It's been an interesting few days.
On Friday I took a practice LSAT. I have toyed around with the idea of law school before but never really thought about it seriously. In a meeting a couple of weeks ago with Career Services here on campus I talked with the director about my interest in working in Human Resources. She mentioned that a lot of people who work in the higher jobs in Human Resources have law degrees. We then talked about the possibility of law school and she told me that the library here on campus has a couple of practice LSATs on their website.
Friday rolled around and I was planning on getting some new tires for my car. As the afternoon wore on I realized that I had absolutely no desire to go get new tires, so I decided to take the practice LSAT. I had never studied for the LSAT before, the most I knew about the questions was having looked at two in my friend's study book about four months before.
I rocked the test.
It really wasn't that surprising to me, test taking comes naturally to me. I did very well on the ACT and SAT back in high school. The LSAT has three main topics: reading comprehension, logical reasoning, and logic games. Reading comprehension is very easy to me. I didn't miss a question there and I didn't really find any of them difficult. The logic games section on the LSAT is similar to logic games I used to do for fun when I was growing up in a book my mom had. The logical reasoning sections are a little more difficult for me, but still were mostly fairly easy.
After taking the test I went back home, talked to the wife about it, and did some research online. The practice test didn't give me an exact score that I would've gotten on the LSAT, but it gave me a range of scores typical for someone who did as well as I did. The lowest score in that range is generally enough to get a full ride to many law schools.
I did a little more research about both the LSAT and law school. I looked at a bunch of the ways to do better on the LSAT and people talking about how they improved their score by 12 points by just doing such-and-such and that kind of thing. I came to the conclusion that there is a chance that I can get a perfect 180 on the LSAT.
I went to the library and skimmed some books about the test and about law school. I wound up borrowing "Advanced LSAT Practice" to have some questions to study up on. I then went back home and got back online to research more.
At 8:05 PM or so I looked into registering for the LSAT in December and found that the deadline was that night at 9 PM. Seemed like a sign to me, so I went for it. I will be taking the actual test on December 7th at the University of Pittsburgh. For the next three weeks until then I will be studying the questions. I basically already know most of the methods, I'll probably still research some but I don't really expect to learn anything new method-wise.
After registering I did some more research on law school. It seems that everyone hates law school (or at least everyone who is there or has been there recently). By far the most common advice regarding law school is "DON'T GO TO LAW SCHOOL." The reasoning seems to boil down to three things: the cost, the stress, and job prospects. Regarding the cost, I don't believe I would be interested in going to law school if I had to pay for it. If I get the scores on the LSAT I think I will, I most likely would not have to pay for law school. Regarding the stress, when it comes down to it if I can't handle the stress I would quit. If I am getting a full ride then quitting isn't as big of a deal, so I would still have that out.
Regarding job prospects, that is a very real concern. Law school are churning out graduates at a much higher rate than there are jobs for new lawyers. The difficulty of finding a job after graduation is certainly a very real concern. I do have a couple things in my favor over your average law school graduate. One is that I will have (very shortly) an MBA. The other, which is far more important, is that I have six years of professional job experience. Still, the statistics regarding recent graduates of law school are concerning.
It's been an interesting weekend of planning for the future. Feel free to leave a comment if you have any thoughts, I've already heard from some of my lawyer and law school friends, but thoughts are welcome from all sides.
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Friday, November 15, 2013
Living the (Unintentionally) Child-free Life - [a guestpost from Aimee]
There have been a lot of posts going around in the Catholic internetosphere: fecundophobia, child-free living, fertility crises as women age and put careers ahead of family. I'm sure that some people, when they see Kyle and I, assume that because we've been married for more than a year and are still childless, we obviously must be contracepting. While it's true that we live a "child-free life", it's unintentional in the worst way possible.
So right now we're trying to work on our health to see if we can improve our chances at all -- maybe giving it another year of intense medical treatment before we reevaluate our odds and decide whether to continue. Fertility treatments are not cheap. And because we're faithful to the Catholic Church's teachings on fertility and conception, we won't go down the road of IVF -- which would probably (because of our particular medical diagnoses) give us higher chances of conception and pregnancy than natural means. So we're spending money on natural (and Church-approved) methods of treatment with a NaPro doctor, we're in the thousands by now and we have yet to reach the point of diagnostic surgery.
This is not what we expected when we said "I do." There were no indications prior to our wedding day that either of us had infertility issues. We had hoped and planned to have a large family -- we were honestly hoping for at least 5 children... I was dreaming of 10 little ones, to raise up "as little saints". We expected the hardships of raising children on a meager salary, the hardships of learning how to live with someone, the hardships of learning to be married and be parents at the same time. We didn't expect the cross of infertility.
But here we are, a year and a half in -- no more pregnant than the couch I am sitting on. With odds stacked against us. This was not the life we had planned. A child-free life was not what we wanted.
And I hear the sorts of attempts at consolations and trite phrases thrown about with no regard to the logical psychological reactions. "In God's good time/God has a special child planned for you in His own time" -- I hear that a lot. I think it's meant to comfort me in that people are saying that someday we will have children, according to His will and stuff. But what if it's not His will that we have children? "If you want God to laugh, tell Him your plans" -- Oh dear, I hear this one so so so often. Not necessarily directed at me, but I still hear it all the time. If God is laughing at the pain and suffering I endure and have endured because we are not able to fulfill what we saw as an integral part of our vocation (and truly, what is a righteous and holy good), then I do not want to be friends with this God. I have desired a family for as long as I can remember -- and this only seems some sort of cruel irony if He is laughing at our situation and our plans. "Just relax, stop worrying so much." If I had a dollar for every time I heard this... Infertility is a real medical problem. I have Poly-Cystic Ovarian Syndrome among other things. Kyle has his own set of male-factor IF issues as well. To be honest, sex has and does become tedious when you have to time things to perfectly and if you want to try again this month, you have this schedule of days to try on. I have clinical depression - I worry A LOT. But relaxing isn't going to solve my PCOS or Kyle's IF issues. "Just enjoy this time (while you get to sleep in/have lots of sex/don't have to worry about children)." I would gladly, in a heartbeat, trade in my sleeping in, scheduled sex, and lack of worrying about children (but instead worrying if my body is working right) for a passel of children. Infertility is not a mere inconvenience, it is a life-changing, plan-wrecking, soul-crushing cross. I have one final thing that pregnant women say sometimes that just needs to stop: "God has found us fit to bless us with a child"/"Children are an heritage of the Lord, offspring a reward from Him" (Psalm 127). God is not a vending machine whom you put prayers and pious life into and get children (or other blessings) back. God is not one to be bargained with, and this is not about what is "fair." If we wanted to, we could subvert God's Church and use IVF and get our own child. If we had a child, people would probably stop giving us funny stares like we're such an evil couple because we're "obviously contracepting"... but IVF is not the answer. Our piety, in the form of being obedient to the teachings of the Church, is not being rewarded with a child. Because that's not how it works. Children are gifts to be cherished and loved -- but they are not rewards for good behavior.
Anyway, that's not the reason I started writing this post. I started writing this post because I have, after a long period of mourning, begun to find joy and purpose in this life. That doesn't mean I'm not still mourning, but it means that I have, in a way, turned the page with hope. I had so much hopelessness that our marriage would never be fruitful if we could not have children. So much of the Catholic blogosphere is focused on mommy blogs who devote their lives to their children... some to the point of calling out the childless in our modern culture for their enmity with God. Now, I'm sure they would not give me mean words if they knew our situation, but the general angst and meanness towards childless people is not the best way to evangelize, let me tell you. I do understand that the raising of little saints is the primary focus of your life and it should be -- but often these Catholics will denigrate the nature and purpose of work in the world as if it were to only exist for the sake of the children, the home. Perhaps, ultimately, that is so. But if I can never have children, I must know that our marriage is not pointless and fruitless if Kyle and I were to devote ourselves to working in the world and showing the love of God to others through doing whatever we are called to do.
I have a lot of angst about this -- I might never get to join you, Catholic mommy-bloggers, in your playdates and your book events. I might never get to participate in your mother's groups and mom's Bible studies. And somehow, I'm sure not intentionally, I was made to feel that by not being a mother, I was losing my worth. That my worth as wife, as a woman, as a person, was somehow cut drastically by my body's stupid inability to conceive.
Thankfully, I have a wonderful spiritual director who knows many things -- among them, especially, compassion and love for his spiritual wards. We've talked of spiritual motherhood, the value and fruitfulness of a faithful marriage, no matter how many children Kyle and I are able to have. And how the anger at God can be a raging prayer to lift up even in the darkness.
We talked about hope, and resignation all at the same time. We live with the expectation that we will never conceive... We live as though we will never have children. Yet we hope and pray for a miracle -- that someday, we will. Somehow, after so many months of feeling so hopeless and hopeful and despairing and wistful, I have come to a stability that is just a sort of meager peace and acceptance. I was living so long with the expectation that we would get pregnant -- it's why I didn't have a full-time job after we married. So I'm turning the page on that. I'm going to live with the practical expectation that we won't have children. And that starts now.
What does that mean? It means an unintentionally child-free life. Not the life we were hoping for, but the one that nature and God have allowed us. It means that I might start looking for full-time work in the pro-life movement --- or even better, I might try to get Life Matters Journal to the point where I can actually make some money doing what I love, but on a regular full-time schedule. It means that instead of looking for big houses in the country, we might be looking for smaller places in cities (so we can be close to people/interesting events/etc). It means that maybe we'll travel. And yes, it means that maybe at some point in the future (when my mental health is stable), we may start the adoption process if we can afford it. But honestly, I'm not holding out for it. I have a peace right now that I haven't had in more than a year, and I just want to take things a step at a time.
If you're the praying kind, please pray for us. You can pray for a miracle if you like -- but more than that, please pray for strength, endurance, perseverance, and faithfulness. We cannot walk this road alone.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Adventures in Eating
I had Pho today for the first time. I'd always heard of it (it's a Vietnamese soup) but never actually got it. Usually I'm a little skeptical of soup as a main course, but it was very filling and quite delicious.
Since going off to college I've been a fan of trying new food and new cuisines. When I was growing up I was a bit of a picky eater, not bad but not adventurous for the most part. During most of my childhood someone in my family was vegetarian. In my memory (which is probably flawed) it seems as though either my mother, my father, or my sister was vegetarian at any given time, but rarely all of them at the same time. When one member of the family is vegetarian generally the rest of the family eats that way (for simplicity of cooking), so growing up I didn't have much meat.
The meat I did have was almost always poultry. I don't remember having hamburger until I was in high school. In fact, I have a vivid memory of driving home from Youth Group or something at church and being a little hungry. I stopped at McDonald's and wondered what a burger would taste like, so I got one. I don't think I was too impressed at the time, might have had something to do with going to McDonald's. I'm also pretty certain I didn't have steak until college. I think the first time was at Applebees in Steubenville with my household, but I can't be certain. Now I definitely enjoy a good burger or steak.
That's the thing, once I was buying my own food I found that I was curious about lots of different foods. So many people are not interested in trying things they haven't had before. I have one friend who always orders something he's had before at a restaurant. The only time he really has to think about it is the first time he visits a restaurant. I have another friend who doesn't like "asian" food. That's the food that about half of the population of the world eats on a regular basis (maybe more, I'm not looking it up).
I understand, people have different tastes so I shouldn't judge. I myself have 3 things I don't like to eat: cucumbers, mushrooms, and raw tomatoes. But I can't imagine writing off an entire cuisine! There's just so much food out there to explore!
Something that occurs to me is that maybe people are putting too much stock in first impressions. When I was a kid I couldn't stand Chinese food, except Lo Mein. Every time my family got Chinese take-out I would get Lo Mein (or pizza sometimes if my parents were feeling indulgent). I remember going to a Chinese restaurant up in Cleveland and they didn't have Lo Mein, so I was forced to get something else. I ordered Moo Goo Gai Pan and ended up loving it. I think I had even tried Moo Goo Gai Pan before from the take-out place and didn't like it, but sometimes you need to try something again to determine if you really like it. The first time you might not like something just because it's not what you're expecting.
Another story: I always detested guacamole and avocados when I was younger. I just couldn't understand how my mom could eat that stuff (and yes, I tried it). When I was a Senior in college I went on a mission trip to Mexico. All of our meals were homemade by this wonderful Mexican lady who was quite the cook. They had homemade guacamole there and I gave it a try based on people's recommendations. It was amazing. It completely cured me of my dislike for guacamole and avocados. Maybe it was just that I was trying it a second time, maybe it was due to very fresh ingredients, maybe she just had an amazing recipe. I've never had guacamole quite as good as that since, but I do enjoy it now.
An ex-girlfriend introduced me to Ethiopian food in college, and it's now one of my favorite cuisines. A guy I was living with the summer before my senior year invited me to go get Thai food and I now love Thai food (and Thai iced tea, which is basically heaven in a glass). I like Chinese food, Mexican food, Italian food, German food, Irish food, English food, and good ol' American food. I want to try some more Japanese food, but sushi makes me sick (literally). I have had tempura and that was delicious. The wife actually made it. She loves to experiment with cooking different types of food.
Another way I like trying different food is trying different meats. I've had alligator sausage, tried a frog leg once, eaten elk sausage, and had a bison burger. I'm always on the look-out for opportunities to eat animals I haven't. In a way I think that makes me sound a bit like a psychopath. Ah well. Meats I would be interested in trying: hare, squirrel, snake, and horse. There are probably others I would try as well, but that's what comes to mind.
The point, if you choose to take one away from this, is: eat lots of different things. Try new foods! Experiment with new recipes! As they say, variety is the spice of life. Eat something exciting!
Since going off to college I've been a fan of trying new food and new cuisines. When I was growing up I was a bit of a picky eater, not bad but not adventurous for the most part. During most of my childhood someone in my family was vegetarian. In my memory (which is probably flawed) it seems as though either my mother, my father, or my sister was vegetarian at any given time, but rarely all of them at the same time. When one member of the family is vegetarian generally the rest of the family eats that way (for simplicity of cooking), so growing up I didn't have much meat.
The meat I did have was almost always poultry. I don't remember having hamburger until I was in high school. In fact, I have a vivid memory of driving home from Youth Group or something at church and being a little hungry. I stopped at McDonald's and wondered what a burger would taste like, so I got one. I don't think I was too impressed at the time, might have had something to do with going to McDonald's. I'm also pretty certain I didn't have steak until college. I think the first time was at Applebees in Steubenville with my household, but I can't be certain. Now I definitely enjoy a good burger or steak.
That's the thing, once I was buying my own food I found that I was curious about lots of different foods. So many people are not interested in trying things they haven't had before. I have one friend who always orders something he's had before at a restaurant. The only time he really has to think about it is the first time he visits a restaurant. I have another friend who doesn't like "asian" food. That's the food that about half of the population of the world eats on a regular basis (maybe more, I'm not looking it up).
I understand, people have different tastes so I shouldn't judge. I myself have 3 things I don't like to eat: cucumbers, mushrooms, and raw tomatoes. But I can't imagine writing off an entire cuisine! There's just so much food out there to explore!
Something that occurs to me is that maybe people are putting too much stock in first impressions. When I was a kid I couldn't stand Chinese food, except Lo Mein. Every time my family got Chinese take-out I would get Lo Mein (or pizza sometimes if my parents were feeling indulgent). I remember going to a Chinese restaurant up in Cleveland and they didn't have Lo Mein, so I was forced to get something else. I ordered Moo Goo Gai Pan and ended up loving it. I think I had even tried Moo Goo Gai Pan before from the take-out place and didn't like it, but sometimes you need to try something again to determine if you really like it. The first time you might not like something just because it's not what you're expecting.
Another story: I always detested guacamole and avocados when I was younger. I just couldn't understand how my mom could eat that stuff (and yes, I tried it). When I was a Senior in college I went on a mission trip to Mexico. All of our meals were homemade by this wonderful Mexican lady who was quite the cook. They had homemade guacamole there and I gave it a try based on people's recommendations. It was amazing. It completely cured me of my dislike for guacamole and avocados. Maybe it was just that I was trying it a second time, maybe it was due to very fresh ingredients, maybe she just had an amazing recipe. I've never had guacamole quite as good as that since, but I do enjoy it now.
An ex-girlfriend introduced me to Ethiopian food in college, and it's now one of my favorite cuisines. A guy I was living with the summer before my senior year invited me to go get Thai food and I now love Thai food (and Thai iced tea, which is basically heaven in a glass). I like Chinese food, Mexican food, Italian food, German food, Irish food, English food, and good ol' American food. I want to try some more Japanese food, but sushi makes me sick (literally). I have had tempura and that was delicious. The wife actually made it. She loves to experiment with cooking different types of food.
Another way I like trying different food is trying different meats. I've had alligator sausage, tried a frog leg once, eaten elk sausage, and had a bison burger. I'm always on the look-out for opportunities to eat animals I haven't. In a way I think that makes me sound a bit like a psychopath. Ah well. Meats I would be interested in trying: hare, squirrel, snake, and horse. There are probably others I would try as well, but that's what comes to mind.
The point, if you choose to take one away from this, is: eat lots of different things. Try new foods! Experiment with new recipes! As they say, variety is the spice of life. Eat something exciting!
Sunday, November 10, 2013
The Marvel Cinematic Universe
I'm not a huge fan of comic books or anything, but I have occasionally enjoyed reading through some of them. Mostly the comics I've read have been from Marvel, most often the X-Men but some other stuff too. I never got much into DC, though I am a fan of Batman.
In recent years Marvel Studios (and various groups associated with them) have been releasing films as part of what they call the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first film categorized in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was Iron Man back in 2008. Since then they've released seven other films, most recently Thor: The Dark World (which came out last weekend). I've been thoroughly impressed with the movies. I've enjoyed all of them at least reasonably, but what is more impressive is the way they are tying everything together into one universe.
One of the coolest things about comics in the DC or Marvel universes is how everything is connected and events that happen to one character or team can affect another character or team. That gives Marvel the ability to do overarching story lines. One good example that I loved in recent years was the Civil War story line which ran in Marvel comics from 2006-2007. I would love to see Marvel be able to do some sort of story line like that in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In fact, the Civil War story line would be awesome in film! I actually have some hope after watching the trailer for Captain America 2 that they will be using a lot of the same themes.
As a side note, the X-Men are definitely my favorite team in the Marvel universe, but Marvel Studios does not have the rights to the X-Men. That being said, the X-Men movies are excellent as well (even X-3), though I haven't seen the Wolverine movie. I'm very much looking forward to X-Men: Days of Future Past as well, which is going to tie together the original trilogy with the recent X-Men: First Class.
Here are some of my thoughts on each of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, in order of my least favorite to favorite. Some small spoilers may be present, nothing too big.
8. Captain America: The First Avenger
The Captain America movie was the last film before The Avengers, and it almost feels as if they were just making the movie so they didn't have to introduce Cap in The Avengers. Most of the movie is set in WWII, but they soon forget about the whole "World War" thing and focus on a small team that is set against a big baddie who one could call a NINO (Nazi in Name Only). I really think the movie would have made more sense had they kept the focus on the Nazis as the bad guys. Also, Captain America is not that interesting to me. The most interesting thing about him is the fact that he gets thrown into modern-day America after fighting a war in the '40s. The whole fish-out-of-water thing really works for him and I liked him a lot better in The Avengers when they could show that. Also, the trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier looks really excellent. It'll be the next Marvel Cinematic Universe film coming out, in April of next year.
7. The Incredible Hulk
Oh the Hulk. The problem with the Hulk is that he is not interesting. Bruce Banner is interesting! The Hulk... not so much. The Hulk is invincible. He cannot be killed except by some sort of semi-omnipotent being (or the many theories of launching him into the sun or something). Superheroes need weaknesses to be interesting. Also, superheroes need personality to be interesting. The Hulk does not have personality beyond a desire to smash things. Because of this, any movie about the Hulk is only interesting when he's not in Hulk form. The Incredible Hulk actually did a very nice job of making me care about Bruce Banner (played by Ed Norton in this film, not Mark Ruffalo). In the end though, you can't make a movie about someone trying not to get angry or excited. I actually do think the Hulk was handled better here than in The Avengers (where he consciously decided to become the Hulk at one point). In the end though, the Hulk doesn't work as a protagonist. I don't even think he works well as a member of an ensemble. Where the Hulk shines is as an antagonist. Maybe we could see that develop in later movies, we'll see.
6. Thor
Thor was a good movie, but not a great one. Thor isn't all that interesting of a character to me in general. I think he's interesting in Asgard (or one of the other realms except Midgard), he's just a little out of place on Earth. I know, that's the whole point, but it just feels a little off to me. The movie did a very good job of introduction with everyone, but the execution just wasn't that great. The sequence of events on Earth could've happened anywhere, it basically just happened to be on Earth. All in all, a nice set-up but a lackluster execution.
5. Iron Man 2
4. Iron Man
3. Iron Man 3
I feel like I should talk about all three of these at the same time. The first Iron Man was groundbreaking. At the time it was the best superhero movie ever made (eclipsed later that same year by The Dark Knight). See, Iron Man is interesting. He (as a hero) is defeatable. There are many different ways he can be beaten, but he can also use both intelligence and the physical power of his suit to overcome obstacles. As a man, Tony Stark is also very interesting. He is clearly flawed in many ways. Over the course of the three movies he goes through some very compelling character development. The third movie in particular has some very humanizing parts (in particular his anxiety attacks). That and the fact that it has the best villain of the three (and the best climax) gives it the edge over the other two.
The original Iron Man was an excellent origin story. The parts in the cave and the break-out are awesome, as is just the whole concept of Jarvis and developing the suit. The final showdown is a little standard, not bad but not great. It certainly does end with a great line that really sets Iron Man apart from many superheroes. Iron Man 2 was good, but it did too many things that they had already done in the first movie. The villain was just another guy in a suit, and they had already done that in the first one. There certainly were some interesting things (like the Expo), but it just isn't as good when compared to the other two movies.
2. Thor: The Dark World
Thor 2 was awesome. I realize it just came out so I won't spoil anything. I saw it last Thursday evening and it reminded me how awesome these Marvel movies are in general. In fact, that's what led the wife and I to borrow Iron Man 3 and watch it (since we somehow didn't go see it in theaters). Thor 2 was able to build very well on all the characters from the original. Not needing to do exposition on the characters and on Asgard itself left plenty of time for actual character development (not just introduction, which is most of what we saw in the first Thor). In addition, earth was actually important in this movie, and what the human characters did had meaning and repercussion! Great characters, good action, and great humor. Go see it if you haven't, though make sure you've seen Thor first (and The Avengers).
1. The Avengers
The Avengers is what the first five Marvel Cinematic Universe movies were leading up to, and man did they deliver. Again, because it wasn't an introduction of any characters (maybe Hawkeye a little, but he was in Thor briefly) they were able to go straight into the meat of the story. Character development just pours off of the screen when you have all of these larger-than-life characters interacting. The final battle is simply epic. Great characters, great drama (Agent Coulson for example), a great villain, great humor, and great action make this simply a great movie. This is the kind of thing that until this movie people would think could only be done in a comic book.
In recent years Marvel Studios (and various groups associated with them) have been releasing films as part of what they call the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first film categorized in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was Iron Man back in 2008. Since then they've released seven other films, most recently Thor: The Dark World (which came out last weekend). I've been thoroughly impressed with the movies. I've enjoyed all of them at least reasonably, but what is more impressive is the way they are tying everything together into one universe.
One of the coolest things about comics in the DC or Marvel universes is how everything is connected and events that happen to one character or team can affect another character or team. That gives Marvel the ability to do overarching story lines. One good example that I loved in recent years was the Civil War story line which ran in Marvel comics from 2006-2007. I would love to see Marvel be able to do some sort of story line like that in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In fact, the Civil War story line would be awesome in film! I actually have some hope after watching the trailer for Captain America 2 that they will be using a lot of the same themes.
As a side note, the X-Men are definitely my favorite team in the Marvel universe, but Marvel Studios does not have the rights to the X-Men. That being said, the X-Men movies are excellent as well (even X-3), though I haven't seen the Wolverine movie. I'm very much looking forward to X-Men: Days of Future Past as well, which is going to tie together the original trilogy with the recent X-Men: First Class.
Here are some of my thoughts on each of the Marvel Cinematic Universe films, in order of my least favorite to favorite. Some small spoilers may be present, nothing too big.
8. Captain America: The First Avenger
The Captain America movie was the last film before The Avengers, and it almost feels as if they were just making the movie so they didn't have to introduce Cap in The Avengers. Most of the movie is set in WWII, but they soon forget about the whole "World War" thing and focus on a small team that is set against a big baddie who one could call a NINO (Nazi in Name Only). I really think the movie would have made more sense had they kept the focus on the Nazis as the bad guys. Also, Captain America is not that interesting to me. The most interesting thing about him is the fact that he gets thrown into modern-day America after fighting a war in the '40s. The whole fish-out-of-water thing really works for him and I liked him a lot better in The Avengers when they could show that. Also, the trailer for Captain America: The Winter Soldier looks really excellent. It'll be the next Marvel Cinematic Universe film coming out, in April of next year.
7. The Incredible Hulk
Oh the Hulk. The problem with the Hulk is that he is not interesting. Bruce Banner is interesting! The Hulk... not so much. The Hulk is invincible. He cannot be killed except by some sort of semi-omnipotent being (or the many theories of launching him into the sun or something). Superheroes need weaknesses to be interesting. Also, superheroes need personality to be interesting. The Hulk does not have personality beyond a desire to smash things. Because of this, any movie about the Hulk is only interesting when he's not in Hulk form. The Incredible Hulk actually did a very nice job of making me care about Bruce Banner (played by Ed Norton in this film, not Mark Ruffalo). In the end though, you can't make a movie about someone trying not to get angry or excited. I actually do think the Hulk was handled better here than in The Avengers (where he consciously decided to become the Hulk at one point). In the end though, the Hulk doesn't work as a protagonist. I don't even think he works well as a member of an ensemble. Where the Hulk shines is as an antagonist. Maybe we could see that develop in later movies, we'll see.
6. Thor
Thor was a good movie, but not a great one. Thor isn't all that interesting of a character to me in general. I think he's interesting in Asgard (or one of the other realms except Midgard), he's just a little out of place on Earth. I know, that's the whole point, but it just feels a little off to me. The movie did a very good job of introduction with everyone, but the execution just wasn't that great. The sequence of events on Earth could've happened anywhere, it basically just happened to be on Earth. All in all, a nice set-up but a lackluster execution.
5. Iron Man 2
4. Iron Man
3. Iron Man 3
I feel like I should talk about all three of these at the same time. The first Iron Man was groundbreaking. At the time it was the best superhero movie ever made (eclipsed later that same year by The Dark Knight). See, Iron Man is interesting. He (as a hero) is defeatable. There are many different ways he can be beaten, but he can also use both intelligence and the physical power of his suit to overcome obstacles. As a man, Tony Stark is also very interesting. He is clearly flawed in many ways. Over the course of the three movies he goes through some very compelling character development. The third movie in particular has some very humanizing parts (in particular his anxiety attacks). That and the fact that it has the best villain of the three (and the best climax) gives it the edge over the other two.
The original Iron Man was an excellent origin story. The parts in the cave and the break-out are awesome, as is just the whole concept of Jarvis and developing the suit. The final showdown is a little standard, not bad but not great. It certainly does end with a great line that really sets Iron Man apart from many superheroes. Iron Man 2 was good, but it did too many things that they had already done in the first movie. The villain was just another guy in a suit, and they had already done that in the first one. There certainly were some interesting things (like the Expo), but it just isn't as good when compared to the other two movies.
2. Thor: The Dark World
Thor 2 was awesome. I realize it just came out so I won't spoil anything. I saw it last Thursday evening and it reminded me how awesome these Marvel movies are in general. In fact, that's what led the wife and I to borrow Iron Man 3 and watch it (since we somehow didn't go see it in theaters). Thor 2 was able to build very well on all the characters from the original. Not needing to do exposition on the characters and on Asgard itself left plenty of time for actual character development (not just introduction, which is most of what we saw in the first Thor). In addition, earth was actually important in this movie, and what the human characters did had meaning and repercussion! Great characters, good action, and great humor. Go see it if you haven't, though make sure you've seen Thor first (and The Avengers).
1. The Avengers
The Avengers is what the first five Marvel Cinematic Universe movies were leading up to, and man did they deliver. Again, because it wasn't an introduction of any characters (maybe Hawkeye a little, but he was in Thor briefly) they were able to go straight into the meat of the story. Character development just pours off of the screen when you have all of these larger-than-life characters interacting. The final battle is simply epic. Great characters, great drama (Agent Coulson for example), a great villain, great humor, and great action make this simply a great movie. This is the kind of thing that until this movie people would think could only be done in a comic book.
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
Guestpost for No Fear November: Addressing some Concerns, and "How Casual Dating Saved My Emotional Health" by Aimee Murphy
Hi all! I'm Aimee Murphy (Kyle's wife) and a collaborator on the NFN team. I have to address some comments and concerns that have been blowing up my FB notification feed and I wanted to tell a story at the end about "How Casual Dating Saved My Emotional Health". To begin with, the concerns...
- No Fear November is an awareness campaign -- that means, like with how October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and April is Sexual Violence and Assault Awareness Month we don't suddenly STOP caring about the issue during the rest of the year. The dating culture here at FUS has problems. Loads of 'em -- and this is a fact, not opinion. And the culture needs more help than one month of "I dare you to ask out more women" (which is NOT what NFN is) -- we hope to change the culture for good. I came from a secular private university that had it's own slough of dating problems (some much the same, but a lot more hooking up with drunk sexual interactions and rape), and a Newman Center that had almost all of the same issues as here at FUS. I recognize them because I've been there and done that and bought the T-shirt.
For example, though: how many of you can honestly say that you know someone who has held hands, kissed, made out, (or even had sex) with an FUS peer without first having a serious conversation about commitment, trust, and knowing the other person well? I can count probably a handful that I know of, and I'm sure I know more people who haven't told me. This is a problem with the dating culture here.
And then: how many of you can honestly say that you have gossiped about two people who are hanging out together (whether one-on-one or in a group setting), or over-emphasized (whether behind their backs or to their faces) the simple spending time together of two opposite-sex friends? If we change the way that relationships begin from hookups and "it just happened" to instead make boyfriend/girlfriend relationships based on trust and candor and openness about intentions from the very start, then we'll have (I would posit and attest to with my own experience) less heartbreak and more maturity.
How about another? How many of you can honestly say that you know a couple who spend more than 3 hours/day OR 21 hrs/week together? I know a whole slough. Let me put that in perspective for you -- on an average Monday, I get to see my husband for about 3 hours, spread out over the course of the day. I would posit that the typical Franny couple spends more time together than my husband and I do in an average week. That much time together isn't healthy -- and it's the perfect breeding ground for terrible heartbreak and ruined social lives.
The fact is, there are more problems than this and they make dating here an awful mess.
- This month-long awareness program is based on many different sources on (Christian/Catholic) dating in the modern age, but one of my favorites has been Kerry Cronin, a professor of philosophy at Boston College who has a lot of experience and coursework to back up her ideas of proper dating principles. (http://www.uscatholic.org/life/2012/07/save-date-kerry-cronin-love-lives-college-students)
- The term "dating" has historically meant "going on dates" to get to know each other. Example given: my mother, a strong practicing Catholic, was dating a small handful of men before she and my father decided to become exclusive. This practice allows for both men and women to learn more about new people, get to know others in a low-pressure environment (where nobody is responsible for the emotional well-being of the other), and even learn what you like and what you don't in a potential mate without any sort of confusing intimacy or confused intentions. This form of dating is NOT however, just "friends hanging out" -- there is a legitimate and honest intention (which should be made clear) when asking out on a date to get to know someone better for the purpose of maybe in the future pursuing a romantic relationship. This is lightyears different from the typical hangout culture here on campus where friends of the opposite sex hang out together (perhaps one-on-one) and are talked about in the halls, amongst friends, and perhaps one of them is interested in a future romantic relationship and getting to know the other better through hanging out, while the other is just genuinely interested in a platonic friendship. This is NOT healthy. I've been there and done that in my own Catholic circles when I was in undergrad at a secular school. Franciscan isn't the only place with this tired social script. I broke hearts, had my heart broken, and ruined perfectly good friendships all because honesty and intentions were not clear. Somehow, "hooking up" without talking about what the relationship means first (whether that be just holding hands, or kissing/making out, or even going so far as sex) has become the easier route because actually discussing trust and long-term commitment are terrifying to us. I couldn't tell you 100% why (though I'm sure Kerry Cronin would have many spot-on things to say), but it needs to stop!
- If no one ended up in a relationship by December (or whenever, because this is just an awareness campaign, not the end of the principles), that's not bad, and the campaign will not have been a failure for it. Many of the students make it sound like ResLife wants to see couples all over the place by December 1 and that is just not true. The whole point is to change the dating culture as a whole for the sake of the emotional health of the student body, not to get couples together or produce happy Franny families. If couples get together due to following these dating principles, then good on them, I hope they act prudently and with continued honesty and candor. If people don't pair off, but have learned something about their emotional boundaries, the time it takes to get to know someone, and the way that dating can be an emotionally healthy experience without loads of commitment from the get-go, then we've accomplished our goal.
- Asking women out on dates is NOT a joke, or a competition, or an opportunity to humiliate someone. Men, this is not an excuse to be disrespectful jerks to women.Women, this is not a competition to see who is the most attractive to the men on campus and can "win" the most dates.
I've already heard of a few instances of men just asking out as many women as possible, or asking out a girl who doesn't even know his name in public as an act of humiliation, or asking out ladies with no intention of actually getting to know her. Don't be a disrespectful jerk to women, ever. But our work in trying to change campus dating culture is not an excuse to use bad manners or treat women as objects or prizes to be won. They, as fellow human beings, deserve better than that.
Likewise, ladies, taking a tally to see who is "winning" No Fear November treats yourself as objects and prizes to be won. It disregards your own dignity and value. You deserve better than that. - Ladies are NOT required to say yes to a date. I don't know how many times this can be said before it's believed. The principles of NFN state that women are encouraged to say yes to dates, unless they have good reason not to say yes. The fact that many hyperanxious????? students are neglecting is of course that there is quite literally ZERO accountability here. The RD's aren't going to mark off on their rosters who has and has not gone on a date and whether they had a good reason to turn down a date if they did and then proceed to fine people. They aren't going to do anything to punish anyone who doesn't participate. NFN is NOT taking away anyone's free will. The whole point of this whole campaign, though, is not to force women to do anything, it is to change the existing culture of dating here at Franciscan FOR GOOD. That involves women and men being more open to dating as a process of getting-to-know-you, instead of this automatically romantically-charged rite.
- Women, if they really want, CAN ask men on dates! It's not immoral or a sin for a woman to ask a man on a date any more than it is for a man to ask a woman. The existing paradigm here at FUS is of the TOB "Man-Active, Women-Receptive" strict viewpoint (at least for the most part); I don't think that means that women can't ask men on getting-to-know-you dates, but the principle, regardless, is for both sexes to be more open to simply spending dedicated time getting to know others through casual dates. It would follow, of course, that if a lady asks a gent, that she should pay for the date (as a way to show care and concern for the gent asked) and come up with the activities, etc. Gents would then be highly encouraged to say yes to a date, except if they have good reason to say no. Like the advice given to the ladies: only say yes if you feel safe, PLEASE! Your right to bodily safety is more important than the other party's privilege to a date/getting to know you.
- Whether you're a lady or a gent asking someone on a date, BE CRYSTAL CLEAR about your intentions. It's happened to me so often (including from my now-husband on our then first date), "You want to get food/dinner/coffee?" Asking a lady to coffee can be ambiguous if you've been just plain platonic friends for a while, and ladies asking gents can be even more ambiguous (just because it doesn't happen very often). Be honest and open: "Would you like to go on a dinner date with me on Wednesday?" or "I'd like to get to know you better, how about a coffee date this Thursday?" Just let the askee know it's a date, so you're clear about intentions and you won't have confusion!
- Telling someone you don't want to go on a future date SHOULD NOT BE HEARTBREAKING. If all you're doing is going on dates to get to know each other better (for the sake of maybe deciding whether you'd like to form a romantic relationship after some time), then telling someone that you're not interested in future dates, but you've had a lovely time and you wish them the best should be a fairly simple walk in the park (though perhaps wrought with nerves, because if you haven't done it before that kind of candor might not come naturally). Not to mention, if it is heartbreaking, you've probably invested too much of your heart in that single person and on a few getting-to-know-you dates, which is against everything we're advising.
I was 20. I'd had 13 boyfriends since I was 13 years old and I'd made mistakes with all of them. Boyfriend, of course, meaning that we were exclusive. But also, really, meaning that I was inseparable with the guy at school and we spent hours upon hours on the phone having extended conversations about not much of anything when we were at home. There was this ongoing social script at my middle school, high school, university, that if you were in an exclusive relationship you were pretty much pseudo-married. The 3 weeks you'd spent together (all the while holding hands and passing notes and racking up your parents' phone bill) meant forever, and goshdarnit, you were going to stick it through.
So it meant that every single breakup meant immense anguish. Heartbreak that made Juliet seem melodramatic. Because, goshdarnit, we'd said forever. Whether it was Alvin (my first boyfriend, with whom I held hands for the first time at 13 and broke up some 7 months later), or Trevor (with whom I had my first kiss at 14), Nate (with whom I was on-again, off-again for a year and a half and had sex with at 15), or Kevin (whom I dated when I was 17 for 8 months and told him we couldn't kiss anymore because I was trying to regain my sense of propriety and chastity and he just wouldn't listen...), or Rich (whom I loved dearly and only held hands with at the ripe old age of 19)... All of us read from the same social script that said we had to promise each other forever only a few weeks or months in to the relationship, and because we were pretty much set on the future -- why did physical boundaries matter at all? Into college, usually students in the secular world take the physical shtick and leave the emotional commitment behind; but at my Newman Center and even here at Franciscan, it's either pseudo-marriage that promises forever, or people don't want to talk about the commitment at all and get involved physically without reverence for chastity and the dignity of the other person. But I was 20 and I was so done with that. After looking back at what I'd done (look at your LIFE, look at your CHOICES), I didn't want to promise forever after a couple dates. I didn't want to have a hookup that led to an awkward DTR down the road. I had problems trusting men, period, and I was just ready to take things slow and easy and not get commitment-heavy so darn suddenly.
And a friend of mine, Sean, asked me out on a date. He asked me if I "want[ed] to get dinner on Tuesday." Because we were friends and executive board members of the Newman Club, I thought maybe he was just suggesting dinner with some of the NC people. I accepted, but I asked him a day or two later what his intentions were for dinner and he replied happily, "Oh! It's a date." And I smiled and was pleased. I honestly didn't know if I'd ever been asked out on a date with no strings attached or relationship commitment preexisting. And it was amazing - he suggested an Indian food place around the corner from the Newman Center and we walked down together, ate, had a good (albeit awkward, because I'm terribly awkward) conversation about our families, how we ended up at the same university, hobbies and interests, etc. Afterwards, he walked me back to my dorm (which was a good half-mile), and we talked and walked and just enjoyed each other's company: no hand-holding, no arm-in-arm stuff. We went on another date after Christmas break and I was honest with him that I wasn't sure where God was leading me with my vocation (I was pretty seriously praying about and looking into the Sisters of Life), and that though we were free to go on dates, I would prefer not to get into a serious relationship until I knew I was called to marriage. So we did, we did more dinner dates, ice skating, dinner-in-the-dorm apartment (that was cheaper than dinner out!) while studying for a shared course we had together. But all of these events were clearly marked as dates. We were trying to get to know each other better without the emotional commitment of a serious relationship. Without having to bear the burden's of the other's heart.
After three months of going on dates fairly sporadically, we sat down and talked about intentions to continue the relationship to the next level of dating or to just remain friends and cease the dates. I told him that I felt called to marriage, I desired it. He then announced that he was going to pursue the priesthood as he felt the Lord calling him to it. I jumped for joy and I still, to this day, am so thrilled for him. There were no hurt feelings whatsoever, and we both came out of it with a friend and our hearts still intact. I pray for him often, and I'm honestly glad that I could be a part of his discernment process. But we never led each other on -- we never crossed lines of physical or emotional intimacy. The whole process of casual dating is meant to work this way, to encourage knowledge of the other before commitment and loving. Otherwise, we fall in love with the idea of love, and our hearts break not for losing the other, but for losing the affection and the "in love" feeling and the time spent. When we invest our whole selves in a person without first building a foundation of trust through knowledge, our world can fall apart in an instant with a breakup.
Of course, there's an even happier ending to the casual dating life I gladly encountered in my final years as an undergraduate student. Only a few days after the joyous DTR with Sean, Kyle asked me on our first date. He did commit one of the "casual dating sins" by not being crystal clear about his intentions at first (he asked me if I "want[ed] to go get food"), but by the end of our first date I knew that his purpose in asking was to get to know me better. Because of the newfound knowledge I had of casual dating from my experience with Sean, I approached dating with Kyle in the same fashion: he was not my boyfriend, nor I his girlfriend, until we made that specific commitment to be exclusive. In addition, despite the fact that I was convinced that "we [are] too different, it will never work," and that I did not find him physically attractive at first, I was willing to just learn more about him and have a few good meals filled with (hopefully) good conversation.We went on dates for roughly 2 weeks before he asked me to be his girlfriend, and we moved forward from there. But during the point while we were dating, I was still trying to figure out whether I liked him or not, whether I could trust him, how well our personalities meshed just for a shot at a more serious relationship. And when we moved on to "going steady"/being exclusive, I then worked even more on the questions of trust and "do I want to be in this long-term?" After being his girlfriend for a few months, I still knew that if we broke up, I wouldn't be immensely heartbroken (though I would be sad), and we would likely still be friends. It gave me comfort to know that, and for going through the trouble of that whole process (and being willing to put up with my "no-kissing-til-engagement" rule) I trusted him a lot. I knew that Kyle was interested in getting to know me, in learning about who I was, and in learning what it meant to love me (though love at the beginning of a relationship is VERY different from love at the time of engagement or marriage). And it's been beautiful ever since.
If you have questions for me (Aimee Murphy), please send them to the nofearnovember@gmail.com address, and Kyle will pass them on to me. Grazie!
(If you have questions for the NFN team, send them via our tumblr askbox or the email address above!)
(If you have questions for the NFN team, send them via our tumblr askbox or the email address above!)
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
No Fear November part 3
I have a few mini-blogs to roll into one regarding a few things that have come up regarding No Fear November. The first topic is to address one of the typical critical responses I have heard, which is kind of interesting: it's this strange disconnect where people acknowledge that there is a problem on campus and then say we shouldn't be trying to artificially change the culture. Here's the thing: how do you think campus culture develops? Do you think that college students naturally gravitate towards that which is good, that which is virtuous? Do you think the students at Franciscan University, if left to their own devices, will fix a problem in the culture on campus?
If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
People don't like thinking about the fact that our campus culture did not naturally develop and is not naturally sustained. A lot of people enjoy the sausage but they don't want to know how it's made. There is a now-legendary story of how Father Michael Scanlan came to the University and made some radical changes as its president to create a better campus community focused on life together in Christ. Now, do you think that since households were developed and Father Michael brought the Charismatic movement to campus that the culture has been the same since? I don't think anyone would claim the culture is the same. In fact, culture on campus always has a myriad of forces influencing it, some internal and some external. Residence Life (and Student Life in general) is a major force affecting campus culture. We don't just occasionally affect campus culture, it is our job to influence campus culture on a daily basis. Just because you don't see how that happens doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
The No Fear November initiative is one of the more public ways that ResLife is affecting campus culture. Is it wrong of us to affect campus culture? If we were not affecting campus culture as much as we do, I think Franciscan University would look a lot less like how we know it today. A culture determined and influenced only by college students does not look like Franciscan University. I know the argument people would make against this, that our students are different or better or more virtuous. Our students are wonderful and I love them immensely, but they need a lot of help in living virtuous lives and growing in maturity.
Next, a question from our ask box on tumblr:
Excellent question! I prefer the term exclusive to "going steady", I just feel like it is more clear. If you are exclusive with someone then that means that neither of you is going on dates with other people. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, if you are exclusive with someone that would constitute being the other's boyfriend or girlfriend. You should certainly continue going on dates at this point, but the dates could be longer and more involved. Kerry Cronin from Boston College (who we take a lot of our material from) would call this "Stage 2 Dating." In the initial dates we recommend no more than 90 minutes during the day. When you are exclusive with someone you could go on a date for several hours, and evening becomes more appropriate (though I would still caution you to use prudence as to how late you are seeing each other).
Dates could also be things more like a movie or an opera (I love opera dates) that actually require going somewhere not too close to campus and spending more time together. Group settings are fine of course. As regards texting more, I personally am not a fan of texting and do not recommend it for much communication in a relationship. As regards holding hands, I would think that would be appropriate. Kissing may be appropriate depending on the relationship and how each person feels about it. Intense kissing or making-out is NOT appropriate at this stage.
As for spending time together, the temptation at this stage is usually to spend way too much time together. You should not spend time together every day at this point. You should not be involved in every aspect of each other's lives. It is okay to go a day without talking to each other. At this point it is clear that each person is romantically interested in the other person. That's great, but that shouldn't mean that your entire life now revolves around the other person. You need to maintain your own friendships and your own life. A lot of times a relationship at this stage will not end in marriage (though that is always a possibility). If you are totally involved in each other's lives every day in every way, your world will fall apart if you break up. You need to guard your heart better than that. Getting to know each other better and falling for each other is great, but not at the expense of everything else.
And lastly, I was talking to a resident of mine this evening and he mentioned to me that he didn't agree with No Fear November. I asked him what he thought No Fear November was. He told me that he had heard that it meant that women can't say "no" when guys ask them on dates. This was not the first time I'd heard that explanation. I told him that was absolutely false and then explained the truth of No Fear November, at which point he said it made sense.
We started No Fear November with some advertising at the end of October that basically teased the title without telling people exactly what it was (stuff like "life as you know it will change" and such). I think it did work insofar as it got people on campus talking about it. They say all press is good press. The downside is that the prevailing idea people seemed to grasp (before hearing what it actually was) was this terrible and false notion that women can't say "no" to a guy who asks them on a date. That idea would give women no agency, no ability to choose what is right for them. People who heard that idea were naturally and rightfully concerned at its seeming support of "rape culture." I would just like to take this opportunity to assure people that we do not in any way support that idea. No Fear November was developed by a team that includes a feminist (who's not just self-proclaimed) and is run and further developed by a team that included six other women. We are most certainly pro-woman and anti-rape.
I'm a little sad that those two previous paragraphs had to be said, but such is life in a fallen culture.
If you have a question for the No Fear November team feel free to e-mail nofearnovember@gmail.com or submit a question to the "askbox" on our website (nofearnovember.tumblr.com/ask), and we should get a response back to you from there.
If you do, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you.
People don't like thinking about the fact that our campus culture did not naturally develop and is not naturally sustained. A lot of people enjoy the sausage but they don't want to know how it's made. There is a now-legendary story of how Father Michael Scanlan came to the University and made some radical changes as its president to create a better campus community focused on life together in Christ. Now, do you think that since households were developed and Father Michael brought the Charismatic movement to campus that the culture has been the same since? I don't think anyone would claim the culture is the same. In fact, culture on campus always has a myriad of forces influencing it, some internal and some external. Residence Life (and Student Life in general) is a major force affecting campus culture. We don't just occasionally affect campus culture, it is our job to influence campus culture on a daily basis. Just because you don't see how that happens doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.
The No Fear November initiative is one of the more public ways that ResLife is affecting campus culture. Is it wrong of us to affect campus culture? If we were not affecting campus culture as much as we do, I think Franciscan University would look a lot less like how we know it today. A culture determined and influenced only by college students does not look like Franciscan University. I know the argument people would make against this, that our students are different or better or more virtuous. Our students are wonderful and I love them immensely, but they need a lot of help in living virtuous lives and growing in maturity.
Next, a question from our ask box on tumblr:
Practically speaking, what changes in the dynamic of a relationship if you are going steady? What does the exclusivity mean? Does that mean you continue to go on dates at a similar pace as before (say you've been on 3 dates in a month's time) and you continue to spend time in group settings? Or does it mean more than that? Do you text more, or hold hands across campus, or spend more time in general together? I understand all the pre-going steady principles, but not the going steady practicals.
Excellent question! I prefer the term exclusive to "going steady", I just feel like it is more clear. If you are exclusive with someone then that means that neither of you is going on dates with other people. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, if you are exclusive with someone that would constitute being the other's boyfriend or girlfriend. You should certainly continue going on dates at this point, but the dates could be longer and more involved. Kerry Cronin from Boston College (who we take a lot of our material from) would call this "Stage 2 Dating." In the initial dates we recommend no more than 90 minutes during the day. When you are exclusive with someone you could go on a date for several hours, and evening becomes more appropriate (though I would still caution you to use prudence as to how late you are seeing each other).
Dates could also be things more like a movie or an opera (I love opera dates) that actually require going somewhere not too close to campus and spending more time together. Group settings are fine of course. As regards texting more, I personally am not a fan of texting and do not recommend it for much communication in a relationship. As regards holding hands, I would think that would be appropriate. Kissing may be appropriate depending on the relationship and how each person feels about it. Intense kissing or making-out is NOT appropriate at this stage.
As for spending time together, the temptation at this stage is usually to spend way too much time together. You should not spend time together every day at this point. You should not be involved in every aspect of each other's lives. It is okay to go a day without talking to each other. At this point it is clear that each person is romantically interested in the other person. That's great, but that shouldn't mean that your entire life now revolves around the other person. You need to maintain your own friendships and your own life. A lot of times a relationship at this stage will not end in marriage (though that is always a possibility). If you are totally involved in each other's lives every day in every way, your world will fall apart if you break up. You need to guard your heart better than that. Getting to know each other better and falling for each other is great, but not at the expense of everything else.
And lastly, I was talking to a resident of mine this evening and he mentioned to me that he didn't agree with No Fear November. I asked him what he thought No Fear November was. He told me that he had heard that it meant that women can't say "no" when guys ask them on dates. This was not the first time I'd heard that explanation. I told him that was absolutely false and then explained the truth of No Fear November, at which point he said it made sense.
We started No Fear November with some advertising at the end of October that basically teased the title without telling people exactly what it was (stuff like "life as you know it will change" and such). I think it did work insofar as it got people on campus talking about it. They say all press is good press. The downside is that the prevailing idea people seemed to grasp (before hearing what it actually was) was this terrible and false notion that women can't say "no" to a guy who asks them on a date. That idea would give women no agency, no ability to choose what is right for them. People who heard that idea were naturally and rightfully concerned at its seeming support of "rape culture." I would just like to take this opportunity to assure people that we do not in any way support that idea. No Fear November was developed by a team that includes a feminist (who's not just self-proclaimed) and is run and further developed by a team that included six other women. We are most certainly pro-woman and anti-rape.
I'm a little sad that those two previous paragraphs had to be said, but such is life in a fallen culture.
If you have a question for the No Fear November team feel free to e-mail nofearnovember@gmail.com or submit a question to the "askbox" on our website (nofearnovember.tumblr.com/ask), and we should get a response back to you from there.
Sunday, November 3, 2013
No Fear November part 2
If you missed part 1 it is here. If you have yet to visit the website, start here.
So to start off with we received a question I'd like to address through the No Fear November e-mail address (nofearnovember@gmail.com):
On to the question, which is a very interesting one. The fact is, campus culture at FUS takes a generally very traditional view of gender roles. One of those traditional views is that men should be proactive and women should be reactive; the man should lead in a relationship, the woman should follow. My own views on the subject are different, but that will have to be an entire blog post in and of itself. When it comes to No Fear November in particular, we are not encouraging women to ask out men. We certainly are not forbidding it or even discouraging it, but No Fear November is not designed in itself to encourage women to ask out men.
One reason we are not encouraging women to ask out men is because to do so would add to the controversy of No Fear November. Our goal is not to create controversy (though there certainly is some), our goal is to create a much-needed shift in the existing dating culture. I would suggest that creating additional controversy may actually muddy the message and turn off some people who would otherwise be interested.
When it comes to my personal views, I see no reason why women cannot ask out men, at least on these initial dates. Of course, if a woman asks and the guy says yes, the woman should pay for the date. Basically, apply the same principles to the date but reverse the stated gender roles. Note that this is just my standpoint, not the official No Fear November standpoint.
I had a conversation with a woman on campus a couple of days ago about No Fear November. She expressed concern that she felt like she was compelled to say "yes" to a man if he asked her on a date. In talking with her further I learned that for personal reasons she had decided that she wanted to take some time off from dating. This is a perfect example of a good reason to say "no" to a man. I did not expand upon it in my first post, but I would consider this to fall under the category of a dating fast (even though she probably wouldn't use that phrase to describe her decision).
Let me re-state again that women are highly encouraged to say "yes" to a man that asks them on a date UNLESS they have a good reason not to (note that: to encourage is not to force). If they do have a good reason not to, then they should absolutely say "no" to the man. It would be imprudent and unfair to the man to say "yes" to him if they have a good reason to say "no." Furthermore, men, if a woman says "no" to going on a date with you, please do not pester her for a date. She has her reasons for saying "no" and you should accept (like a gentleman) that they are good reasons. She does not owe you an explanation as to why she will not go on a date with you. You should respect her "no." To do otherwise is the first step toward stalking.
What's next? What happens if you go on a date and it's great? Well, the man should ask the woman out again. A second or third date could be just as simple as the first date, or it could be something that involves a little more time. Group dates are a possibility, though I would caution you that it's harder to get to know someone when you're spending time in a group.
After multiple dates the man may ask the woman to be exclusive with him. If she agrees this clearly marks the beginning of an actual relationship. She is (of course) under no obligation to agree. Exclusivity of course means not going on dates with other people. At this point it would be appropriate to introduce the other as your girlfriend or boyfriend. You could make it facebook-official if you're into showing everyone and their mother everything that's going on in your life.
Becoming an official couple is an important step that you should put some though into, but people at FUS make it seem much more important than it is. New couples should NOT be spending all of their time together. That's very unhealthy for the relationship and for each of them. There is a healthy progression to the development of a relationship, and the progression does not go from "not dating" to "inseparable". In a different post I'll talk more about new relationships and the healthy development of a relationship. For now, one last point. If a man asks a woman to be exclusive and she says "no", he may decide whether to continue to ask her on dates. Of course, if she then says "no" to going on a date he should not pester her for a date.
I'm very interested to know people's thoughts on No Fear November, feel free to share in the comments below. I will most likely not be responding to comments on these blog posts, but I will be reading all of them. If you have a question for the No Fear November team feel free to e-mail nofearnovember@gmail.com or submit a question to the "askbox" on our website (nofearnovember.tumblr.com/ask), and we should get a response back to you from there.
So to start off with we received a question I'd like to address through the No Fear November e-mail address (nofearnovember@gmail.com):
Hello NoFearNovember,First, if anyone else would like to submit a question via e-mail, please feel free.
I've been asked why women aren't encouraged to ask out men during No Fear November. Can you guys give some rationale to why that is?Thanks!
On to the question, which is a very interesting one. The fact is, campus culture at FUS takes a generally very traditional view of gender roles. One of those traditional views is that men should be proactive and women should be reactive; the man should lead in a relationship, the woman should follow. My own views on the subject are different, but that will have to be an entire blog post in and of itself. When it comes to No Fear November in particular, we are not encouraging women to ask out men. We certainly are not forbidding it or even discouraging it, but No Fear November is not designed in itself to encourage women to ask out men.
One reason we are not encouraging women to ask out men is because to do so would add to the controversy of No Fear November. Our goal is not to create controversy (though there certainly is some), our goal is to create a much-needed shift in the existing dating culture. I would suggest that creating additional controversy may actually muddy the message and turn off some people who would otherwise be interested.
When it comes to my personal views, I see no reason why women cannot ask out men, at least on these initial dates. Of course, if a woman asks and the guy says yes, the woman should pay for the date. Basically, apply the same principles to the date but reverse the stated gender roles. Note that this is just my standpoint, not the official No Fear November standpoint.
I had a conversation with a woman on campus a couple of days ago about No Fear November. She expressed concern that she felt like she was compelled to say "yes" to a man if he asked her on a date. In talking with her further I learned that for personal reasons she had decided that she wanted to take some time off from dating. This is a perfect example of a good reason to say "no" to a man. I did not expand upon it in my first post, but I would consider this to fall under the category of a dating fast (even though she probably wouldn't use that phrase to describe her decision).
Let me re-state again that women are highly encouraged to say "yes" to a man that asks them on a date UNLESS they have a good reason not to (note that: to encourage is not to force). If they do have a good reason not to, then they should absolutely say "no" to the man. It would be imprudent and unfair to the man to say "yes" to him if they have a good reason to say "no." Furthermore, men, if a woman says "no" to going on a date with you, please do not pester her for a date. She has her reasons for saying "no" and you should accept (like a gentleman) that they are good reasons. She does not owe you an explanation as to why she will not go on a date with you. You should respect her "no." To do otherwise is the first step toward stalking.
What's next? What happens if you go on a date and it's great? Well, the man should ask the woman out again. A second or third date could be just as simple as the first date, or it could be something that involves a little more time. Group dates are a possibility, though I would caution you that it's harder to get to know someone when you're spending time in a group.
After multiple dates the man may ask the woman to be exclusive with him. If she agrees this clearly marks the beginning of an actual relationship. She is (of course) under no obligation to agree. Exclusivity of course means not going on dates with other people. At this point it would be appropriate to introduce the other as your girlfriend or boyfriend. You could make it facebook-official if you're into showing everyone and their mother everything that's going on in your life.
Becoming an official couple is an important step that you should put some though into, but people at FUS make it seem much more important than it is. New couples should NOT be spending all of their time together. That's very unhealthy for the relationship and for each of them. There is a healthy progression to the development of a relationship, and the progression does not go from "not dating" to "inseparable". In a different post I'll talk more about new relationships and the healthy development of a relationship. For now, one last point. If a man asks a woman to be exclusive and she says "no", he may decide whether to continue to ask her on dates. Of course, if she then says "no" to going on a date he should not pester her for a date.
I'm very interested to know people's thoughts on No Fear November, feel free to share in the comments below. I will most likely not be responding to comments on these blog posts, but I will be reading all of them. If you have a question for the No Fear November team feel free to e-mail nofearnovember@gmail.com or submit a question to the "askbox" on our website (nofearnovember.tumblr.com/ask), and we should get a response back to you from there.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)