ACKCHYUALLY I Love “Love Actually”

Okay. This is my Christmas present to myself. I’ve been struggling with finding the time and energy to write, and so I’m going to make it as easy as possible: I’m going to wade into the debate about the movie Love Actually.

Ever since it came out in 2003, Love Actually has taken a lot of heat — and also a lot of praise. It has gained entry into the ranks of Christmas classics (sometimes with “cult” in the middle there, for extra alliteration credit), and it has gotten a number of takedowns. Here’s one:

Why Love Actually is not the heartwarming romcom you’re remembering

And this one is… really angry about this movie.

I Rewatched Love Actually and Am Here to Ruin It for All of You

On the other hand, this one does — well, what I’m about to do, but I’m going to be more effusive and less hesitant in my praise. Because I actually like this movie (I know, I missed a golden opportunity there — but I’m not going to lie, because I’m writing this on Christmas day, AND ON CHRISTMAS YOU TELL THE TRUTH — and I don’t love this movie, not all of it.), and this one treats it like an insane trainwreck — literally uses that phrase when talking about the worst plotline from the movie — which you can’t look away from. It’s also got some useful information about the filmmaker, if you’re curious.

‘Love Actually’ Turns 20: Revisiting Its Incredible, Awful Greatness

So to be clear, this is not my favorite Christmas movie. It is top five, but it’s definitely behind A Christmas Story and It’s a Wonderful Life, and probably behind The Family Man. If we’re counting Charlie Brown’s Christmas, Chuck Jones’s Grinch and the Rankin/Bass oeuvre, and if both Die Hard and Lethal Weapon are Christmas movies, then it isn’t even top ten.

But it’s a nice movie. It has a good message, and it presents that message in a genuinely interesting and honest way, which you almost never find in rom-coms or Christmas movies, and I respect the hell out of that. It is heartwarming, and sometimes heartbreaking, and it has Bill Nighy as one of the best characters of the last 25 years, something even the proudest Love Actually haters will admit (Not that Jezebel one, but that one’s really shouty). It’s got an incredible cast pretty much all the way through, which makes up for some of the absurdities and offenses that are almost inevitable in a rom-com, and definitely inevitable in a Christmas movie: and this is both.

I think, honestly, that’s the big problem people have with this movie: it is cheesy. It is cringey. It is unrealistic. It is cliche. But of course it is: it is a rom-com AND a Christmas movie. Rom-coms are supposed to make us believe that love is possible, and Christmas movies are supposed to make us believe that miracles are possible, AND that good things happen to good people. Love Actually is going to make those particular sins even more intense because it is a montage movie: it is a collection of nine vignettes about individual characters with individual stories, which means that no one story gets more than about ten to twenty minutes of screen time; that means there is not enough space in the film for actual development of actual characters with actual plotlines. That’s why I like The Family Man more: because it is a Christmas rom-com which tells only one story. So it does the same thing better. But Love Actually does something else, something nearly impossible.

Go ahead. Tell me a romantic story in fifteen minutes without relying on cliches.

Oops, sorry — wrong movie.

While you’re at it, tell me ANY Christmas story that isn’t cringey. There are bad moments in Love Actually, but there’s nothing in it like this heap of crap:

(And this song was turned into a Christmas movie. With Rob Lowe. Get outta here with your Love Actually hate.)

Okay. Let me get into specifics. (Spoilers, of course, but I assume if you’re still reading, you’ve seen the movie, maybe several times.) I’m not going to respond directly to every one of the points raised in any particular argument, I’m going to run through the storylines, acknowledge the issues that exist, and give my opinion on each. Ready? I’m going to use Wikipedia’s article as my organizing principle because why not.

And I’m going to use this guy as my muse.

The movie begins in the airport, which the Jezebel review hates; I admit I’m not in love with the opening, because I too hate airports: but you know what? the best moment of any trip, ANY trip, I’ve ever taken on a plane, is when I get to come home and my wife comes to pick me up, and I get to meet her and see her for the first time in days. So I get where this movie is coming from. And I like the title drop, coming in the sentence, “Love actually is all around.” Remember that: that’s the message.

Then we get into the storylines. Starting with this:

Billy Mack And His Manager Joe

Billy’s the best part of the movie. Bill Nighy plays him perfectly, and the character provides a necessary puncturing of the saccharine Christmas motif that is otherwise pumping through the veins of this movie. The song he is remaking is awful (AND I JUST FOUND OUT IT IS A REAL SONG BY THE BAND WHO MADE “WILD THINGholy shit I always thought it was written as a joke for this movie) and his desire to re-release it for Christmas in order to revive his career and fame and bank account is such a perfect parody of everything that Hollywood and corporate “arts” makers in every field do as often as they possibly can, most often with things just like this movie, works using the themes of love and Christmas; so I love that Billy is upfront about it, and hates himself for doing it, and asks people to join him in his self-loathing abuse of his own career and art. This is exactly what this kind of shit deserves, and Billy goes for it, full speed ahead. And Bill Nighy’s degenerate’s laugh is pure art. The movie that starts with this story is not taking itself too seriously. Neither should we.

The end of this story, when Billy leaves Elton John’s debauchery-fest and goes back to hang out with his manager Joe (And may I just say, all of the attacks that take the movie to task for fat-shaming Natalie [A point against the movie, I agree wholeheartedly] NEVER mention Billy’s constant description of Joe as his “fat manager,” or when he calls Joe the “ugliest man on Earth.”), presents maybe the best iteration of the movie’s message: Billy calls Joe the love of his life. No, he does not mean it romantically. (Another sort-of reasonable knock against this movie is that it is entirely heteronormative; true, but so is EVERY OTHER ROM-COM IN THE HISTORY OF CINEMA THROUGH 2003) He means that love has different forms, and for him, his most stable, most reliable, most considerate friend is the love he needed most. Because that’s what love is: and that’s why it’s all around us.

Going on (though pausing to make Christmas dinner — ziti with roasted vegetables, YUM!!).

Juliet, Peter, and Mark

Love Actually star Keira Knightley says she knows who Juliet really chose -  Smooth
In complete honesty the worst part about this whole story line is their clothing.

This story line gets the most undeserved shit from haters of the movie. Okay, sure, it is pretty gross and weird that Mark is in love with his best friend’s fiancée and then wife — except no, it’s freaking not. This happens. It sort of happens all the time. It is perfectly reasonable and honorable that Mark tries his best to hide his feelings, and it is even more reasonable that he is bad at doing so. This story maybe suffers the most from the format of the movie, because without time to show the long buildup of Mark’s affection for Juliet, it just comes off as unrequited and hidden, which is creepy (Except it’s NOT because he is trying not to move in on his friend’s love, and that’s why he never says anything about his feelings, but clearly if he separated himself from Juliet he would never get to see his friend Peter and so he tries to push away his feelings and he can’t — how is that wrong?? Is he wrong for feeling attracted to someone he can’t have? Then I have bad news for EVERYONE WHO LOOKS AT KEIRA KNIGHTLEY IN THIS MOVIE.), and then the movie makes the unfortunate but entirely understandable choice, given the actress and the medium, to focus on how absolutely lovely Juliet is as a way to show that Mark has feelings for her. Every time I watch this I don’t think, “Ermagerd dude umm stop looking at your best friend’s new wife?! Ewwww!” I think, “Jesus, it would be hard to be in this situation, to feel that way about these two people and never show it.” And then when he gets caught? And looks like a creep because he thought he was concealing it, and clearly was concealing it because neither person has a clue??

Now I grant you, the posterboard scene is cringey. And hard to believe, as well. But I’ll tell you what, as someone who has actually written notes to ask people on dates, and not when I was in middle school BUT WHEN I WAS IN COLLEGE, there are times when people are completely fucking cringey. And hard to believe. I agree with the critics that Christmas is not actually the time to tell the truth — but I do think truth is better than lies, and especially in important and close relationships, so I see Mark’s gesture as a good-hearted one. I do not see it as a play for Juliet, an attempt to win her away from Peter, and I do not see it as pushing feelings on her which he shouldn’t talk about; he tried not talking about his feelings, and it didn’t work because he got caught (because unlike actual stalkers and real creeps, he’s bad at concealing himself and his feelings), and now the secret is out. It’s already freaking awkward, and pretending that none of this happened is not going to make it less awkward; his only other option is to sever all ties with his friends. And I don’t see that as a better choice. I don’t like that Juliet kisses him: I think it’s a weird way to tell him that everything is okay; but I think of it as her telling him something kind, that in a different world he would be a fine choice. This way he doesn’t feel ashamed of his feelings, even though they are not returned and never will be, and it allows him to keep some of his shredded self-esteem. Because after she kisses him, see, she runs back to Peter: so she is gone from Mark, this will never come back, he will never kiss her again — but he’s not an absurd fool for feeling desire for her, as she could in theory return it. It’s weird, but it works. I love that he just turns and walks away and says intently to himself, “Enough. Enough now.” He has to stop this pining, and he knows it, and now that he has revealed his feelings to Juliet, and she has rejected him — kindly — he may be able to move on.

Sometimes that’s what love is: messy as hell. But it is both Mark’s and Juliet’s love for Peter that allows them to have this awkward, ugly situation between them, and to try to make it work anyway, for Peter’s sake. To me, that’s sweet. It’s not romantic, and despite the (pretty awful) attempts to make the posterboards funny, it’s not comedic, either. But you know what it is? It’s Christmas. It’s another kind of love.

Oh: and for those who complain about this situation being inappropriate because Keira Knightley was 17 when she made this movie? Allow me to explain what acting is. The character was not underage, so the story is not inappropriate. If the actress was underage, and the movie put her in the inappropriate position of being an object of desire for the audience, that was maybe a poor choice for the filmmakers, so feel free to blame them for doing so — but Ms. Knightley chose to take the part, knowing what the character was and why she was being picked for it.

Jamie and Aurélia

Why Colin Firth's Love Actually Storyline Is So Good – Even If It's Not  Realistic

This is another one that suffers from the short screen time. Sure, the romance between these two is not based on communication, because they can’t speak to each other intelligibly. But first of all, Aurelia works in Jamie’s home, and he works at home, and so they spend all day together; there are things you learn about a person when you spend time with them, even if you don’t talk. Since the story is short, we don’t get to see the multiple adorable interactions between the writer and the house cleaner over the course of the weeks they spend together, but it is not any more reasonable to assume that there aren’t any such moments than it is to assume than it is reasonable for Aurelia to strip before she jumps into the pond, but for Jamie to go in fully clothed. I agree that scene is a bit exploitative: but also, it isn’t the worst in the movie, and to me, the most absurd part is not her taking off her clothes to jump into the water — it’s her moving the paperweight and letting the pages fly away to land in the water, not realizing, apparently, what would happen when she moved it. I mean, come on: have you never been around paper before??

Also, more to the point for the movie: exploitative or not, that scene (it’s not the only one) makes clear that this woman is lovely. And I hear that Colin Firth is generally seen as easy on the eyes. So sure, their romance might at first be based on being attracted to each other: but that’s not all it is — AND THAT’S NOT AN UNCOMMON THING. Allow me to introduce you to a certain play set in Verona: which also gets the same attacks, about the romance and therefore the marriage being shallow because it is based on mutual attraction: but people have to understand just how incredibly powerful attraction can be. And also, think about how lonely Jamie is, and maybe Aurelia too. So okay, maybe this marriage won’t be forever — but I can see it happening. This is sometimes how love actually works, even if it doesn’t work out. It’s still love.

I won’t accept any of the shit about Jamie not speaking Portuguese very well, at the end. or Aurelia’s family being ridiculous. He tried to learn the language in like a week: he does quite well. And if you think no family would be that absurd, well. You don’t have any in-laws.

NEXT!

John and Judy

Joanna Page breaks her silence on Love Actually sequel rumours - as she  admits she only watched the movie for the first time this Christmas | Daily  Mail Online

Okay, two things: first I’m going to veer away from the Wikipedia article, and put the sillier storylines in here, and then end with the four big ones; and second, I admit that I don’t like either this storyline or the next one very much. This one bothers me because — well, because I’m kind of a prude. These two being naked around each other and talking about traffic makes me pretty uncomfortable. But of course, that’s the joke. And these two actors do it very well. Is the job they are portraying real? Of course not, there’s absolutely no reason why they wouldn’t have the actual porn actors stand in place and mime sex while they set up the lights and all; but this story wouldn’t be cute if they were actually making porn and talking about traffic, and slowly leading up to a first date.

Though that would make a pretty good romance…

Never mind. The heart of this story is two things: the perfect casual way they work around the awkwardness of their nudity and mimed sex acts, and the utterly sweet, innocent kiss that ends their first date, with Bilbo — sorry, Jack — cheering as he jumps down her steps. That is rom-com gold, and if you can’t see it because their job isn’t realistic, Jesus Christ, take it up with rom-coms.

Colin, Tony, and the American girls

Love Actually/Hate Actually #4: Colin/America – The Avocado

This one is also a bad story line. Colin is annoying and stupid, and it’s bothersome that these women find him so very appealing, and absurd that they all dive into this orgy housemate scenario, and it’s certainly offensive that Colin brings back another hot girl as a gift for his other British friend at the end of the movie. I think this is the dumbest part of the movie, so I’m not going to try to defend it.

But I will say a couple of things. First of all, all great movies have bad parts, so the existence of this bad story is not enough to make Love Actually a bad movie; this is just the time when you go get another snack or head to the bathroom. Secondly, this whole thing is played tongue-in-cheek, totally absurd; take it that way, and the scene in the image above, where the three girls are cooing over how Colin says “bottle” and “straw” but are disappointed that he says “table” the same way they do, is hilarious. I think this can be seen as a pretty good parody of both the way some people melt over accents AND NOTHING ELSE, and also the way movies frequently throw attractive women at unattractive dudes and have the women act as though the idiot is God’s gift to their love lives or sex lives or both.

And I won’t point out that both of those things are sometimes true in real life.

This is a bad story line. In a good movie.

Sarah, Karl, and Michael

Love? Actually? - Ranking the Couples From Love Actually. — OMID

This is another story line I have a hard time watching, but not because I’m a prude (Though I am uncomfortable seeing that guy nearly naked, because DAMN does he make me feel like a raw potato): just because it’s so painful watching Sarah make this choice. But this is one of the best moments to examine and recognize what this movie is really trying to say about love.

First, love is all around us, and not always where we expect it. Sarah has been in love with Karl since she started working for this company (And that exchange, where Alan Rickman’s character Harry asks Sarah how long she has worked there, and how long she has been in love with Karl, and her answers reveal that she fell him fifteen minutes after she started working there, is absolutely brilliant, and a wonderful piece of acting by both Rickman and Laura Linney), and has never acted on it; she finds out that Karl has known all along, or at least for a while, and so do the rest of their coworkers; this means, in usual movie/TV dating scenarios, that she has failed to conceal her true feelings, has not played hard-to-get, and is therefore doomed, and will have no chance with that guy, ever. But no: Karl approaches her, he asks her to dance, he is enchanted by her, he goes back with her to her place, and none of it comes off as sleazy or exploitative (I mean, other than the gratuitous near-nudity of this Brazilian hunk, but we’re not concerned about the exploitation of male actors. [Really. We’re not.]), it’s just — romantic.

But then Sarah turns away from the hottie in her bed because she feels that she has to answer the phone call from her mentally ill brother. And Karl leaves.

It’s funny to me because the critics castigate Karl for that, for stepping out after Sarah rejects him twice, choosing to take the call instead of the sex; because I see that as Sarah’s mistake and bad behavior, not Karl’s. I think when she tells her brother during the second call that she is not busy, that she is ready to talk to him, while sexy Karl is sitting all naked-adjacent right next to her in the bed, that it is a clear message of how she feels for Karl right then, and I think it is respectful of him to accept her choice and leave, and also the right response when a mood has been killed that hard. No, I don’t think it should be on Karl to find a way to make the relationship work around Sarah’s commitment to her brother: she made a clear choice, he respects it. In the rom-com world, she would have to go to him, hat in hand, and apologize and make some grand gesture to win him back; in the real world, he’ll just go pick up somebody hot in a bar somewhere. Somebody who will turn off their goddamn phone in order to have sex with someone they have purportedly been in love with for years.

But though this story line hurts a bit to watch, I think it is essential for the movie: because this is actually love. She chooses self-sacrificial family love over personally satisfying romantic love, and Lord knows lots of people do that; and while it is to be pitied and denigrated in a romantic movie, there is nothing more Christmas than spending time with your family instead of the hot Brazilian man. Romantic love is not the only love. And sometimes the choices we make for love are not healthy for us — but that is not the fault of the love. Sarah’s commitment and dedication to her brother is laudable, even though it is also toxic for her; in a perfect world she would find a way to have both things, and many people do that. But many people don’t: and it’s still actually love. That’s what the movie is trying to say. Love is multi-faceted, wildly variant, and not always healthy or good. But it is love. It is strong. Stronger than sex.

And that’s pretty damn strong.

Harry, Karen, and Mia

But while love for Sarah is stronger than sex, sex, for Harry, is stronger than love. And this story line shows that. And it shows it pretty perfectly.

It is not clear to me why Mia wants to sleep with Harry. Maybe she finds him attractive — Alan Rickman was certainly not an ugly man, and not everyone finds age gaps unappealing (though in our modern world, with our fascination with and also our deep-seated aversion to pedophilia and sexual exploitation, we keep acting as though two adults who have disparate ages is as terrible, or even as icky, as an adult assaulting someone underage — and it is NOT) — and maybe she finds his position, his wealth, his power appealing; maybe she just wants to mess with him, and maybe she wants to be a homewrecker; any of them are possible, all of them are things that people do, even things that attractive young women do with older married men. But in the situation where the woman he works with wants to sleep with him, and is aggressive in trying to show it, Harry does what probably the majority of men would do: he considers it. He flirts with the idea, though he is also very clearly uncomfortable with it — when he calls her to say he’ll get her a Christmas present, and she tells him that she will give him all of herself, but if he’s going to buy her a present then she wants something pretty, he is neither smooth nor particularly sexy in his replies; he is fumbling and silly, like most married men would be when trying to flirt with someone they shouldn’t be flirting with.

But he does the wrong thing. And he breaks his wife’s heart, and ruins his own family, and Emma Thompson shows that so perfectly that even people who hate this movie love this segment, though they won’t admit they love it, because they hate Harry for what he does to Karen. But that kind of response shows that the movie is successful: the story works, the acting is wonderful, the audience’s response is exactly what it is supposed to be. I like this story for that reason, though of course I also get pissed at Harry and feel so sorry for Karen — her final shot at him, when she says he made a fool out of her, too, is just brilliant.

Let me also say that you cannot dislike both this story line and the Colin story line: they are polar opposites. That one is stupid; this one is smart. That one is a parody; this one is completely realistic. The Colin story is pure happiness, because Colin’s dreams come true; this one is pure sadness, because Karen and Harry’s lives are ruined, at least their romantic and family lives. You can’t criticize both in the same breath.

Okay. Next.

David and Natalie

Love Actually writer shuts down big fan theory about Prime Minister and  Natalie
I could have picked a lot of pictures for this story — but how could I resist that octopus? The Nativity Octopus, no less??

This one is the rom-commiest story in the movie, and it’s everything that rom-com romances are: shallow, because the movie is never long enough to show a real buildup of a romance; unrealistic, because no prime minister looks like Hugh Grant and no housemaid looks like Martine McCutcheon; more than a bit offensive, usually because part of the idea of overwhelming romance is that it has to break through barriers, and barriers are often taboos, so rom-coms frequently break taboos — in this case, the posh, upper-class Prime Minister having an upstairs/downstairs relationship with the housemaid who’s from around the way; and if we feel like being humorless sourpusses, we can describe this as exploitative or derogatory to the person in the inferior position, in this case the woman.

Yeah yeah yeah.

The genuine criticisms of this are the fat-shaming of Natalie, who doesn’t deserve it, though of course no person ever does; and the rather horrifying scene where the American president, played all too well by Billy Bob Thornton, sexually harasses Natalie and David does nothing about it in the moment, but even worse doesn’t tell her not to when she later apologizes for the situation. And I agree: they make too much of her being fat, and she’s not, but the whole point of that is to show another “obstacle” that their love overcomes, namely that she is not as classically beautiful as someone might want her to be, but he loves her anyway. And sure, the actress doesn’t fit that, because she is in fact classically beautiful; but first, I guarantee you that despite all the scoffing from the critics, that actress has indeed been constantly fat-shamed throughout her acting career precisely because she is not built like, oh, say, Keira Knightley; and second, every goddamn movie with a story like this fails because of the actors being inhumanly attractive. You ever see My Fair Lady? Where the flower girl, Eliza, is at first “deeply unattractive,” until she gets to take a bath and put on pretty clothing — when it is revealed that said flower girl is actually Audrey Freaking Hepburn, one of the most beautiful human beings in all of history? Sure, a smudge of dirt on her cheek makes Audrey Hepburn unappealing. Of course it does. Just like when the nerdy girl takes off her glasses and turns out to be a stunning beauty.

Audrey Hepburn as Eliza Doolittle in My Fair Lady, 1964
Come on, bro, her hair’s messy, she’s a three at best.
389 Audrey Hepburn My Fair Lady Photos & High Res Pictures - Getty Images
THAT’S THE SAME WOMAN??? Whoa — she sure, uhhh, cleans up nice.

I do think the sexual harassment scene is gross, and David does handle it badly. But again, rom-coms do this: the hero fails the maiden in her moment of need, and must then put on a Show of Love and Act of Contrition in order to prove to her that he actually loves her; and David goes through her neighborhood looking for her, door to door, singing “Good King Wenceslas” to three girls who ask him to carol, and then when he finds her, he goes with her to her little brothers’ Christmas pageant — featuring the above-pictured Nativity Octopus. That’s full on rom-com, in every way. And it’s cute, damn it. It’s rom-com cute. I saw a tweet that criticized David as Prime Minister for endangering England’s most important alliance for the sake of a harmless little sexual harassment, and — I mean, please just fuck off, at that point.

YARN | It's a movie. | The Sopranos (1999) - S06E08 Drama | Video clips by  quotes | cf6bfd9b | 紗

Daniel, Sam, Joanna, and Carol

Joanna Page (actress in Love Actually) – Matt Lynn Digital

I saved this one for last, because I think this is the heart of the Christmas movie, as the David/Natalie story is the heart of the rom-com. This story is my favorite. Though even here, there is a flaw, and it’s Claudia Schiffer showing up at the end to melt the heart of Liam Neeson; that’s a weird thing to do to a character that starts the movie speaking at his wife’s funeral — though not as weird as making that dead woman into the villain at her own funeral by having her insist on the Bay City Rollers as her farewell music, which would be pretty funny IF HER TEN-YEAR-OLD SON WEREN’T THERE. He is there, and that scene and that joke is fucked up, I agree. But this also is pretty classic rom-com concept, because it is Daniel’s love for his wife overriding his sense of propriety, but he does it and introduces the appalling music choice because that’s what the woman he loved wanted. Very British rom-com, really.

But other than Claudia Schiffer (which I also don’t like because it’s too meta that Daniel uses her as the jokey-joke representation of what it would take for him to move on after Sam’s mother, and then Claudia Schiffer BUT IT’S NOT CLAUDIA SCHIFFER IT IS CAROL PLAYED BY CLAUDIA SCHIFFER shows up to make googly eyes at him and even apparently go with him to the airport at the very end which is even weirder), I think this story is lovely. Sam is in love, and of course he’s not, he’s bloody ten years old; but ten-year-olds won’t accept that fact as Sam doesn’t: and the right thing to do is exactly what Daniel does, which is take him at his word, take him seriously, and try to help without actually making him feel stupid or uncomfortable. The reality is that this brief crush will pass away, as every ten-year-old’s crush does; and if in the moment Sam learns to play drums, there’s nothing on Earth wrong with that. It gives the boy something to focus on other than his dead mother, and that seems like a good thing to do. It treats love as a real thing, and Sam’s feelings as real things, and that is DEFINITELY a good thing to do. The critics say that Daniel should encourage Sam to talk to Joanna, like a grownup with a romantic attraction; that strikes me as pretty damn disingenuous as a criticism, and also very much a weird thing to tell a ten-year-old to do. That is absolutely what you should tell a teenager, or a grown person to do; but what is going to happen if this kid tells this other kid that he loves her? She’s going to laugh at him, roll her eyes, and then make fun of him with her friends. So Daniel doesn’t tell him to do that. He plays along, and encourages Sam, while also trying to keep him grounded.

It ends up with a chase through an airport and a kiss because it’s a Christmas movie. And in Christmas movies, miracles happen.

But what this story is really about is these two people, Sam and Daniel (Who is Sam’s stepfather, by the way) learning to be a family together. At the end, Sam calls him Dad, instead of Daniel, and when Sam gets his kiss from Joanna, he leaps into Daniel’s arms and gets a genuine hug: and it’s beautiful. That story line is done very well, and is incredibly sweet, and I love it. It also gives me a reason to enjoy “All I Want for Christmas Is You,” which I associate with my favorite part of this movie I enjoy; it makes Mariah Carey season a whole lot easier to take.

So that’s it. It is not a perfect movie: I don’t really like that it is both a rom-com and a Christmas movie, because that does some weird things to the story lines — the romance between Sam and Joanna is WAY too romantic because it’s in a rom-com, where in a Christmas movie it would just be innocent and sweet, as it should be — but I think it is a decent version of both things individually, with all the inherent flaws of those two genres; and I think all on its own, it is an entirely unique movie. One that is worth watching. Every year, if you really like it.

If for nothing else, then it is worth watching for Rowan Atkinson. The funniest part of the entire movie, hands down.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go watch The Family Man. Merry Christmas, everyone. And good night.

So.

(Trigger warnings and such. Be on your guard.)

Some of you were probably wondering why I vanished.

Two months and a day since my last post. Nothing on here since October 3rd, when before that I was posting every single week, pretty consistently — I lost it in May and June, sure, but that’s the end of the school year; there’s no particular reason why October and November would see me go dark and silent. I mean, sure, October is the month of darkness, and — can I make any connection between Thanksgiving and silence? Or no, how about Veterans’ Day? Or Indigenous People’s Day, maybe?

Never mind. I don’t have it in me to joke or to bullshit much.

I do apologize for my absence; I really did intend to stay consistent for as long as I could, and I still want to write. But both things became impossible about ten days after my last post. In the time intervening, I have learned some more about what I’m capable of, and what I’m not, and more about what matters and what doesn’t.

What matters is the truth. What doesn’t matter is polite fictions.

So the truth is, my father-in-law — step-father-in-law, really — killed himself. He used a gun. He was 87, and a drug addict, among other things. He was also a veteran, a former US Marine, and so for the sake of Veterans’ Day and all, I don’t want to get into too much detail about him or the circumstances or the reasons for his death. But he did it at his home in Kingman, on the other end of Arizona from where my wife and I live in Tucson, about ten days after my last post — somewhere around the 13th of October. And that’s why I haven’t posted, or written, since that last post two months ago: because my wife and I have been dealing with the consequences of his death.

You see, one other thing my stepfather-in-law — his name was Wes, which is much shorter than his title, so I’m going to use that — one other thing Wes was, was his wife’s caretaker. My mother-in-law, Jo. Jo has advanced dementia. She doesn’t have Alzheimer’s, she suffered a pair of traumatic brain injuries stemming from two falls she took, both of which resulted in a concussion, in the last few years. She has also gone through some unknown number of mini-strokes. She had been living at home with Wes, who was physically disabled but mentally capable — up until he killed himself.

I got a phone call on the morning of Sunday the 15th of October. I was outside working on my driveway — I’m expanding it because we got a second car, a sweet bright orange 1973 VW Bug — and I wasn’t expecting a call. I normally wouldn’t have answered it: I don’t like phone calls, and I don’t like getting them on the last day of my week-long fall break, which that Sunday was. But I looked at the phone, because I had called Wes the day before and left a message; he had fallen and hurt his knee — he has bad knees (Sorry: he had bad knees) — and had told me he was in a lot of pain, when I talked to him somewhere around the 9th or 10th of October, I don’t remember when. I wanted to tell him then that my wife and I would do anything we could to help. I didn’t say it, though. It wouldn’t have mattered. But I called him on Saturday the 14th, and left him a message saying I was checking in to see how he was doing.

Turns out he was dead. And Jo was at that point in the hospital, though I didn’t know it when I called.

I found that out when I answered the phone Sunday morning: because I looked at my phone, and it was Wes’s daughter, my wife’s stepsister, Dana. I’d never spoken to Dana before: she and Wes hadn’t been that close, and she never got along with Jo, or Toni, my wife. So if she was calling me, I knew it was serious, and it was probably bad. So I answered.

And she told me, tearfully, that her dad was dead, and that Jo was in the hospital. She didn’t know many details, other than the fact that Toni is the executor of both of their wills, as well as the possessor of a durable power of attorney and the responsible party for their medical decisions if they were incapable of making them themselves, for both Wes and Jo. Dana wanted to make sure that Toni would let her take some personal items to remember her father by. I told her that would be completely fine, of course, that I’d talk to Toni and we’d be in touch.

I hung up. I cussed a lot. I felt the beginnings of sadness — but more dread. We had seen some kind of crisis coming for a long time, and here it was.

Then I went inside and told Toni.

So in the last two months — not quite two months, I guess, though it sure feels like three or four years — Toni and I have made two trips to Kingman, a six-hour drive; we have brought Jo down to Tucson and found her a place in a memory care unit in a local assisted living facility. We were able to pay for it because my family has loaned us money, which we expect to pay back when we sell their house — which, the fates and gods willing, should happen very very soon. The second trip was all for dealing with their house. My brother, who had just left his job as a software engineer in order to pursue his personal projects, gave up his time and energy to help us, and drove to Kingman from Mason County, Washington, to help with the house. Together the three of us emptied a three-bedroom house of a couple’s accumulated possessions; we kept everything we thought Jo could use in her new living situation, and donated everything we thought was donatable. The rest went to the landfill. Then my brother, who stayed at the house for an extra week after Toni and I came back to Tucson to go back to teaching, cleaned up and repaired everything that could be done in the house, making it ready to go on the market, which it did, right after Thanksgiving.

We also made sure that Wes got cremated and his daughter took his remains. She also got to take whatever she wanted of his, as did his nephew, who also came to help that first weekend.

We also took care of their two pet dogs. Which I am not going to talk about.

We are still trying to finish arranging things for Jo: the assisted living is, as you may know, ridiculously expensive — over $5,000 a month, all included. It’s a good place: and also one of the cheaper ones in Tucson. But obviously we can’t afford to pay for it. It is not clear how long Jo will live, but it doesn’t matter because we couldn’t pay for one month on our own. And when we first brought her home from the hospital in Kingman, we took care of her for four days: and after that, there was no question that we can not take care of her ourselves. She needs constant care, at a professional level, and we just can’t do that. She will get social security, and since Wes was a veteran, she gets survivor’s benefits; we’re hoping for somewhere in the range of $3000-4000 a month out of those two along with a small pension Wes had which will transfer to Jo. The rest of her monthly costs will come out of the proceeds from selling their house, which fortunately they owned outright — though they did have a reverse mortgage which we will have to pay off out of the proceeds, first. When that money runs out, if Jo lives that long, there is a program called the Arizona Long Term Care System, which should cover the rest of the monthly expense of her care. We may need to find her a cheaper place to live in order to qualify for that program, I don’t know yet — we can’t apply for it until she has less than $2000 in assets.

The point is that we are two months into this, and $15,000 deep, at least. We are still waiting to find out how much money Jo will get from the government.

My wife hasn’t slept well in two months. She has nightmares. I am sleeping better than she is, but I have struggled trying to keep my calm with my students. I snapped on them, the day before we drove up to Kingman for the first time. Snapped harder than I have in two years, and it wasn’t justified. I don’t feel bad, it’s just where I was at the time.

Here’s what I’ve learned from this.

Suicide is an act of violence which harms all of those around the victim. It does not spare anyone from anything: it makes things worse. I guess it spares the dead person. It certainly seems to have been Wes’s escape. I loved the guy, but if it sounds like I’m mad at him and I blame him for what he did, I fucking am, and I fucking do.

Dementia is a terrible condition. Trauma is worse.

There’s not much sadder than the place where someone used to live, and the things they used to own.

The government is slow, but they do good things. Banks and hospitals are fast, and expensive, and they are ABSOLUTELY FUCKING TERRIBLE. (That is not universal. Some wonderful people work in hospitals, along with some bags of crap. Banks seem to be all bad, but my wife and my mother-in-law both worked for banks, so they’re not all bad people. Foothills Bank, a subsidiary of Glacier Bank, though? Absolute garbage.) The real estate industry is both fast and good — but not cheap. It’s okay, they’re worth it.

Insurance is a good thing. You should get some, and then you should keep it. As much as you can. If you are aging, and in ill health with physical disabilities, and you have home health care insurance, FUCKING KEEP THE GODDAMN INSURANCE. Please. I beg you. This shit is too expensive for anyone to just pay for. I know that insurance premiums are costly, too, but this is so much worse: so much more expensive, and so much harder to deal with when you have to deal with the problems of getting sick people what they need, right now, and hope you can find a way to pay for it, too. Get the insurance. Pay for it.

When someone asks how you are, tell the truth. I have spent my life lying and saying I am fine when I’m not. That’s not to say I’ve never been fine; I have lived a good life so far, and I have mostly been fine; but when I’m not, I have always lied. It felt rude to bring people down just because I felt bad and they asked how I was. But I stopped doing that this last two months, and — it’s better. I don’t go into detail — this post is more than I’ve said to any but a handful of people — but when people ask how I am, I make a face, sort of a grimace, and I say, “Not good.” If they want to know and have a right, I tell them something like “There was a death in the family and we’re dealing with the estate;” if they don’t ask or have a right to know, I leave it at Not good. They say they’re sorry I’m going through shit, sometimes they offer to help. I thank them.

It is better than politeness.

The hardest thing has been that we did not know what Wes and Jo were going through. They needed help: and we didn’t know it, because they never said. Wes complained, constantly; but he never asked for help. We tried to get them to move closer to us so we could help; this past summer they agreed — but then Wes changed his mind. He said it would be too hard for Jo to make the transition. He might have been right. But it’s now entirely fucking clear that staying where they were could not work.

So the most important thing I have learned is this: when you need help, ask for help. Don’t be ashamed of need. Don’t back away from help because you don’t know what other people can do for you, or how it will work or what the costs and consequences will be: ask for help from someone you trust, and figure it out with them. I have gotten help from my family, from my friends, from my employer. I have given help, as well; I have been able to do so because I got the help I needed.

If Wes had asked for help, then we could have helped him get the help he needed to take care of Jo, and this horror might not have happened. Instead he hurt all of us, by killing himself. He would have done that anyway: it was not because he was abandoned and alone, he was surrounded by people who loved him, who were willing to help him; he was suicidal for many reasons that had nothing to do with help. But this situation wouldn’t have been as bad, particularly for Jo, if people had been able to help. We would at least have known what was happening, even if we couldn’t have done anything to make it better. The unfortunate truth might have made everyone unhappy: but it would have been better than not knowing.

Please ask for help.

Forgive me for not writing more often; I am also (Though this is not the most important thing) trying to finish my book, and my scant writing time and energy goes to that more than this blog. But I’ve been trying to write this post for two months, and failing; I needed to do this. I apologize, as well, if this has been hard to read, but I won’t lie about how I am. I am not well. I’m better than I was a month or so ago; that first week was by far the worst. I might need to write about all of this more; I will, when I can. I’ll write about other things, too — I have a couple of humdingers in me about school from the last two months.

Please go tell the people you love that you love them. And if you need help — ask for it. Don’t lie about how you are. The truth is better.

In Memoriam

Tis Better to have Loved and Lost #Inspiration #Tennyson – Poems for  Warriors

I am now always suspicious of quotations that I find on the internet. Too many of them get misquoted and misattributed; particularly when they are turned into lovely images with flowers and weathered wood in the background, as this one is.

Like this, for instance.

Be not afraid of going slowly, be afraid only of standing still. – FS News  Online

There are many iterations of this one, which does in fact seem to be a Chinese proverb. Though the other images don’t have a baby sea turtle in them, so, y’know — lame. But definitely a Chinese proverb, at least according to the majority of the Google results.

Or wait: maybe it’s from a fantasy series by an author named Jeff Wheeler. Who created a culture named Dawanjir. (To be fair, the series is strongly influenced by Chinese culture, according to Goodreads. But still. This meme just says it is a Dawanjir proverb, and then slaps the author’s name under it.)

Jeff Wheeler Quote: “Be not afraid of growing slowly, be afraid only of standing  still. – Dawanjir
Also, where’s the turtle?

Or maybe it was this Joshua Muax guy?

I'm not afraid of growing slowly,as long as i'm not standing: OwnQuotes.com
I love that this website is called “Ownquotes.”

No, wait, I’m wrong — it was Benjamin Franklin who said it.

Benjamin Franklin quote: By improving yourself, the world is made better.  Be not...

(Benjamin Franklin is probably the one person most frequently given internet credit for stuff he never said.)

PosterEnvy - Ben Franklin Healthy Quote - NEW Humorous Nutrition Poster  (he039)
This one’s just mean.

But it turns out that, in fact, my first meme has it right:

Alfred Lord Tennyson - 'Tis better to have loved and lost...

That is the actual quote, and it was originally written by Alfred, Lord Tennyson, in a poem (a VERY LONG poem) he wrote after a good friend, Arthur Henry Hallum, died young. The poem is called “In Memoriam A.H.H.” And I would quote it here, but — seriously, it’s over 180 pages long. It’s here, if you’d like to read it.

All of this is a very roundabout way to come to my question: is this true? Is it better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all?

I started thinking about this last week, when I went to visit my father and help out with the memorial for his wife. My dad’s wife Linda (who was, of course, my stepmother, but I never ever called her that or thought of her that way) passed away in February, from complications from paraplegia, which she had lived with for about two and a half years. She and my father had been together at that point for thirty years, give or take; they had been married for almost twenty-five years.

No photo description available.

Linda’s passing was hard. The two and a half years before that had been extremely hard, on both Linda and my father. The four months after her death were very difficult for Dad, as well. And so at the end of all of that, I certainly found myself wondering: was it worth it?

I won’t presume to even try to answer this for my father; I only bring up his love and loss to explain why my thoughts turned down such a cynical and morbid path. When I was thinking about this, I was thinking about myself and my wife: we also have been together for almost thirty years, and married for nearly twenty. I hope and expect to be with her until one of us passes: and that thought was the one that started me on this track.

Let’s be clear: the answer is yes. Without a doubt, it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. I would never give up my wife, or my life with my wife, no matter how difficult the end of our lives together may be. And I have some idea, now, just how difficult it may be, for one or both of us — but that doesn’t matter, because suffering would never wash out all the incredible happiness and the years – decades — of simple contentment which my marriage has brought me. I do not undervalue contentment, as I hope you don’t, either — as many people do when they think about love, and how love changes from fiery passion to simple human affection and connection. The novel The Awakening, by Kate Chopin, with which I have tormented several years’ worth of AP Literature classes (The book is good, but it’s written in Victorian English, which is not my students’ cup of tea; and the main character is intentionally obnoxious in some ways, which makes it hard to sympathize with her. Actually, all the characters are obnoxious, which generally makes students want to give up on the book.), features a protagonist who believes that life should be mad passion, extreme highs and lows, especially in love; this leads her to unfortunate decisions and a bad ending. My romance has stayed more passionate than many, I think (Mainly because my wife is SUPER hot); but even if it fades to simple companionship, I think that would be a wonderful thing to have in my twilight years.

More to the point, there are people who avoid romance and particularly commitment because they believe that the fire fades, that the passion diminishes; and that is somehow sad — and therefore they avoid love because they don’t want to suffer that diminishment. For them, tis better to have never loved at all, than to have loved and then lost that love, at least the passionate part of that love. And those people are clearly wrong.

But here’s the thing: I don’t know if they are. They don’t know if they’re right. Tennyson didn’t know if he was right: because there’s no way to compare the two states of being. If you have loved and lost, then you can’t have never loved; if you’ve never loved, then you can’t have loved and lost.

I’m not trying to logic my way into a clever Gotcha! to disprove Lord Tennyson; even I’m not that annoying, I hope. It’s not that we can’t live two lives in order to compare them: it’s that we can’t possibly know what our lives would be like if things went differently. I think about this a fair amount, not least because I’m a fantasy writer who reads and teaches science fiction as well, and so I have spent more than my fair share of hours thinking about time travel and alternate history. I’ve read (and taught) about the butterfly effect, and about the multiverse; I wrote two books about a time-traveling Irish pirate (They’re right here, and I swear to you that Book III will be out by spring of next year), for Pete’s sake. And in my own life, I have thought extensively about the slow accrual of causal events, themselves too insignificant to recognize, which add up to something significant, in terms of my life with my love: because if I had not been a screwup in high school, and therefore lacked the GPA to get into a four-year school; if my father had not lived and worked in California and had a friend who taught physics at UCSC, who mentioned to my father that UCSC had a creative writing program; if I had not gone to the community college after high school in order to transfer to UCSC to study writing; if my counselor there had gotten my transfer credits right and I had finished at community college in two years instead of three; and if I had not been wearing a button that said “A dragon on the roof keeps burglars away” and thus gotten into a conversation with a fellow gamer nerd who became my friend and eventually helped me get a job distributing student IDs at the school — I would never have met my wife. All those ridiculous coincidences had to happen in just that way for me to find the love of my life. And also, let me say, there are just as many on her side: just as many ways that her path could have taken her far away from me. Which would have changed both of our lives.

For the better? For the worse?

Who knows? Who can possibly say?

One way it could have gone differently would have been if I had been able to succeed as a student in high school. I got my first Ds and Fs in my freshman and sophomore years, mainly because I did not have study habits. But I developed those study habits, quickly, when I went to community college; so certainly I could have had them in high school. If I had stayed in my honors tracks and earned good grades, I might have followed most of my friends, who went to Ivy League or similar top-tier schools. I might have ended up a lawyer, as many of my friends in high school did. I love argument and I write and read well, so it would make sense. My oldest friend did that, and he started his own law firm; could I have joined him in that? Could it be McGuire, Humphrey and Associates, LLC? (No question Josh would get first billing, by the way.)

Would I be happier that way? Ignoring for the moment the obvious other possibility that goes along with that alternate track, which is that I would have met and fallen in love and presumably married someone else; and though she would not be as perfect and wonderful as my wife is — because there is no one as perfect and wonderful as my wife — I had fallen in love before I met my wife, and so I could probably fall in love with someone else. But forget that: the question is, would I be happy if I never fell in love, or at least never married?

My brother Marvin is three years older than me, so he’ll be 52 this month. And though I don’t know all the details of his romantic life (and don’t want to pry), I know that he has never lived with a woman and never married a woman. (Also I know that he is not gay, which wouldn’t matter to me in the slightest either way, but one of my favorite stories is from when Marvin had dinner with our dad and Linda, and after a prolonged silence at one point, Dad and Linda burst out with, “You know, it’s okay if you’re gay.” To which Marvin responded, in some way, “Thank you? But I’m not?” Which is a scene that still cracks me up. But Dad and Linda thought they should say that because Marvin had not brought home any women to meet them, and so they made a reasonable assumption.) Marvin is exceptionally accomplished: his degree is in music composition, and after he graduated he became a digital editor in a recording studio, teaching himself how to handle the equipment and the tasks involved; and then after that, he became a self-taught software engineer and web designer, which he now does professionally — all the while keeping up his music; he sings and plays several instruments, in addition to writing and arranging in several different genres. (Also, he can ride a unicycle off-road.) And the question has to be asked: would he have been able to do all that if he had gotten into a long-term romantic relationship? Would he have wanted to do the same things? Or would he have made entirely different choices?

To the point: my brother is essentially a happy man. I am also essentially a happy man. Though our father has not been all that happy for the last few years, for a very long time before that, he was an extremely happy man — and, now that he has moved through the most immediate grief, and reached the closure of a memorial service, I think he can be happy again. Our mother, by the way, has been single since she and Dad divorced in the early 90s; and she is also a happy woman, most of the time. She had one proposal, some years ago, from a man she had been dating; she turned him down. And went happily on her way.

So is it better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all? Frankly, I don’t think it’s possible to decide.

What is definitely true is this: once one has found love, real love, love that brings joy and contentment, love that lasts as long as life does and then even beyond that: there is nothing that would persuade one to give that love up. Not even the knowledge that some people might be happier living without that kind of commitment, that kind of potential turmoil, and without the devastating grief that waits at the end for all of us who love another person. I love my wife, and I always will; and that is who I am. Would I be happier if I had never met her? No: because that would not be me. That would be some other dude. Maybe a happy dude, but not me. My life became mine when that gorgeous woman came up to me in the cafeteria at Cabrillo Community College and said, “Hey — do you like gum?”

In truth, I love it. And her. Forever.

No photo description available.

Welcome Back

And if that made you think of the Sweathogs and Mr. Kotter, then we are friends.

Welcome Back Kotter Dance GIF - Welcome Back Kotter Dance ...

Okay: lemme ‘splain.

No. Is too much. Lemme sum up.

Let Me Explain Sum Up GIF - Let Me Explain Sum Up Too Much GIFs

School ended on May 25th. That was at the end of a week including Graduation, which I hosted as Master of Ceremonies (A student of mine expressed distaste for the term “emceed,” and when I told her what it stood for, she said the full term was MUCH cooler than the phonetic abbreviation, so I’m going with that from now on.) and the usual grade-fest, necessitated by the fact that I accept all late work up to the last minute. Then I took a week or so to relax — though I did make a bed, as I described in my last post nearly a month ago.

And then the rocks arrived.

These first three pictures are my front yard. Notice it is nothing but dirt and a few plants. (This is after I weeded it, by the way. Bottom right corner of the first pic shows the weeds I had not yet gotten to, in front of the sage bush.)

And this is eleven tons of rock being dumped in my driveway.

The ton or so of dust is complimentary. And inevitable, in Tucson, which is mostly dust.

So then I started working on getting the rocks spread out across the yard. That means digging up the dirt to turn it and remove all the weeds I could get; then putting down weedblocking cloth; then hauling wheelbarrows full of rocks over to the cloth and dumping them. Since the temperature here has been well over 100 degrees for several weeks, it was hot, dirty, difficult work.

But my wife still made it look good.

I joked that this was her Jackie O. pose; the scarf is actually weedblocker cloth. The gorgeousness is all her.
I’m not as pretty.

In addition to the rocks, on June 10th I started my usual summer job: scoring essays for the Advanced Placement program’s Language and Composition exam. So that meant about eight hours a day staring at a computer screen trying to understand student handwriting — and spelling. I’d get up as early as I could (which is no hardship as I have always been an early riser) and lie in my hammock and grade for a few hours; then I’d go out in the yard with my wife and spread some rocks.

The rocks are not done, by the way, but it’s getting close; and it looks great.

Progress. Improvement.

Until June 18th, when I flew to San Diego to attend a three-day AVID conference.

This one had a roundabout genesis: back in March or so, a good friend of mine asked if I would go to the conference, because she was going and she wanted someone along whom she got along with. At first I turned her down, because I do not generally like pedagogy and conferences; my style and philosophy of teaching are not what other teachers’ are, and so most of the time, pedagogical instruction is lost on me — and it makes me feel bad, because I have just enough self-doubt and imposter anxiety, even after 23 years of teaching, to suspect that I’ve been doing it wrong all along. And the people who present at these conferences always seem so sure that their system is right.

AVID has a little more credibility with me, because when I started teaching in California in 2000, the school where I taught had an AVID program, and the teacher whose room I shared, who took on something of a mentor’s role for me, was the AVID teacher. So I had first-hand experience of how well the program can work, and I was more interested in being involved in bringing AVID to my school than I would be in most teacher conferences. I’ll write more extensively about AVID at some point, but the basic idea — it stands for Advancement Via Individual Determination, which I both love and hate, as I love and hate all good acronyms — is that it helps students who would struggle going to college and being successful there for reasons other than intellect, and tries to make those students more successful through teaching organization and study habits, and how to work with people and advocate for yourself, and so on. It’s a good system.

But I still would never choose to go to a three-day teaching conference if I could avoid it. So I said no when my friend asked me to go.

But in February, my father’s wife, Linda, passed away. It was, of course, devastating to my dad; and I promised him I would come to the memorial, and help him out in any way I could. And somewhere around April, my dad told me that Linda’s memorial would be Saturday, June 24th: the weekend after the AVID conference. My dad lives in Paso Robles, in wine country closer to the central coast of California than to San Diego; but my brother lives in San Diego, and would be driving up for the memorial anyway, of course. So I checked with my brother, and then my principal, to make sure I could extend my return flight from the conference and get a ride — and in the end, I went to the AVID conference, and then drove with my brother to Paso Robles and attended my father’s wife’s memorial.

Where I served as the master of ceremonies.

It was a beautiful ceremony.

May be an image of 7 people and wine
This is my dad at the podium sharing his memories of his wife. My brother is the one leaning against the casks — the memorial was held at a vineyard, whose owners are close friends.

***

I’m telling you all of this because I hope it explains why I have not posted on this blog for the last three weeks. I usually write and post on Sunday and/or Monday of each week. Well, last Sunday and Monday I was in Paso Robles, both helping my dad deal with his grief, and also going through my own (far, far smaller) suffering: because my dad is an extrovert, and he and his wife are extremely popular and well-loved among their family and friends and their community, so many people wanted to express their grief about Linda’s loss, and also to help my dad know that he is not alone: so we had four gatherings of people in the five days I was there visiting. Which was a lot for me. The Sunday and Monday before that, I was flying to San Diego and then attending the first day of a three-day conference for a program that I would actually be interested in learning about and bringing to my school, so I was trying hard to keep up with the information; and that was draining. Aaaand the Sunday and Monday before that, I was scoring essays and spreading rocks.

So here’s my plan. I’m counting this one, which I know is a bit of a nothingburger in terms of its value as a blog post (When I told my wife I was going to write “just sort of an update” for this post, she said “That doesn’t sound very exciting. Don’t you want your blogs to be about exciting things?”), and then I will be writing and posting for the next three days, to make up for the three weeks I missed, ending with a post for next week — which I’ll post on the Fourth of July. In honor of which, I plan to yell a whole lot about how the Supreme Court is fucking up this country. I have another idea for one of the other blogs; not sure about the last one — but I’ll think of something.

I don’t have anywhere else I have to go. Or any essays to grade. The rocks are almost done, and though I also need to work on my pirate book, otherwise I am just staying home with my wife and my pets.

I hope you’re all having a happy summer, too.

How To Make Your Bed

We bought a new bed.

Rather, we bought a new bed frame: a platform, because we want to lower the bed height, since we have a dog who is approaching Senior Dog status, and our dog Charlie developed arthritis in his shoulders partly from jumping down off of our bed, before we got him a ramp. We are going to go out and buy a new mattress, but we have to work up to that, because mattress shopping is the one activity guaranteed to turn me into a Boomer: the only time in my life I have complained audibly about how expensive something was was in a mattress store in Portland, Oregon, the first time I saw a premium mattress priced at five figures. “Jesus Christ, we’re not buying a car!” I was heard to say as my wife hustled me out the door like a drunk at a retirement party.

So we started with the frame: and partly to save money, we bought it online and had it shipped to us, which saved us a couple hundred dollars, and the headache of finding a truck that could haul a bedframe home.

Plus: it got us these directions. Which I am now going to share with you, in case you decide you want to buy a BTHFST LED King Bed Frame with USB Ports & Charging Outlets, Metal Platform Bed Frame with 2-Tier Shelf Headboard, King Bed with LED Lights, Upgraded Double-Row Support Bars, Noise-Free, Vintage Brown.

First of all: yes, we bought it on Amazon, and it came from China. I looked, hard, and the only other options, apart from a dozen different Chinese clones providing exactly the same bed frame for slightly different prices, were bed frames from Vietnam, and one absolutely gorgeous bed frame from Scandinavia. The Vietnamese frames were twice the price of the Chinese frames, with no less carbon cost in shipping and human cost in worker exploitation; the Scandinavian bed frame was literally eleven times the price — $200 vs. $2200. I would love to buy responsibly and ethically with every purchase I make.

But I just needed a new bed.

So here we go.

What is 828 K? A secret code? A gang tag from a Chinese triad? (Probably the size of the file for the directions, I know. But the secret code is more fun.)

First of all, please note that these directions are stapled together. Badly. Secondly, please appreciate with me the lightbulb graphic at the bottom of the page. Is that representing an idea? The beacon summoning us to the land of comfort? Well, maybe they’ll figure it out when they go to version 1.2.

It is a decent depiction of the frame itself, I will say.

Next page.

This is my favorite page of the instructions. Everything about it is excellent. I was in fact going to put this thing together by myself, but after seeing this, I asked my wife to be my second panda. Needless to say, we did not install the frame violently; we also did not call for help, though we did look online for videos showing the finished product. Because I frequently thought “?!” while trying to understand these directions.

One caveat: the first panda — the only one with natural coloration, for some reason? — is not showing the correct tools needed for this. A drill or impact driver would be handy as there are a large number of bolts to tighten; but they’re all hex bolts, which would require a hex-bolt attachment inserted in the end of that adaptor that is shown. Which attachment is not shown. It’s okay though: as with every other piece of some-assembly-required furniture ever sold, the kit came with two Allen wrenches. Which were what we used.

The bolts and various parts were depicted on the next page.

Crash pards?

These are, naturally, not to scale; but fortunately, almost every piece of the bed was clearly labeled with a sticker bearing the appropriate number, which was genuinely helpful. Also note the quirky angle chosen to depict the two Allen wrenches (F and G at the bottom) which were, as you might assume, simply bent at the usual 90-degree angle, not this more obtuse choice shown here. Which, to me, gives them an air of looking far away, at the distant horizon…

Here is one of the number stickers on the now-assembled bed, along with the “buckles” depicted on the next page, which caused us some trouble because the images are not to scale; please note that the actual buckles, in addition to being clear plastic and shipped inside a ziplock bag along with the Strap magic tape, are the size of a half a stick of gum or one knuckle of my big fat fingers.

Also on that last page, I am curious about why Assembly and Instructions were capitalized — but not “bed,” which seems like the critical word here. The questionable capitalization continued with the next header:

Note the deceptively sized “buckles,” which is not the word I would use to describe a small plastic case intended to lock around a connected plug.

This time, Additional is capitalized but instructions is not; LED is, but light is not. More to the point, these are not the instructions for installing the LED: this is still the list of included materials. (Though there are some instructions for how to use the “strap magic tapes” in case the “wires are disordered” and need — errr — “binding.” A rather uncomfortable choice of word for me, coming from China.) Also that is definitely not a light “bar,” it is a cord wound around a spool like an old movie reel, as it looks in the illustration. Also, this may have just been a mistake at the factory, but we got three of them, not two.

Back to the instructions.

I appreciate that you call this packet of stapled papers a “manual” — but how do I follow the instructions before starting the assembly?

Way too many numbers. Far too many pieces. And I’m sad that my wife and I are no longer cooperative pandas — though at least we’re holding hands, or bumping rounded arm-ends or something. Also: who the hell is assembling this thing on a slope?! And why can’t I tighten the screws?!

Okay: so this page is the worst page in the — errrrr — “manual.” First of all: it tells you to do this first (See the number 1 in the top left). This is a bad idea. The light strip can easily and more rationally be placed once the headboard is assembled. Secondly, I had no idea what I was actually looking for in terms of this light “strip.” Here is the actual thing (this is the extra one still on the spool.)

It’s a strip. Like a piece of double-sided tape. So if you pull it out, you don’t “unfold” it, and it doesn’t end up in that angular ladder-shape — which was fine, it was obvious this was the LED strip regardless of their eccentric word choice in English; but that line about you can unfold it into TWO strips confused me. No, there are two reels with one strip apiece, each about six feet long. And we got three reels for some reason. But I was confused: was I supposed to cut the one strip in half to make two? And okay, then it says “One side of the light bar is sticky and the other side is luminous band.” It even exhorts me to “please distinguish it carefully.” So as you can see, one side is little circuits and diodes, and the other side is a bright blue — what one might even call a luminous blue. But the side with the circuits is not sticky. The blue side is tape covering the sticky side. So then the circuits are the “luminous band?” If the reverse side, under the blue tape, is the sticky side, then the circuits are the side that shows; but they’re ugly. Why is that the side that shows?!

And then, I am supposed to “tear off the anti sticking stip [Yup, “stip,” no more than two inches away from the correct “strip.”] of the light strip.” Which is the blue tape, which covers the adhesive back of the LED strip. And then “stick the lamp to the top.” Okay, lamp?! I’ve got an LED strip which you call a light bar — when did we buy a lamp?! And the top of what? This piece I’m supposed to stick the LED strip to is the middle of the headboard: above the large flat surface where the pillows go, below the two shelves. There is a conduit-like space, with a lattice of holes, where light would shine through; presumably that’s where the LED strip goes. But what is the top?

But hey: then I noticed the handy diagram. Which shows two light strips, their plugs at opposing ends, and they are somehow — invisible? And I am supposed to “Stick it here.”

Which I assume either means I should stick them to the instruction paper — or that there is an irritated Chinese manual writer who is telling me where I can stick my light bar. Where the sun don’t shine, of course.

This is when we looked online for help. We looked at the images of the bed on Amazon, hoping to see what it looks like assembled. This, apparently, is it.

The book says “Stifter.” And the only reference I can find is to an Austrian poet who killed himself by slashing his neck with a razor. I’m worried about the person who staged this photo. Also that’s a bad place for candles.

So okay, see the strip of blue light circles above the wooden headboard? That’s the piece where we’re supposed to stick the light strip “to the top.” There’s a space where the lights could go behind that lattice of holes — but it looks BLUE here. So are we supposed to stick the blue side of the LED strip to the backside of the holes?! We can’t: the blue has to come off to expose the adhesive. Are the little circuits and diodes supposed to go inside of the lattice? Or to the top of the conduit space, under the shelf above? The problem there is that the top of the conduit space in the metal bar has holes where bolts are supposed to go to hold the bar to the shelf above, and the light strip would at least impede and maybe cover those holes.

Let’s look at the next page of directions. Maybe that will make it more clear.

Look, I don’t mean to harp on the typos; I have no doubt that if I translated something myself into Chinese, that my prose would make me the laughingstock of China. But really. Come on. Consisent? Tahe? DISORDERDERED?!? On the other hand, I appreciate all of my efforts thus far being referred to as “completed works.”

Okay: first of all, why do they highlight that I am installing the light strip by myself? Do I have to send away my helpful panda-wife? Is there an option to not do this by myself, here? Can I call for help and they will send an LED strip installer out to do this for me? Secondly, they make a big deal of installing the two light strips with the plugs in the same direction. Which makes sense, and looking at the power cord immediately shows that the two light strips plug into one power cord, so you need the plug-ends of the light strips close together. No problem.

The problem is that they haven’t yet told me about installing the second light strip. Unless I’m supposed to install two inside the holed conduit bar. One on the top and one on the bottom, maybe? But then if you look at the “Stick it here” image of the diagram THE PLUGS ARE ON OPPOSITE ENDS OF THE TWO INVISIBLE CORDS.

Also, there is no embedded lock catch. Or embedded buckles. Nothing embedded at all. (I suspect they meant “included,” and decided to call the buckle a “lock catch.” Sure, why not; I wouldn’t call it a buckle, either.)

Whatever: this page of instructions pretty clearly shows the light strip going on the underside of the top of the metal bar with the lattice of holes. Where it gets in the way of the screw holes — also visible in the diagram here. Maybe, since I am actually supposed to cut the light strip if it is too long, I should also cut space for the screws to go through the light strip?!

So in the end, we skipped this step, assembled the headboard, and then went back and adhered the light strip to the bottom of the lattice conduit, so it wouldn’t interfere with the screws. (Yes, we did have to cut off the excess of the LED strip, which gave me fits of cognitive dissonance, but worked fine.) And then adhered a second LED strip to the bottom of the top shelf. The result was this:

Which looks pretty nice.

Once we figured out how to handle the LED issue, by ignoring it while we put the frame together, the instructions got pretty reasonable.

Other than “Do not tighten the screws, just fix them,” this was a good page of instructions. (And sure, I hand-tightened the bolts without really ratcheting them tight until the whole things was assembled. I just think that “tighten” is less intense than “fix,” so the emphasis here is strange.) The next page was irritating again:

Again I am to merely FIX the screws. NO TIGHTENING ALLOWED.

Which side is the inside? (when assembled, of course) The side closest to the wall, or the side closest to our heads? My helpful panda said it should be the wall side, so we went with that. Sure, why not. At least we kept the plug direction consistent when we were pasting the sticky side opposite the luminous band to the bottom of the component along with the unfolded light bar stuck to the inside of the top of the front iron plate.

But then…

I’m sorry, I’m to LEAK the cord?! And which side is the “signal receiving end,” exactly?!

Well. At least NOW I can tighten all the screws. But I have no idea what to do with this power cord thing.

Okay. Now I got it. The top line of instructions? Most helpful ones yet. (Also “Shunt Interface” is the name of my new EDM band.) Totally made it clear what the buckles were, what size they were, how to use them and why. All made sense. I appreciate that they repeated the instructions for the Strap magic tape I am to use to bind the wires if they become disordered. They did not, so I did not use the Strap magic tape. I also have not scanned the QR code to get the app to control the lights yet; there is a remote that does it fine, and I can’t imagine wanting to change the LED lights with my phone instead. But I can, if I want to. So I got that going for me.

Which is nice.

Okay: home stretch.

The tabs to hold the struts go on the inside. Actually helpful.
Footboard, crossbar. It’s all coming together.
Again, helpful to note the holes, which help distinguish the pieces from the other struts — though again, they had helpful numbered stickers on them, too.
Getting a little confusing here…
All those bars… all those screws… And each one has two extra holes. Why? No clue. Do they face up or down? They actually appear in the image there, so we put them facing up. Dunno why.

“A small sealing pocket” is a small plastic bag. And they call these things “crash pads” here, and then “anti-collision cushion” in the last instruction. Both terms are accurate: before we adhered those with the handy strips of Doubie faced adhesive tape, sticking them at an acute angle, Toni slammed her leg into it and gouged out quite a chunk of flesh. So always use your crash pards, okay?

And if you buy an unassembled bed frame, make sure you cooperate with your helpful panda. And build it on level ground.

Sweet dreams, everyone.

Stop Apologizing For Hurting.

Hi me, this is yourself. You want to talk to me about something.

You weren’t going to talk to me about this today, or tomorrow, though you thought about it last week, when I posted yet another self-denigrating comment attached to a pair of links.

Listen, me. I don’t suck. I am sad.

I am sad for a number of reasons: the school year is ending, and my students don’t want to learn anything. There are a number of stressful things happening in my life, mostly around the end of the school year and graduation, but also with my writing, and with the summer, and with my house, and with family. People around me are hurting, and I want to help, and I usually can’t. All those things make me sad, and you know it.

But I also know that being sad when hard things and sad things are going on is not a failing. It is not a weakness, it is not a mistake: it is a reasonable response to a situation that I can’t control.

It is also bothering me that I can’t control the situation. I really, really want to. You do too. But I can’t. Not even the things I want to control.

I can’t control how my students feel about school. They don’t want to learn at the end of the year. This is neither new nor surprising, students kinda never want to learn anything (though they always want to learn interesting and useful things, and that should say something about the curriculum we teach in our schools, which they do not want to learn most of the time), especially not in the last month or so of school. I’ve always fought that, you know, because I hate wasting time, and I want the students to gain as much as possible from their opportunity to learn, particularly a love and appreciation of learning, and also a love and appreciation of literature and language. But I’ve always, always failed. No, that’s not true; I have instilled something of a love of learning and of literature into some of my students, and I have encouraged the love that was already there in a number of others. I have helped students get through difficult times, and made their lives easier and better. But I’ve never been able to do those good things with all of my students. Maybe that shouldn’t matter to me, but when I keep hearing about how children fall through the cracks and get forgotten, how every student is precious and none of them should get left behind — it makes me feel bad that I fail to reach all of my students.

And then I tell my friends and fellow teachers not to take it to heart when they can’t reach all of their students, when some of their students have issues and opinions that no teacher will ever be able to touch, or solve. Especially now: because the pandemic had long lasting effects on students, and they, like us, are sad. They are dealing with a whole lot of shit, and it’s hard, and they’re not good at it. It doesn’t help that the adults in their lives are dealing with our own shit, so have less time and energy to help deal with theirs: but we can’t be sorry for that. There’s only so much of our shit we can push aside in order to deal with someone else’s shit, before we just pile up too much shit of our own, and we can’t handle it any more. I think I’ve been doing that a lot for the last few years, and I don’t think I can do it any more. And I’m not sorry about that.

If I should be sorry for anything, it is not taking my own advice to heart. Because I really, really suck at that. But that doesn’t make me suck: it just makes me like everyone else. Which also makes me a little sad, because if I can’t even solve my own stupid issues, then how can there be any hope for humanity? My issues are stupid: I am smart. I should be able to solve those stupid issues, I tell myself all the time. And yet, here I am, feeling bad for feeling bad. Partly — but not entirely — because if I could simply solve all my issues, then I would have so much more capacity for helping those around me deal with their issues, which I really want to do. It’d be awful nice if I could do that. But I can’t. And I feel bad about that. For still feeling bad.

I was just talking to a student that struggles with depression, and I was telling them that they are not allowed to feel bad for feeling bad. Depression is a real thing, and feelings are not logical and cannot be reasoned with; we have essentially no control over them, and therefore should not feel bad about having them, because you shouldn’t feel bad for things that weren’t your choice, which you can’t control. And there I was, telling them they shouldn’t feel guilty for feeling bad, which they do because they are empathetic and intelligent enough to recognize that their sadness makes people around them sad, as well; but feeling guilty is useless, and trying to remove or reduce feelings because you don’t like them has not ever worked and will not ever work.

And only at the end of that conversation did I realize that I was telling them to stop being illogical with their feelings, that the feeling of guilt wasn’t reasonable and therefore they should be able to eliminate it, by reasoning with their feelings and taking control of them to eliminate them. Like the feeling of guilt is any different in essence from the feeling of depression.

And only this morning did I realize that I am doing exactly the same thing to myself.

I shouldn’t be sad. I have a good life: I am a respected and even beloved teacher, with complete job security and a sufficient if not entirely satisfactory income. I have my health: I have never been seriously injured or seriously ill, and I can pretty much do everything now that I could when I was 25. I am proud of my past accomplishments, and of the person I am. I am married to my soulmate, and I love our family of pets. I do not suffer from clinical depression, nor from past trauma. I should be fine. Sure, my country is currently mired in a political shitshow and an economic train crash, and the globe is filled with political unrest and violence, with hatred and suffering, with climate change that will make all of us and our feelings moot…

Sorry, I was going to say that none of those things should make me sad: but of course they should make me sad. They are sad and terrible things, and I am an intelligent and empathetic person, and I recognize the state of the world around me, and how it could and should be so much better than it is.

Also, my feelings aren’t reasonable, and don’t respond to logical argument. I can’t even say that the desperate state of the world is the reason for my sadness: it’s not clear to me that my sadness has a reason. It might, of course; I started this post off with a list of reasons why I am sad, and any or all of those might be the cause of my emotions. It also might in that there are things around me that create stress in me, and that stress, unresolved as it is, is more likely to bring my mood down, even if the thing itself isn’t necessarily sad; for instance, graduation stresses me out, because I have to be the MC for it (I don’t have to, but it’s expected of me and I agreed to do it, so that’s stressful), but I’ve been the MC for graduation for the last five years, and it’s always gone fine; and also, graduation is a happy day; and also, it’s not about me, so I could screw it up in a dozen different ways and nobody would care at all, because they’re focused on the graduates, not me. But I’m still stressed about that. And about renewing my credential. And about finishing my grades. And about all the other tasks I have to do in the next month or so. All of that might be what’s making me sad.

But it’s also entirely possible that I’m just sad. For no reason.

And the important thing is this: it doesn’t really matter what the reason is, because emotions are not logical. They do not necessarily come to me because of reasons. To be more clear, there may be reasons, in that there may be triggers, situations and thoughts and experiences that create despair or sorrow or grief or anxiety, which then transforms into sadness and depression; but it’s essentially impossible to know the single cause of my sadness and to therefore address the single cause of my sadness — and therefore remove the sadness. I can find the potential trigger, and I can address it; but that’s not necessarily going to remove the sadness. Because sometimes I’m sad for multiple reasons, and solving one might even highlight the others which I can’t solve. And sometimes, I’m just sad for no reason.

I just had to go through that last paragraph and change the pronouns: because I had written it, as I often do in these posts, using “we” and “one,” as in “We can find the potential trigger, and we can address it; but that’s not necessarily going to remove one’s sadness.” I started this post talking to myself so I could face the truth head on: I am sad. It’s affecting me. I can’t simply control it and remove it. That is the truth. I want to face that, and say it to myself, so I hear it, from me. (I’m just dragging you along into my internal dialogue for the hell of it.)

And, as I realized both from talking to my student and in reflecting on it with regards to myself, I can’t control the feelings of guilt and inadequacy that happen in me because (If these feelings are caused by anything?) of that sadness. See, I don’t think I should be sad. I try to talk myself out of being sad by telling myself there isn’t any good reason to be sad, that on the contrary I have many reasons to be happy. And I frequently am happy: though not as frequently of late. Too much sad time. But that sad time is getting in the way of the things I want and need to do: I should be writing blogs — I was supposed to write a book review of the excellent book Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, which I just finished reading and discussing with my book club — and I should be working on my novel and I should be working on my house and I should be grading my students’ work; and all of those things just sitting out there unfinished is stressful, and that’s not helping me.

And yet when I came in here, to my office, to write the book review, instead I spent half an hour scrolling idly through Facebook. I don’t even like Facebook that much any more. But I still look at it. Same thing with Twitter: I almost hate Twitter nowadays. But I still look at it. I tell other people that social media is probably not good for their mood; I tell myself that I should avoid getting into arguments online and reading negative and hateful things; but I still do both.

Because I’m sad. And I don’t have the energy or will to do the things I know I should be doing. Which, of course, makes me (Does it make me?) feel guilty and also pretty useless; and then I feel bad about myself, and that makes me (?) sad.

Or maybe I’m just sad in the first place, and these are reasons I’m applying to that feeling in some attempt to take control of my feelings, and change them through logic and reason and force of will.

Which, of course, doesn’t work.

My student told me that they have had other conversations about being depressed, and people have asked them why they were sad: and they can’t come up with a reason. They’re just sad. And then they felt stupid because they couldn’t explain reasonably why they were sad. I immediately responded that there doesn’t have to be a reason for sadness, sometimes sadness just is, and they should never feel bad about their feelings. (See how good I am at telling other people about their problems? This is why I needed to talk to myself about this.)

But I still asked why they were feeling sad, when they told me they were. Because even though I know that emotions don’t necessarily have reasons or reasonable causes, I still act like they should, and we should be able to deal with our emotions through considering those causes and then addressing them.

The problem, of course, is that sometimes it works. Sometimes talking about why we feel a certain way makes us recognize apparent causes for our emotions; and sometimes — more rarely, but still, sometimes — we can then address those apparent causes, and feel better. (Sometimes — often, even — simply talking about them makes us feel better.) Like, I worry a bit about my health. I am 48, and I am a bit overweight; not too much, but I have a pretty sizeable amount of body fat around my middle. Which is unhealthy for someone my age, as it puts stress on my cardiovascular system. I also eat WAY too much salt, drink WAY too much caffeine, and I have high blood pressure — for those reasons, and also because of stress from my job (and everything else) and also because I don’t sleep well. Because of stress and so on, and my tendency towards insomnia, which I inherited from my father. And also probably (definitely) because of the caffeine that I drink. So, okay, I should address these things before they become too serious — before they become risks to my health, before I have a heart attack or a stroke. (When I think about this, I think of my grandfather, whom I never met because he died of a massive stroke before I was born. But I try not to think about it too much. It might make [?] me sad.) So I started meditating, about two years ago. And I started going to the gym, which I have done off and on for years now, but I’ve been good about it for the last four months or so. I have also cut down my caffeine intake, though it hasn’t yet paid off in good, solid, consistent sleep.

But I have seen results. I have lost a little weight. I have gotten stronger, and I have more stamina. My sleep has improved, and the meditation has maybe had an effect on my temper, which I don’t lose as often or as intensely as I used to (Though that also may be because I am sad, and particularly because I am tired. But it may be the meditation.). My blood pressure hasn’t gone down and stayed down — but also, my measurements for that are from when I donate plasma at the Red Cross, and there are other likely reasons for my blood pressure to be high when I go to get stabbed with a needle and then drained of my precious bodily fluids. So the worry about my health has brought to mind issues that may contribute to my anxiety, and to my sadness, and I have acted to address the problem, and I have seen some results.

But then I look at the images of myself recorded by our video doorbell, and I think, “Jesus, I’m fat. When did I turn into a potato?” And then I’m sad.

And notice that my reason for feeling sad is nothing to do with the other reasons I mentioned for why I worry about my weight.

And realize, also, that my video doorbell is not a fair camera: because it is a fish-eye lens, intended to capture a wide field of view, and not intended to take flattering pictures of me as I water the plants. Reasonably speaking, I shouldn’t feel bad about either my health or the way I look.

Hey, maybe I don’t. Maybe I’m sad because my father is grieving, because he lost his wife of thirty years this past February, and though I can talk to him and support him, and he says often that talking to me makes him feel better, I can’t make him not be sad, which makes me sad. Also thinking about my health makes me think that I need to make sure I am as healthy as possible because I don’t want to die and put my wife through what my father is going through. Also I don’t want to die. Maybe thinking about that is making me sad.

Maybe I’m sad because I can’t go visit my mother this summer, because I have to do too many other things and my school shortened my vacation, and I have too many things I want to do.

Maybe I’m sad because I have too many things I want to do and not enough time, and that stresses me out, particularly when one of those things is write: because I need to define myself as a writer, or else I will only be a teacher, and that would make me sad because I can’t make all of my students learn all the time, and therefore that makes me feel like a bad teacher. Also teachers don’t get paid enough, and I don’t want to think of myself as undervalued. Not that I get paid as a writer, of course, or at least not much. I don’t sell that many books.

And maybe I’m sad because I don’t sell many books, and so it doesn’t matter if I write the next book or not, because even if — WHEN — I finish it, it won’t sell, and that’s because I’m not that good a writer, and I should just go ahead and accept being a teacher. Even if that means everyone who disparages me and my fellow teachers online will have a better case for criticizing me, and I may have more trouble ignoring their criticisms by telling myself I’m really a writer as well as a teacher.

Maybe I should stop arguing online with people who disparage teachers. Though I do feel like I should take action when I can to make our world, and especially our society, a better place, and that means standing up to people who say nasty things, and correcting and teaching people who don’t know the truth or don’t know the whole story — and that means arguing. Even though it frustrates me and makes me despair, sometimes, because people just don’t listen or don’t change their ideas or their feelings, and no matter what I say or how I fight, I can’t control their feelings.

Maybe I’m sad because I can’t change people’s feelings: not my dad’s, not my students’, not my friends’. Not mine. I want to help all of us: but I don’t have control over that, over any of it, because emotions aren’t something you can control with willpower and rational thoughts.

Maybe I’m just fucking sad.

But here’s the thing: and this is the point I’m trying to make, and the reason why I decided to write this instead of the book review (Which I will write — it’s a good book and one worth reading, even though it’s depressing [Hey, maybe that’s why I’m sad…]): because while we can’t control our feelings with our thoughts, and we can’t even really control our thoughts (Also, that’s why I’m bad at meditation, which is a stupid thing to think, and one that the teachers on the meditation app I use keep telling me not to think, but the truth is that I can’t focus my attention solely on my breathing: the thoughts keep coming, and I keep focusing on them, even after two years of practice. I feel pretty dumb about it, and also kind of desperate because of it, because if I can’t keep myself calm through meditating, then what can I do to control my blood pressure or my anger? [Hey, maybe that’s why I’m sad…]), what we can control is our behavior.

I don’t like that I’m sad. I have shit to do, shit that I know will make me happier, but I have trouble making myself do it — because I’m sad. I don’t think I deserve to be sad, which makes me think both that I’m not really sad, and also that I’m just being self-indulgent, having a little pity party, when actually my problems aren’t that bad and I shouldn’t be upset about them. People around me are much sadder than me, for much better reasons; I should be supporting them, not making their situation worse by being sad all over the place. (Also, I shouldn’t be talking about it on this blog. This is going to make people sad, and that’s a terrible thing for me to do. But I’m doing it. [Hey…])

But rather than telling myself that I shouldn’t be sad, or that I’m really not sad, what I should do is: give myself room to be sad. Maybe don’t worry about the weekends where I can’t bring myself to write a blog. But if I do worry about that and feel bad about it — because I can’t actually control my feelings — I can still do something: I can not apologize, or be mean to myself. I don’t deserve to be mean. I don’t deserve to suffer my meanness. Nobody who reads these blogs needs or wants an apology from me on the weeks when I can’t bring myself to post. If I don’t feel like writing a particular post, rather than trying to force myself, or getting mad at myself for it, maybe I can post something else, like good links. Or maybe I can write something else, like an overly personal babble about my feelings, instead of an insightful book review. Will those things make me feel better?

As of this very moment: yes.

Though maybe I feel better because I also just took a break, took my dogs outside, cleaned up the yard a bit and watered the grass so the tortoise will have something to graze. And stood out in the sunshine, which was warm but not too hot.

I don’t know why I feel a little better now. My feelings aren’t rational, and the causes aren’t clear. But the fact is, I do feel better, and so it’s reasonable to think that maybe I can do these same things again and feel better again. Maybe when I am sad, I can write about being sad, instead of trying to ignore it. Maybe when I can’t face doing a large task from my home improvement list, I can do a small one. Maybe when I think about the problems I am having, I can also remind myself of the things I’m doing to make them better — how I’m supporting my dad, even if I can’t “fix” him. How I told my student that they can always be sad, and can talk to me about it if they want to, even if I can’t rationalize their feelings and therefore eliminate the bad ones; and that made them feel better. How even if I haven’t lost all the weight I want to yet, I’ve still gone to the gym twice a week every week for four months now, and I can see and feel the results. How even if I can’t empty my mind like a Buddhist monk, it’s still good for me to sit quietly and breathe deeply for fifteen minutes or so a day.

And maybe I can stop looking at myself in the videos from that goddamn doorbell.

And what I can do, for sure, is to stop apologizing for my feelings. Because I didn’t choose them and I can’t simply control them: so they are not my fault. And while I can try to work around the limitations that my feelings put on me, the first thing I have to do is recognize both the feelings and the limitations, and accept them. Because by doing that, I accept myself — whereas apologizing for myself and my feelings tells me that I am wrong, that I have done something wrong, and that I should fix it.

That act sucks. But I don’t.

Thank you for reading this. Thank me for writing it. Let’s try being better to ourselves, first. We’re worth it.

Just Imagine

I want you to do something for me.

Imagine you were born with only one arm.

Doesn’t matter which one, left or right; for simplicity’s sake, imagine you have your dominant arm, whichever hand you write with. That one is still there, exactly as it is right now, and has always been there. But the other one — in my case, my left arm — was never there. You didn’t lose it in an accident, or to cancer or anything like that; you were just born without it. No stump, just a perfectly smooth shoulder.

Imagine that for a second.

Now, if you were born that way, with only one arm, it wouldn’t be that big a deal. Really: there are some things that would be difficult to do, because they require two hands working simultaneously; it would be a bit harder to drive, for instance (though you certainly could do it), and there are a lot of musical instruments you just couldn’t play, like guitar and piano (But if Rick Allen of Def Leppard is any example, you can play drums with one arm all the way to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame); and sports would be challenging, especially baseball and basketball and hockey. You could play football, if that were your preference, though not all the positions; and soccer, of course, it wouldn’t even be a disadvantage, really. Other than that? You couldn’t play pattycake, and jumprope would be tough (unless you jumped double-dutch), but you could play tag, or hide-and-seek; and you could play with dolls and Legos. Some video games would be impossible or close to it: but you could play Wii, and handle most driving games; and of course with any strategy or puzzle based games, your one-armedness would mean nothing at all. Most parts of life, in fact, having one arm would mean nothing at all: you could still read and write and do math and science, you could use a computer or a smartphone, you could ride a bike, you could dance in the rain. You could date and fall in love (There might be some people who would reject you for only having one arm, but come on, how ridiculous and messed up is that?), you could marry and have children. You could be a lawyer, a doctor, a car salesperson, a carpenter, a sculptor, a farmer, an engineer, a rocket scientist, a dogwalker. You could live a full and healthy and rich life.

It would be difficult to find clothes that fit you well. People would probably stare. Little kids would make jokes, and tease you. For a lot of people, it would be the first thing they would ask you: it would be a thing that defined your identity, even though to you, it would mean next to nothing. You never had the arm. You don’t miss it. You may sometimes wish you had two arms so you could throw a flowerpot on a pottery wheel, or shoot a longbow; but it would be more comfortable for you to sleep on that side, because you’d never have to figure out where the hell to put your arm so your hand didn’t fall asleep. Mostly, it just wouldn’t matter.

Can you picture that? Try going through your day, in your mind, with only one arm. Some things might be a little tougher — mostly it would just take more time — but really, not that big a deal.

Okay: now imagine, having lived your life with only one arm, you came home today, took a lil nap because it’s Monday and we all deserve a lil nap on Monday; and when you woke up — you had two arms.

Picture that. Not how wonderful it would be to suddenly be able to juggle three chainsaws: but how incredibly brain-meltingly shocking and horrifying it would be to suddenly have a whole other limb where one hadn’t been before. Step out of this whole thought experiment for a second and imagine how it would feel to wake up from your lil nap to find you have three arms, one new one growing out of the middle of your chest. Would you think “Hell yeah, now I can juggle FOUR chainsaws!” or would you think “AAAAAAAAHHHH WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT THING GROWING OUT OF MY CHEST JESUS CHRIST GET IT OFF GET IT OFF!!!!”

I know what I would think. And so I know, for the person who had one arm their whole life, suddenly getting that second arm would be absolutely appalling. Your body would suddenly be different. Your balance would be off. All of your clothes, bought and maybe adjusted or even tailored to fit your one-armed self, would suddenly be different. Everyone who ever knew you would talk about nothing else, pretty much forever, especially if you didn’t have an easy explanation for what happened. If you have any fundamentalist Christian friends, they might decide it was a miracle, a gift of God, and they might try to make an example out of you; conversely, they might think it was the work of the Devil, and shun you, or try to exorcise the demon in your new arm.

Your whole idea of yourself would change. You wouldn’t recognize your body in the mirror. Imagine how weird it would be to keep seeing a hand, fingers moving and gesturing, in the wrong place, attached to the wrong side of your body. Everything you had ever thought, ever said, ever come to a difficult recognition of, about what it is like to be a one-armed person in a generally two-armed world — all of that would go out the window. You’d have to be — normal. But at the same time, not at all yourself. Everybody would think you were normal now, and they would probably congratulate you, and be super happy for you: but the whole time, you would, most likely, feel wrong. Just wrong. Not yourself. Not at home and not comfortable in your own body. You wouldn’t know how to sleep, because you’d have spent your whole life sleeping on the side where there was no arm, and being perfectly, totally comfortable that way: now there’s a fucking arm there, and the whole thing is different. Is wrong.

So here’s the question. If you felt that way, if you felt uncomfortable and strange and weird, all the time, would you grow to hate your new arm? You might. I might. I might not: I might adapt, might adjust; but I might not adapt, either. I might resent my new arm. I might miss being one-armed. And if there were people around me, if I had joined a group of one-armed people, say, and I had to see them sleeping comfortably with their single arms, I might really hate what had happened to me: and I might even grow to hate myself.

If that happened — and I know we’re getting pretty out there, but hold on, we’re close to the end — what if I came to a decision, and went to a doctor, and told that doctor to remove my left arm? To give me back my self-image the way I thought it should be, to make me into the person I knew I really was, no matter how I might look to others who thought I should be happy to have two arms like they do?

Would that be wrong of me to do? Would it be insane, to remove a healthy limb? Would it be butchery, for the doctor to agree?

What if I had really descended into depression and self-loathing? What if I were suicidal, because I had too many limbs, and I couldn’t stand it any more? Then would it be wrong of me to ask, and would it be wrong of the doctor to remove my unwanted body part?

I think it would not. I think it would be my choice, and I think there is nothing at all wrong with being one-armed. I think if someone chooses to be one-armed, then they have every right to make that decision, and to be that person if that’s what they want — particularly if being that person would help them to live a happy life, to have a good self-image and self-esteem, and to keep from harming themselves.

And that’s why I support trans rights.

Now: this may seem offensive. And if this were the actual analogy I were making, it would be; because there actually is a disadvantage in only having one arm, and there is literally no disadvantage, at all, in being transgender, other than how people treat transgender people. There is nothing “wrong” or “missing” in a transgender person, at all. But this is not the analogy I’m making: this is just the warm-up, just the practice round. (Okay, I’m kind of making this analogy: because there are a number of parallels. But it is an imperfect analogy. And it is not the main one I want to make.) Now it’s time to move to the actual topic of conversation here.

You see, there’s a trend I’ve seen in arguing with conservatives (And with assholes, let me point out, because I do my arguing these days on Twitter, which is now like the black hole of assholes [WON’T… MAKE… THAT… JOKE… WORSE… THAN… IT… ALREADY… IS!], pulling them all in until they have more mass than anything else in the solar system), and it has to do with the issue of transgender people getting gender-affirming health care, in two specific areas: one, young trans people getting puberty blockers and then hormone therapy during their adolescence, before they complete puberty; and two, trans people of any age getting surgery.

The trend is this: these folks, both the “compassionate” conservatives (And some of them probably are genuinely compassionate, but not a one of them tries to understand or empathize with what trans people experience, so their compassion is more performative than genuine) and the transphobic assholes, say that they don’t mind people being trans or living how they want: but they don’t agree with people changing their bodies to match their gender identity. They do what conservatives, and compassionate people, and assholes the world over have always done, which is claim to have the right to decide what other people should do, in this case because they are arguing only for young trans people: for children, they will tell you, children who are not mature enough to make decisions about themselves or their lives or their identities.

“What about a young person making decisions in collaboration with their parents, and with loving and competent medical care providers?” I ask these people, over and over again. I get either a simple refusal to accept anyone making a decision these people disagree with — or silence. It speaks volumes, either way. It shows that they are lying when they claim only to be watching out for children, only protecting those too young to protect themselves.

And at some point, I realized why.

They object to surgery, most specifically and frequently, because, they say, nobody should “cut off healthy body parts.” That’s crazy, they say. And for them, maybe it would be — though I would disagree with calling it “crazy,” because our bodies do not define us, we define our bodies: starting with tattoos and piercings and circumcision (Not that I’m getting into THAT conversation, because while I will fight all day with transphobes, intactivists scare the bejeebers out of me) and all kinds of voluntary surgery like cosmetic surgery and permanent birth control like vasectomies and tubal ligations; so honestly, if somebody decided their life would be better with only one foot, then I say mazel tov: go for it. Save all that money on shoes; now every sale is BOGO (though you’d need a friend who only had the other foot, in the same size. [Business idea: ShoeMates, for people who only need one shoe, to share with another person who only needs the other shoe. Call the Tinder people. Whole new meaning for swiping “left” or “right.”]). Make all kinds of jokes about “The shoe’s on the other foot now!” or waiting forever for the other shoe to drop. Joke — or lament — about how you will never again have to do the Hokey Pokey. But okay, let’s say that to someone who likes having two feet, removing a healthy foot would be crazy. Or to stop stigmatizing mental health, let’s just say it would be something they would never, ever do. To them, it would make no sense, and they’d never, ever do it. Just like most of us would never voluntarily choose to remove an arm, particularly not one that we’ve had our whole lives, particularly not a healthy one.

But what they are not considering is how one’s body feels if one is trans.

DISCLAIMER: I am not trans. I have never been trans, and I do not for one second think that I can speak for trans people or try to explain how they feel or how they experience the world or their bodies. I, unlike the conservatives and assholes I’ve been arguing with, would much rather leave ALL people, trans, cis, and everyone else, to make up their own damn minds about who they are and how they feel, and what their bodies should look like, with absolutely no unsolicited input from me at all, ever. But what I want to do, what I think I can do, is try to get some of the people who actually can be compassionate to understand what is wrong with this argument that I’ve been facing. This argument that it is wrong for someone to remove a “healthy” body part just because of how it makes them feel, particularly when they are young (though again, conservatives are not actually protecting young people, as can clearly be shown BECAUSE TRANS PEOPLE ARE AT PARTICULAR RISK OF SUICIDE AND SELF-HARM AND GENDER-AFFIRMING CARE IS PROVEN TO HELP WITH BOTH ISSUES AND IS THEREFORE THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT CHILDREN BUT I GUESS I FUCKING DIGRESS), and therefore, gender-affirming health care should be banned for those under 18 (or under 21, when the mask starts to slip and they reveal that it isn’t about children, it’s about control), particularly hormone therapy, puberty blockers, and surgery.

“Butchery.” They keep fucking calling it “butchery.” They insist on it. As if we weren’t talking about medical procedures carried out by fully trained and licensed physicians in a modern hospital with all the proper precautions and care and science around it.

It’s because they’re not trying to understand how the trans person feels, what made them decide to pursue hormone therapy or puberty blockers or surgery.

The people arguing against GAHC (Gender Affirming Health Care, and yes I hate the acronym, but it’s a pain to type out over and over and I don’t want to change the name from what it actually is because words matter and my opponents intentionally use the wrong terms) are thinking about what it would be like if they went to the doctor and removed their body parts. Their healthy body parts. Their wanted body parts.

That’s not it.

Here’s the real thought experiment. Ready?

So instead of picturing yourself with one arm, and then suddenly waking up with two, picture yourself as you are now: and then you take your lil Monday nap — and you wake up with the wrong genitalia.

If you are a woman, imagine waking up with no breasts. Not that they have been removed, which would be traumatic enough: they’re just not there. Flat chest, completely. And imagine in between your legs, you suddenly have a penis and testicles. If you are a man, imagine waking up without your penis and testicles. And you have breasts. And — forgive me for this, but it helps make the point — they’re big. That penis and testicles, those breasts, they’re HUGE. Just slapping around, there. Every time you move — and when you move, it’s awkward, because you never had them before so you do it wrong, and it hurts more than a little — they shift, they flop, they smack into something else, into your legs or arms, into your belly, into everything. They are there, and they are unavoidable.

And they are WRONG.

Joking aside: can you picture that? Can you imagine how awful it would be to wake up with the wrong body parts in the wrong places?

Now imagine you go running out and go to your loved ones, and say “WHAT THE HELL IS HAPPENING TO ME!?!?”

And imagine if they acted like it was normal. And like you were strange for thinking those body parts were wrong. Maybe they would even be offended.

If I woke up with different body parts, with large lumps where before there had been no large lumps, I would immediately think it was cancer. Or like some kind of horrible infestation or infection, like the aliens had laid eggs in me. It would terrify me. It would be awful.

But to everybody else who wasn’t me, those lumps would be — healthy. Normal. Not only normal, but positive, important, defining.

Think back to when you went through puberty. When your body started changing. Did you have someone — a loved one, or maybe, like me, one of those terrible cheesy sex ed movies from the 70s — tell you that you were perfectly normal? That your body was supposed to change, that it was supposed to look like that? That you were becoming a man, or a woman?

What if you were becoming the wrong one?

Can you imagine how that would feel?

If I had woken up as a young woman, with breasts, with feminine hips (And imagine if I burst into tears, and immediately thought that I was crying like a little girl), my mother would have been ecstatic. I said before, she always wanted a daughter: it would be affirming for her if I had been her little girl. She could have taught me everything she knows about being a woman, as she understands it — and my mom knows a lot. She cooks. She knits. She sews. She is a nurse. She worked for decades with post-partum mothers and children with complications, so she can handle ANYTHING to do with babies. And my mom is a very feminine woman, in the classic stereotypical sense: she sings, she dances, she wears bright colors and pretty dresses. She would have LOVED to take me under her wing and show me how to dress and how to act with my feminine body. How to sing with my high feminine voice. How to live with my menstruation, and what it all meant for my future as a mother.

But if I was me — and in my mind I have always been male — all of that would be horrifying. Particularly because I would know that refusing to be the girl my mom wanted me to be would break her heart. But I’ll tell you right now: even apart from the horror of finding my body was not the body I wanted or expected it to be, the very thought of pregnancy and childbirth is the most horrifying thing I can imagine. It has always given me the heebie-jeebies in a way and to an extent that I can’t explain. I’m terrified of all of it.

And if I were, in my mother’s eyes, a girl, and she started talking about how lucky I was that I would get to look pretty in dresses, and eventually get married to a man (Ew) and have babies?

Aw, HELL no.

This is not how it feels to be trans. Puberty does not happen overnight, and doesn’t change a familiar, known, comfortable body into an entirely different body. But puberty does feel sudden, because you don’t notice the changes until you do: and then suddenly it feels like everything has changed. And for someone who is trans, that change might feel — wrong. And every day it continues unchecked, it gets worse: it gets wronger. But if you go to someone for comfort, for understanding, they will most likely not sympathize with your feeling: they will most likely tell you that your feelings are wrong, that your understanding of yourself is wrong, that your body is right, and you should just try to accept it. They might even get offended: and insist that the body, and the identity that they associate with it, is a good thing, a thing you should be happy about and proud of.

Picture that: you, as a man, wake up with breasts, and your loved ones say “But you’re such a pretty girl!” You, as a woman, wake up with a penis and testicles, and your loved ones say, “Come on, stop crying, BE A MAN! Show some BALLS!” But you are not a man. You do not want balls.

That’s the point. Don’t imagine GAHC as removing your body parts, healthy, wanted body parts: imagine if you had body parts you DID NOT want. Body parts that DID NOT belong on your body. They might look healthy to everyone else, but to you, they are more like tumors. More like infections, or infestations. They are wrong. They do not belong there. And worst of all, those body parts redefine you, in everyone else’s eyes, as something you are not. As something you do not want to be.

Wouldn’t you want them removed?

Wouldn’t you want to have the right body, the body you know, the body that you belong in?

What wouldn’t you do to get that body back?

That’s how we should think of GAHC. It’s not changing someone from what they should be into what they should not be: it is AFFIRMING a person’s body, making it look like what that person knows it should look like, what it should feel like. Making it into the right body. And, not least important, changing the way everyone else responds to that person and their body, so that they can live the way they know they should live.

I know that I have done this badly. I apologize for that. I know I’ve said this in a terrible cringey way, and I’ve probably been insulting. I do not mean to be. I just want people who think that GAHC, particularly gender affirming surgery, is removing “healthy” body parts, to understand that it is not what conservatives and assholes say it is. It isn’t about taking your body, that you belong in, and making it different; it is about taking a body that is already wrong — and making it right.

That’s the point. I hope, if I have said everything here crudely and stupidly, that I have at least helped make it more clear that most cis people think of GAHC in entirely the wrong way: we think about it like ourselves. But we never think about it as it is for trans people.

We should stop that.

Hey, you know what we should do?

Listen to the people in question tell us, themselves, what they need, what they want, what is right for them. And then we should support them so they can have that, the same way of life that most of us enjoy without ever recognizing how easy it is for us to live as ourselves.

Imagine that.

Take My Penis, Please

Warning: I’m not sure how offensive this is going to get. Can it get more offensive than my title? you may ask. Of course it can. I don’t know how far I will go. I am not intending to offend everyone who is capable of being offended; there is a specific group of people that I intend to be maximally offensive to, but they will never care at all what I say, and the rest of you fine people are not targeted for intentional offense. I suppose the issue is more that this post might make you feel — kinda squidgy. Uncomfortable, like. For that, I’m sorry, but I can’t write anything other than this right now. I won’t. This is the one for now, until I finish this. Then I’ll go back to less squidgy things. Promise.

I mean — if I can.

I am a white male. I am, more specifically, a cis/het white male American. If any of those terms confuse you, allow me to explain: American should mean I was born in any of 35 countries or 13 territories in the North and South American continents or in the Caribbean; but because I was born on the pushiest, grabbiest, most narcissistic nation in the Americas if not on the planet, it only means that I was born in the United States. And I was: in the Northeast, in the state of New York, to be precise. “White” means nothing: we should probably switch to blanco, the Spanish version of the color name, because the “blank” cognate is much more appropriate than “Caucasian,” the usual, err, technical term for my race and ethnicity. Because “Caucasian” makes no sense. To find any of my ancestors who were anywhere near the Caucasus region (The hunk of land between the Black and Caspian Seas, which is mostly Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Russia.), you’d have to go back so far in my family tree that it wouldn’t be recognizable as my family tree. My race is, basically, “Nothing specific,” and my ethnicity is “More of the same.” I suppose I am European; what I know of my national heritages includes Welsh, English, Scottish, German, and French; my family name is most probably derived from a Saxon word that means “Defender of the Home,” though my grandfather theorized it came from “Dall’Umpre,” from Umpre, which he thought was an area of Spain where the Basque people lived. That’s way more interesting than my family heritage actually is, though. I’m just white. Moving on.

The “cis/het” is the most recent addition to my descriptors; I will add that I use the pronouns “He/him,” because I, unlike a whole bunch of goddamn idiots on the internet, am not upset nor offended by the use of pronouns. I speak English, I read and write English; I understand the necessity of pronouns in my language. If you don’t, allow me to present English without pronouns: here is the same paragraph I am finishing up now, without any pronouns. Ready?

The “cis/het” is the most recent addition to Dusty’s descriptors; Dusty will add that Dusty uses the pronouns “singular male signifier subjective case/singular male signifier objective case,” because Dusty, unlike a whole bunch of goddamn idiots on the internet, is not upset nor offended by the use of pronouns. Dusty speaks English, Dusty reads and writes English; Dusty understands the necessity of pronouns in Dusty’s language. If the audience reading this paragraph doesn’t, allow Dusty to present English without pronouns: here is the same paragraph Dusty is finishing up now, without any pronouns.

Isn’t that fun? Sorry: Isn’t the activity Dusty just completed fun?

Of course not. It’s garbage. Everything is better with good pronoun use. Everybody should, therefore, embrace the appropriate use of pronouns. Which means respecting what other people want you to use in reference to them. And which also means including your preferred pronouns in your self-description/introduction when you can, so we all can get used to asking about and respecting people’s preferred pronouns. I know that it may feel strange, especially to those of us who had the habit beaten out of us, to use singular “they,” or to use a pronoun that doesn’t obviously match a person’s appearance, or to use one of the new pronouns like xe/xem/xer [Those are pronounced “zee/zem/zurr”, and are, in order, subjective, objective, and possessive: Xe wanted a ride on xer pony, so we gave xem a turn.]; but suck it up. Practice a little bit, don’t feel bad when you unintentionally make a mistake; just do your best, and you’ll get used to it. My first trans student — pardon me; I had trans students whom I did not know were trans students at the time they were in my classes — my first out trans student used pronouns I wouldn’t have associated with him, based on my assumptions about his appearance, and I struggled with it more than once; but over the four years I knew him, I stopped making the mistake, and he never got mad at me about it. Partly because I never said anything like “This is hard and I’m tired of it, why can’t I just call you ______?” The only expectation, the only burden being asked of us is, “Don’t be an asshole.” Which is too much for some, I know, but don’t let them influence you: you don’t have to be an asshole. So don’t.

“Cis/het” means that I am cisgender, which is the opposite of transgender, meaning I identify as the gender to which I was assigned at birth, and which matches the stereotypical assumptions based on my appearance, at least most of the time — I had very long, very pretty hair for a long time, and I was frequently mistaken for a woman, which I did and do find flattering. Because the “het” part means I am heterosexual, so I am attracted to members of the opposite gender from myself, in this case women; calling me a woman means I would be, in my eyes, far more attractive than most men. (I say “most” because there are some very pretty men out there.)

Why am I saying all of this when most of you certainly already know this? Two reasons: one, it’s difficult to ask about all this stuff, and I know some people are still confused; it took me quite a while to remember what “cis” meant. And it’s difficult to ask for clarification because the issue seems very sensitive, and it often is: but remember, the only expectation is, Don’t be an asshole. I constantly ask my students to explain what their slang and lingo means, and they think it’s cute that I don’t understand. They love teaching me, even though they cringe, visibly, when I use the slang myself. You know why? Because I’m not an asshole. (I’m based, fam. frfr.) And also because I’m not an asshole, I very much want to normalize this entire topic: I want everyone to be comfortable talking about preferred pronouns, and transgender and cisgender people, and heterosexuality and homosexuality and bisexuality and pansexuality and asexuality, and everything in the queer world, in general. Because this is the queer world. Right here. Right now. We all live in it. There is no “normal.” There’s just — people. All of us. And all of us need to not be assholes: and that is the only expectation that matters.

The second reason I am talking about all of this is because there are, apparently, too many people in this country who don’t understand, or who misunderstand, and I assume that some of my friends and loved ones and my beloved readers are included in that group. That is not an insult: none of you are assholes. (Because assholes wouldn’t read what I write every week. I don’t hang out with assholes.) But some of you are uncertain, or confused, or misinformed, I assume. So I want to clarify. I want to help, and I believe that understanding reduces tension, and there is too much goddamn tension in this country right now. (Please also note: I am not an expert in this, and there is stuff I don’t know and stuff I get wrong. This is just what I do know, presented in the hopes that it will be helpful to some.)

So here I go: not talking about my penis.

The last word I used to describe myself is “male.” I identify as male. I think of myself as a man, which is not the same thing as being male: when I was young, I was male, but I was only a boy; when I was an adolescent, I was male, but I was an asshole. And in this whole list, the only one that has anything to do with my genitalia is the last one: because the main reason why I was an asshole when I was a teenager was because I had a penis, and the usual teenage sex drive, and the common total lack of morals or empathy where that sex drive was concerned. Too much focus on the penis makes one less of a man, I have found.

That’s why I picked the title. Because honestly? I don’t need it. I don’t care enough about it, and it drives me fucking nuts that there are so many goddamn people who believe that the existence of a penis attached to my body is somehow the most important defining characteristic when it comes to my gender and sex; so I’m sick of it. Take it. Give it to someone who wants it. I wish them well of it.

I wrote last week about being proud, and what it means to be proud. I am proud of being a man. I believe that is something I have accomplished over the years — though I will immediately and repeatedly say I didn’t do it all by myself. But I am not proud of my penis. My penis did not make me a man. My penis did even make me male: because the category of “male,” biologically speaking, means “of or denoting the sex that produces small, typically motile gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilized or inseminated to produce offspring.” [Also, writing this I realize that I may not be a male, because I have not to my knowledge ever produced offspring. So do my testicles actually produce spermatozoa? Maybe not.] Which means that my testicles made me male, and more generally, my XY chromosome structure (So far as I know. As I have never had my genes examined, I may not be chromosomally male, any more than spermatozoically male. That’s not a word.). Know how I know that my penis didn’t make me male? Because if I lost my penis in an accident, nobody would identify me as anything other than a cis male: because most people (Obviously no longer including Republican lawmakers, who are trying to pass bills requiring genital examinations as a prerequisite for sports. For fucking sports.) do not check my penis before deciding that I am a male. So its lack would go unnoticed in the face of secondary characteristics: I would still have facial hair and body hair in a “masculine” pattern, and I would still have a relatively deep voice, and I would have the same shoulders and hips, hands and feet and facial structure, and I would still be 5’10”. Those things, amusingly, are much more to do with my heritage, with my race and ethnicity, than with my gender or sex, because I am squarely in the average for most adult white people. Those things are also, at this point, not dependent on my testicles; I could lose those in an accident (And seriously, take ’em. Useless lumps. Itch and sweat and get in the way. And give me cancer scares. [Also, PSA to testicle-havers: do self-exams in the shower. Get used to how your testes are shaped, because you are looking for changes as a sign of potential problem.] Totally pointless, and very annoying.), or have them removed if they became cancerous, and still keep most of the same traits that would make people identify me as male; the ones that might fade would be easily recovered with some simple hormone treatments. Which many of my fellow men will get voluntarily as they get older, even without losing their testicles. And that won’t make them men, either, just as the natural decrease of testosterone doesn’t make one not a man. Regardless of what all those ads on the radio and the spam emails want me to believe.

You know what else didn’t make me a man? Having sex. I know because I had sex when I was still — I don’t want to say “a boy,” because that takes this into weird[er] places; I was between about 15 and 17 when I first had sex, so not a boy: but I was sure as hell not a man. I was an adolescent. I was immature. I was selfish. I was, as I said above, an asshole. And, again, not having sex would not make me not a man: if I lived the rest of my life as a celibate, I would still be a celibate man, and everyone would see me as a man, with no idea of what my sex life was or was not like. The vast majority of you, thankfully, not caring, and wanting to know nothing about it, as I don’t want to discuss it. Further, having children does not make you a man, because I don’t, but I am. (Again, and this still makes me chuckle, the ability to produce sperm that can father children apparently does make you male, which means I might not be male. Well, Mom always wanted a daughter.)

Being aggressive does not make you a man: I am an introvert, and I hate and fear and dread confrontation of all kinds. I can do it, and I have when it is necessary; but I hate it. Being violent does not make you a man: I have never committed an act of violence, never been in a fight, never fired a gun, never killed anything larger than a mouse. (Killing a mouse does not make you a man. Elsewise cats would be men. Though of course they don’t want to be men: cats don’t want to be anything other than cats. Why would you? Once you’ve reached the peak, you don’t come down if you don’t have to.) Loving sports, especially blood sports, does not make you a man; I don’t care for most sports, but the ones I do like are generally skill and grace sports, like gymnastics and skateboarding.

We’ll come back to sports. Because there are a whoooooole bunch of assholes focusing almost exclusively on sports these days, in relation to this issue.

I think to be a man means, in part, not being an asshole. And I hate that, not only do millions of people disagree with that, but millions of people think the opposite: that being an asshole makes you more of a man. It does not. It just makes you an asshole.

And here’s the point: believing and affirming that trans men are not men, or that trans women are still men (or confused men, or “biological men”) makes you an asshole. Not a man. Not a rational person. Not a defender of women, or of people in general. It does not mean you adhere to science and accept objective reality. It means you are an asshole. Because you are helping to oppress and potentially destroy the lives of thousands upon thousands — millions, more likely — of trans people. Men don’t oppress and destroy innocent people. Monsters do that.

So okay, out of all of these things that do not make one a man — including a penis and testicles — what does make one a man?

Well that’s the thing: it changes, doesn’t it? It depends on context. I know that’s an annoying answer (This is why my students hate English sometimes, and prefer math, where there are definite answers. It’s easier that way. But please remember that life is poetry, not geometry.), but it’s the only one, and we know it. I’ve been giving some examples of the classic standards by which we define men, along with counterexamples that show those standards are not actually definitive: appearance does not make one a man, genitalia does not make one a man, fatherhood does not make one a man (Though it sure would be nice if more men were fathers and more fathers were men — though also, more fathers should be women and more women should be fathers. By which I only mean that shitty people shouldn’t be parents, and people who are parents shouldn’t be shitty people.). The only answer that actually fits all circumstances is this: I make myself a man. By deciding that I should act like one, according to my definition of a man’s behavior, and then doing it.

This is a dangerous answer, though. Because if I happen to think that being a Nazi and slaughtering millions of innocent people is what would make me a man, and I did that, then by my definition I would be a man; and I think it’s clear that would make me a monster, not a man. So there have to be some real standards of manhood, for the idea of manhood to have any meaning or value; and since, as I said, I am proud of being a man, I think we should retain the idea of manhood and manliness. I just really, really need us not to focus that idea on the genitalia. And preferably without any gender distinctions, because I think anyone can be a man who wants to identify themselves that way. Anyone who shows the qualities I define as manly qualities will absolutely be welcome to be called a man by me, if you want me to.

So what does manhood mean? First, it means being responsible, because being a man is about being an adult. Children are not men. Nor are they women: they are children. For me, the major difference between childhood and adulthood is responsibility. Responsibility means knowing what is needed, and then being strong and using that strength to do what is needed. Please note that this is not exclusive to men, because women also must be responsible and adult in order to be women — and also, children can be responsible and even adult in some ways, while still being children. The difference there is that children who must be adult are being harmed by that: asking adulthood of children is asking too much, and is harmful even if the kid can handle it; it’s still bad to make kids grow up too fast. Adults are those for whom responsibility doesn’t harm, it actually helps. I feel better when I am responsible, when I do my work, when I do what is necessary. I don’t like it, a lot of the time; but I feel better for it. Another aspect of adulthood which is necessary for manhood (and also for womanhood) is control: self-control, that is. Children do not have good self-control, but that is forgivable in children; it is less so in adults, in men and women. (Though I will note that everyone can be irresponsible from time to time, and also can give up self-control and let loose, sometimes. Just not all the time. Not when it matters. And to be an adult, you have to know when it matters.)

I will also say that one of the toughest kinds of self-control to have is the ability to keep yourself from controlling others. It is also, however, one of the most important. I have been struggling lately, because one of my classes needs to learn that it is important for them to pay attention to the class when I am teaching it; the way I am teaching them that is by not teaching them for a time, and letting them teach themselves. And they are doing a terrible job. And it is so damn hard for me not to stand up and take the class over and make them all learn the way they should be learning: but I need to not control them, I need them to learn. So I’m controlling myself, and letting them learn this vital lesson. It’s hard. But I’m doing it. Because I am a man. Men control themselves. (Also: please note, therefore, that rapists are not men. They are monsters. And any definition that allows rapists to be fully included in the ranks of men is a shit definition. Remember that when we talk about penises as man-defining.)

So that’s what distinguishes men from boys, from children. What distinguishes men from women?

As I said, it’s unclear: it changes. It depends on context. There is not a single trait of manhood that I could name that should not also be part of womanhood. Which is why transphobic bigots have to rely on the one clearly distinct difference in their eyes: genitalia. Ask them about intersex people (Intersex people are those who have more than one of the traits for male and female biological sex — so both ovaries and testicles, for instance. There is a wide range of people with a wide range of traits, and the term is non-exclusionary. Read more here. Note, for instance, androgen insensitivity syndrome, which can affect people with XY chromosomes and can, in some cases, mean that their cells reject male-trait inducing hormones entirely: and they will be phenologically [Is that a word? Should it be “phenotypically?”] indistinguishable from someone with a stereotypically female phenotype), or about men who lose their genitalia, and they will dodge the question. Every time. “Intersex people are so rare,” they will say. “I’m talking about MOST people.” Sure: most of the time “shit” means excrement; but sometimes (say, on 4/20) one might want to go out and buy some “good shit,” and would be VERY upset if someone sold them a baggie of excrement for $50. If you insist that “shit” only be used, ever, for the most common cases, you are losing some very important uses of the word — and your definition, therefore, is shit. A shit definition of shit. So too with simple definitions of “man” and “woman.”

I think in our society most people see the major distinction as being one between strength and kindness. Most people in our society see strong qualities as men’s qualities, and kind qualities as women’s qualities. People who are not assholes, of course, understand that everyone should be kind and everyone must be strong; but if there is a meaning to gender at all (And by the way, I’m totally cool with dispensing with gender entirely: I’m a human and a person much more than I am a man. I said I was proud of being a man, but I am really proud of being strong and responsible and kind.), I think it lands there. I think that I am a strong person, and my accomplishments that have required strength are the ones I am proud of, as a man. I have developed greater strength over time, and I am proud of that; though I think there is an upper limit (like, it’s not true that the stronger I get, the manlier I get, ad infinitum: if I am twice as strong as I used to be, I’m not two men [though I might like just repeating the syllable in one word, like I could go from being a man to being a manman, and then a manmanman].), I do think there is a general area where having enough strength to get through something — and often, to help someone else get through something — distinguishes one as a man from a child, because a child would need to take strength from someone else, where a man would provide strength to someone else who needed it. And a child who got through something requiring strength just on their own is seen as — grown up.

But here’s the thing: I may be a man because I am strong — but I am a good man because I am kind. So let’s not pretend that either virtue is exclusive, or disallowed to anyone in any category. Let’s not be assholes. Which category certainly includes a subset of both men and women. But recognize, again, that there are no traits that are exclusively men’s traits, and no traits that are exclusively women’s traits.

Which is why the debate over trans rights is so goddamn stupid. They have to focus on the only thing that they can point to as exclusively male: my penis. And ignore all the exceptions to that oversimplified definition. Most particularly, they have to ignore that the logical result of that argument is this: if someone who wasn’t born with a penis acquired a penis, then they would, by the anti-trans bigot’s own definition, become a man. This is why the more intelligent anti-trans bigots focus instead on chromosomes: which is just as reasonable and intelligent as distinguishing between people based on their skin color. You can describe someone with their chromosomes, if you can know their genes; but you can’t define them that way. Also, if you look at the intersex links I put above, you will find that there are people with chromosomes that just don’t fit into either category. “But those cases are so rare,” they say. “I’m talking about most people.”

You know what’s amazing about these people, and these arguments? That they then make the exact opposite point by claiming that trans athletes are a threat to sports. To women’s sports, of course — they never talk about trans men in men’s sports. (Someday a trans man is going to join a men’s gymnastics team, and he’s going to wipe the fucking floor with those dudes. But anyway.) Do you know how many trans athletes there are competing at the collegiate level in this country? In this nation of 330,000,000 people or more?

36. 36 trans athletes. (Source)

Out of 520,000 NCAA athletes, nationwide. (Source)

It is impossible to get a complete count of the number of trans athletes, of course, because not all of them are out; but whatever count you come up with, it is vanishingly small. So if you’re going to ignore intersex people and insist there are only two biological sexes, then you should bloody well ignore the tiny percentage of trans athletes and just let people compete. Actually, you should just let people compete even if there are millions of trans athletes: because people who want to compete should be allowed to compete. I wrote once before about how biological differences are sometimes accepted and sometimes not in sports, and it’s earth-shatteringly stupid to say that Usain Bolt has a fair advantage and Caster Semenya has an unfair advantage because Bolt has a penis and Semenya does not. Protecting women’s sports from trans athletes only makes sense if you pretend that trans women are not women: and they are. More importantly, why are we so goddamn concerned with some people winning sports and other people losing? Aren’t they still sports if you lose?

Or did all of my PE teachers lie to me?

Sports are supposed to be fun. I keep hearing they’re not about winning, they’re about sportsmanship and competing and building team spirit and so on; but apparently not so to Republican legislatures around this country, and all the assholes on Twitter, who are fucking up sports, and fucking up the lives of young people, because they hate and fear trans people. The assholes who constantly use videos and photos of trans adults to mock the idea that someone can be trans: and yet nobody speaks of all the men in the world who look damn “feminine,” and all the women in the world who look damn “masculine.” They only attack trans people, which shows how absurd their bigotry is: exactly like racism, exactly like thinking someone is less because of the color of their skin, but ignoring when some “White” people have darker skin than some “Black” people. Or more orange skin than any human anywhere. Because it’s not actually about appearance: it’s about hating the idea of trans people. They see trans people as toxic, as dangerous; as able to spread their “condition” (variously called an illness, a delusion, and every other shitty word that assholes use to insult other people unfairly) to others like a contagion.

That’s why all the arguments about people “turning” children trans, of trans kids being “peer pressured” into seeking gender-confirming medical care like puberty blockers or hormone treatments or even surgery. Look: I am a high school teacher. I have trans students, and I have had several trans students in the past. I did not know all the trans students I had in the past, because not all of them were out; until the last decade, none of them were out, so far as I know — but of course, I don’t know if any of my earlier students were trans and I never knew it, because they might have been visibly indistinguishable from other people of their identified gender; and some of them may have been transitioning without me knowing about it.

Know how much that affected me, or my relationship to them as students?

Neither do I, because I don’t know who or how many there may have been. So I’m going to have to say the impact of their being trans was — none. No impact. Didn’t matter in the least. As with the former students who have come out as trans, or queer, or genderfluid, or anything else under the sun: none of my relationships have been affected by their gender identity. Which is as it should be.

But those people themselves have been sometimes greatly affected by their gender identity. In every single case that I know of, these young people have been happier when they have been accepted as who they are, as people who have been able to find their way to live their truth, to define themselves according to their own standards. As I have been doing for myself in this blog, because I have a right to: and not because I have a penis. Those young people have struggled mainly because they have had people who denied their self-identification, people who told them they were wrong for being who they are, for knowing who they are, and for defining themselves, as we all not only have the right to do, but the responsibility to do, the obligation to do. And then, as reasonable human beings should, the rest of us are responsible for accepting what other people determine their own identity to be. As I have accepted with my trans students, which is why I have never had any trouble with them being trans. Nor will I ever: beyond sometimes slipping up with names and pronouns. But I’m not an asshole, so I do my best, and I always accept people for who they tell me they are. I don’t question or argue with it. Because it’s not up to me, and I don’t try to control other people’s choices, because I am a man, and I am not an asshole.

And in no case, not one case of any student I have ever had, or ever will have, has genitalia been anywhere in the consideration.

Right! See how horrible that is? The very idea of an English teacher judging a student by genitalia? SO WHY THE FUCK DOES ANYONE DO IT, EVER??? How can anyone rationally decide to pass a law requiring genital examinations as a prerequisite for participation on a specific sports team? How can that happen? What kind of insanity is that? It’s as ridiculous as me asking all of you to read this essay I titled with a consideration of my genitalia. Don’t nobody want that. (Actually, the anti-trans bills are unquestionably worse than my title for this piece. But I still feel guilty for talking about my piece in this piece. Kinda.)

By the same token, taken one small step further: we don’t actually judge anyone’s identity by secondary sexual characteristics, not in terms of identity. Nobody thinks a boy with a high voice is not a boy. Nobody thinks a girl with a flat chest is not a girl. Nobody (sorry, guys) thinks that a teenager with a sad peachfuzz mustache is actually a man. But also, I have students with more facial hair than I will ever grow: but I still don’t think of them as more manly than me. Because I am an adult, and they are not, however thick and luxurious their face-locks. Appearances don’t matter. Not for who people are.

So.

If someone wants to be called by a different name, call them that. (Definitely don’t ever be the person who uses only the name on the attendance sheet: my wife’s birth name was Anthony. Because her dad was a prick who wanted a son, not because she is not a woman. On a much less controversial note, my official name is Theoden, but I prefer to be called just Dusty. Partly because most people can’t pronounce Theoden correctly.) And because pronouns are not at all more meaningful than names, if they want you to use different pronouns, then use the different goddamn pronouns. Mistakes are fine, but do your best, and don’t be an asshole. (Unless you identify as an asshole, in which case, fuck you. And don’t ever make an “I identify as…” joke. They’re not funny.) Don’t judge someone by their appearance. Yes, someone is perfectly able and permitted to be a trans man or boy and wear dresses and long hair, as someone is perfectly allowed to be a cis male and wear dresses and long hair. Yes, someone can be a trans woman or girl and have facial hair. If you think it doesn’t look right, nobody cares what you think. It’s not up to you. If someone changes their name or identity or preferred pronouns several times, just try to keep up: and expect to make mistakes, and expect those mistakes not to matter, so long as you are being kind. Don’t question why they changed; it’s not up to you. Don’t say they’d be happier if they didn’t change, or you liked them better before; it’s not up to you. Your only job is to try not to be an asshole.

And one last thing. I wanted to write this blog because I heard about recent polls that show that the public view of trans people in this country is, in my opinion, going in the wrong direction. This research from Pew shows that the majority of Americans believe people’s sex is only what is assigned at birth (and that majority has grown over the last six years), and that the majority of Americans think that trans athletes should not be allowed to compete on teams that match their gender identity, and that almost half of Americans think that medical treatments should be limited for trans youth under 18.

So let me be clear. Gender is not determined by sex. Sex is not determined by chromosomes. And neither is set in stone and immutable. That being the case, who is the one person most likely to know best what their gender identity is? Themselves. (Notice the singular “they” there. And if you wanted me to write “Him/herself,” then get over it.) We know ourselves better than anyone else knows us. And sure, not all of us know ourselves very well; I have been confused about how much of myself I have discovered just in the last few years, and I’m 48 years old. So it’s reasonable to think that young people who think they may be trans may be unclear, or uncertain — just as some cis people are unclear or uncertain about who they are, for countless reasons, including the possibility that they may actually be trans, and not know it, or not be able to accept it.

In that case, you know who are the best people to help the young person figure out what their real self, their true identity is? It’s not reactionary, transphobic, attention-seeking Republican lawmakers, that’s for goddamn sure. No: it is the young person’s family, and their caring medical professionals. And of course some people have fucked up families, who shouldn’t be allowed to influence their children’s choices: but don’t you think that’s true in whatever way the family is fucked up? Macaulay Culkin’s family should not have been allowed to steal all his money. Brittney Spears’s father should never have been granted conservatorship over her. Abusive parents should not be allowed to abuse their children. But if you think that trans youth are only trans because their parents, or their friends, or their teachers, or their social media, tell them they should be trans, then you’re either an asshole, or an idiot. The world tells trans people they should not exist: nobody tells cis people they should be trans. Nobody chooses to be trans, just as nobody chooses to be white: some of us just are. The world should allow us to be who and what we are, so long as we don’t cause any harm. And trans kids don’t harm anyone by being trans. Or by playing on sports teams. Or by receiving gender affirming care, which is often critically important to prevent harm being done to the one person most likely to be hurt by a trans kid: themselves.

And if it helps, if the young trans person who told me that he wants a penis wants mine, he can have it. Take it. Please.

But it’s still not going to make you a man.

You’ve already done that, sir: because you are strong, and you are kind.

Now if only everybody else could be the same.

You Have Been Weighed, You Have Been Measured.

My apologies, everyone: I have come down with a very nasty cold, and I don’t think it would be a good idea for me to write a post this week. So instead, here is an older post I’m still pleased with and which addresses one of the major issues with education: grading. Here is part of my prescription for removing the problem as much as possible.

Dusty's avatarJust Dusty

I spent a large part of last weekend grading. Not unusual, really; I’m a teacher. I generally spend part of every weekend grading, along with every free moment in between classes during the school day (and the former because there aren’t many of the latter, between teaching and planning and corresponding); and that’s even after my student count was cut in half when I changed from the comprehensive public school to the STEM charter school where I am now. Grading is something I have ranted and raved about far too often in the past; because it is, quite simply, the worst thing about teaching. Well, maybe the second worst thing: being treated like a criminal is no frosty chocolate milkshake.

But enough of ranting about grades: I need to be more positive. I need to spend less time being angry, and more time trying to see the light and share…

View original post 3,902 more words