solopoly.net/2012/11/29/riding-the-relationship-escalator-or-not/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2024/09/27/relationship-escalator-marriage-polyamory/
A few years ago, my mom group started looking for a term for those little moments where your kid is being, by any objective measure, a complete asshole to you and everyone else around you, but you don’t feel right being mad at them because it’s developmentally normal for them at that age.
Eventually, one woman came up with “Totally Obnoxious, Developmentally Appropriate,” or TODA, and it stuck. I’ve started using it in other groups, and I hope the concept spreads, because it’s just so important to be able to hold both things in your head simultaneously: that yes, it’s normal for your kid to behave this way; and yes, it’s normal for you to be upset with that. Both of these things are true.
Since I’m now seeing a big age gap between my child and my peers’ younger children, it’s been helpful to have the reminder that “this child has no control over their limbs, hates clothing, and wants to touch anything and anyone without a single care for that person’s consent” is not/NOT that child being feral! It’s that child being Totally Obnoxious, Developmentally Appropriate. And soon, they will grow into wonderful little humans who respect other people, because their brain will get there. Just as my child’s brain got there.
And boy howdy, am I not looking forward to adolescence. 😂 I think that’s when my friends with their sweet little upper elementary schoolers will wonder if my teen is feral. But she won’t be feral. She’ll just be TODA.
Emilybook 