A Woman Visible

One more thing...

2006-10-16T15:09:00.000-04:00

Please keep me in your thoughts. I am wrestling with a bout of bronchitis, and can't get rid of my cough. It seems like a trifling thing, but I really want to be well.

I am also wrestling with where my career is going next. I'm not sure that the Local Technical College is going to continue to be my workplace for very much longer. I've just started my third year as a full-timer, but things are not very nice there right now. I can't really share a lot (on the off-chance that some of you out there work at the LTC and might get me in a mound of trouble), but I will say that corruption and loss of focus on the right things can really destroy a good thing. When we lose our ability to consider the students as customers and consumers of what we are offering, and we begin to think that destroying the careers of others is a valid activity if it means that we gain more power, then we need to stop and rethink our goals.

Maybe I'm an idealist (most of my friends would give a resoundning, YES!), but why can't we just do what we're supposed to do and take care of our students. Without them, we are a set of empty buildings, and a set of empty instructors. We could just as easily be flipping burgers at the nearby McDonalds, or serving lattes at the nearest Starbucks.

I got into education to help people gain a better life in the same way I did--by getting a higher education. Instead, I'm witness to people hurting others for forward their own careers, people ignoring the students that need the most help, and people acting like they own the universe because they have a title in front of their name. All of this breaks my heart.

So, anyway, be sure to lift up prayers and the like for me and the rest of my friends at the LTC.

A Little First-of-the-Week Empowerment

2006-10-16T14:41:00.000-04:00

Over the summer, I was in Starbucks one day, and I heard this wonderful album playing. Gina liked it too, so she asked who was singing. We were told it was India Arie. I had heard of her, but never really listened to her music. So, a few weeks later, when I was in Starbucks again ( I have to support my stock), I bought a copy of the album, called Testimony: Vol. I, Life and Relationship.

Wow!

It's an album about her and her life thus far. It's about her journey as a woman. What makes this album so amazing is that her journey speaks to my own journey. Her testimony could just as easily be my testimony. This doesn't mean that this is a plain-toast, middle of the road kind of album. The songs are connective, encouraging, empowering. She doesn't wallow in sorrow, or in her difference from others. She revels in her being who she is, and reminds me to do the same.

I think that we often forget the power we can gain from the words and experiences of other women. This is something we need to remember. We, as women, are wired to connect to relationships to others. Our society tends to make us focus on our relationship with men--but men often don't know what to do to validate us as women. Men do a lot of things right, don't misunderstand me, but the people that really get us where we are as women are other women.

These other women are women that should be chosen with care, and a bit of the hand of God. A woman can accomplish anything as long as she has a strong circle of girlfriends to lift them up. Wonder why we adore movies like Sisterhood of the Travelling Pants (besides the hot Greek guys...)? It's because of the "sisterhood" part. I've found that my sisterhood includes women who are like me--smart, opinionated, and have a wicked sense of humor. Age is not a factor, as I have women in my sisterhood who are older and younger than I am, have different talents, different professions, different needs. What connects us is our thoughts, beliefs, strengths and weaknesses--and the willingness to love in spite of all of those things.

As I listen to India, I can feel the presence of these special women in my life. I can hear them rallying around me, just like I hope they feel me rally around them. It is not always easy being a woman, especially a woman who is single, but would like to be otherwise. Still, there is something about sharing that female experience with others. Our girlfriends are a blessing in our lives.

Ok...I'm Trying Really Hard to Get Back on This Horse

2006-10-08T10:01:00.000-04:00

Yes, it's been a while since I posted. Go ahead, harangue me (Willena does often) ;-) So, what's going on with this woman who's trying her best to be visible?

1. I'm still working on the EHarmony thing. I think it's a bust. I've been on since August, and I have had exactly 0 (as in zero) matches. Or, as the screen says:

Our matching system was not able to find any new matches for you right now.

So much for the touchy-feely stuff they espouse in their advertising. They want all of their members to be happy--hmmm--seems to me that they actually might be more interested in the money. I'm not sure that they really understand how getting exactly no hits can undermine a person's self-confidence. Their only answer to all of this so far is that finding the right match takes time. This is something I already know--I've spent the last nine and a half years trying all by myself. Looks like $150 and so-called experts won't even help me.

2. In spite of this EHarmony thing not working, I have tried to be positive. It's worked to some degree. I've met this really fab guy at work(I know, don't start. We don't work in the same building.) . He's smart, funny, and so cute! (He really is!). We've been to lunch a few times, and I enjoy him a lot. He's also very polite, did I mention that? He actually came to my classroom and waited for me to finish so we could go to lunch, and he opens doors for me. sigh...

The thing that bugs me is that I feel like I'm pursuing him. I want him to pursue me. Is that old fashioned? I don't know. Pursuing him has been kind of fun, but I don't want him to think that I'm some sort of monster woman that chases men. There is another woman on campus that seems to be doing that, and yes, I want to rip her to pieces and spread those pieces across our campus. Once again, it makes me feel foolish to think those things, but I guess it bugs me because--well, I found him first. I keep telling myself that he wouldn't like her anyway because she smokes like a chimney. Still, just the thought of her messing with him makes me crazy.

3. I have been a reading maniac. In the last five months, I've torn through eight or nine novels, and as well as a few non-fiction books. The latest in my reading extravaganza was The Devil Wears Prada. I read it in literally two days flat. I won't say it's the greatest book ever, but it was quite tasty. What made it a great read was simply the wonderful character development. I felt Andrea's fear, and Miranda's overpowering awfulness. There is also a real sense of claustrophobia and drowning, yet in spite of this feeling, you can't help but want to read more. The ending is bittersweet, and yet satisfying. Overall, a pretty good first novel. I haven't seen the movie yet, but somehow, I think perhaps there will be something lost in the translation.

Well, it's time for me to race to church. I've been writing all morning, and, as is usual when I do write on Sunday, I'm now behind.

More later...

A Week into My "Fishing Trip"

2006-08-04T22:42:00.000-04:00

I'm a week into my eHarmony membership. So far the results have been exactly two possibilities. One possibility turned out to be in another relationship already (go him!), while the other is "away from his e-mail for a while." What does that mean? The positive, perky side of me (the one that would be a soccer mom if I let her out) says, "It's summer, and he's an active, single man. He's on vacation."

Yeah.

My cynical, self-critical side says, "He read your profile and got spooked.This is what you get for saying up front that your kids come first."

What I'm not sure I understand is why there have been no new matches for me since this one put me on hold ("Please hold for the next available love of your life."). My friend who met her husband through eHarmony tells me that I need to be patient. I'm trying my best. Still I'm sort of amazed that I wouldn't have more matches considering the thousands of singles who try eHarmony. I guess that could be a good thing. Maybe the profile thing makes it harder for the wrong guy to get through. So maybe having fewer matches is a good thing.

It doesn't, however, make the waiting any easier.

My kids found out about me doing this today because I checked my account and my son saw what I was doing. I had planned to keep them out of it until later. My son was amazed ("You really did it?"), and my daughter was indifferent, although I expect that I will hear more from her once it really sinks in. As much as I want to keep my "adult, private life" out of their faces (they get enough of that from other people), it's hard to be discreet about my desire to date. The kids will probably be good about it when I really start, but I know it will be hard, especially for my son, to take in the fact that mom is going out with men after being single for so long. Of course, my daughter would deny having any disparaging feelings about me dating ("Mom, you're analyzing this way too much."). I guess we won't know till it actually starts happening.

At this rate, it may not happen till I'm in my fifties.

Stayed tuned...

Seems Like I Mocked This Idea Once

2006-07-27T11:58:00.000-04:00

Ok...way back in February I did a slightly mean-spirited thing. On February 8 (you can check this out in the archives), I mocked the idea of eHarmony and predicted that I would end up being matched with Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons if I ever decided to try eHarmony.

You'd better be sitting down. I actually went to eHarmony last night and coughed up the money to fish in their pond for a month. This has been a decision I've been working up to all summer.

There's this couple in my church that met through eHarmony (they were married last October--should be in the commercials). They sat me down during a church social last month and gave me all the reasons I should do eHarmony. I shared my fears, they shared their hope. I told them I would consider it some more. I really wasn't sure what to do. It scared me. No, they didn't scare me...the thought of putting myself out there scared me. So instead, I considered it, would go to the website, stare and then run for the hills.

What was the final motivation in all of this?

Actually, I'm not sure there was just one. There were many that led to this decision. The first is that there are several eligible men at my church, but they aren't really showing me any interest. They have others that they are interested in. I can't blame them. One in particular has his eyes on a young woman that is not only beautiful but has a spiritual energy that literally lights her space. It makes me happy for him, but he's attractive and nice, and I wish he'd see me instead. He doesn't, so be it. Maybe I'm just not his type.

Another motivation may be that I'm flirting around, but often not with men that are actually able to act on the interpersonal play that is going on. I think I'm doing this in the subconcious thought that if the men can't act on things, I'm safe. I know that's not true, but it's easy to believe this. If I'm expending this much energy on flirting with 'safe' guys, then perhaps it's time to expend that energy on something that will reap an actual payoff (no, I don't mean sex).

Like my friend Don pointed out recently, "things don't just happen." I think I'm flirting because I'm gaining a bit of confidence back and want to try it on for size. I also am keeping this "things don't just happen" in mind to refrain from making some serious mistakes. (Thanks, Don).

Finally, I just want to try this. Tommi and Ken made me see that this is not a bad thing. I may not find my soul mate, or next husband, or anything--but I might get to meet some nice people and have some chances to go out and have some good experiences. If nothing else, it will get me out of the house for more than work, school, and music lessons.

I've already made contact with one guy. Say your prayer--who knows, I might be going out soon!

Been Off for a Bit...

2006-07-27T10:57:00.000-04:00

Sometimes a person just loses her way. It's true. I took a month off from posting, which means that I've probably lost every single reader I had for this blog. I apologize to those who were faithful because I wasn't faithful to you as an audience. I hope to rectify this situation in the coming days. I also hope that my readers will return, and I hope a few new voices will come into the fold.

I could make the excuse that I ran out of things to say, but that wouldn't be true. The truth is that I have gotten lazy as summer has progressed. I have spent the last month reading, goofing off, playing computer games with my kids--and enacting the American ritual of summertime. Summertime makes me want to loaf. I figure when I get old, I'll be one of those folks you see walking the beaches (hopefully, I'll be hand-in-hand with an equally old guy) for hours on end. That part of me emerges during the summer.

I have not forgotten my goal of womanly self-discovery. I am still working on reading the Dr. Phil book, and have started Gary Smalley's The Five Languages of Love for Singles. I've read many other things as well, including several novels, which may get discussed here at some point. I'm still asking questions, and making decisions in an effort to work through the stuff that makes me who I am. All of that will make it back here eventually as well.

*****************

So, how has my summer gone? I'd have to say that it has gone in directions I'd never dream of. I've had some pretty amazing experiences. I've actually flirted with some men (stop looking stunned), and I have actually started to be bold in trying to find someone to be with. I don't know if that means I'll actually complete that quest, but I gotta start somewhere.

I've also re-met (I just made up this word) an old friend, who is now old (ok...kidding) but brand new. I'm going to go ahead and share Don and Coded Thoughts with you. This is an infant blog, but I think it has potential ( I know, never trust a man with "potential"). I first met Don in 1983 while we were both in high school. We were both very different people then. I actually marvel that we became friends then, but I have to think that I liked him most because he made me laugh. Lots of things happened in our circle of friends over the years, including one major piece of ugliness that destroyed many friendships, and caused Don to disappear (smartly, I might add). I figured that I'd never see him again, and if I did, I wouldn't even begin to know what to say. I think he felt the same.

Fast forward to two weeks ago. He e-mailed me using my high school nickname in the subject heading (a name I haven't heard in so many years it jarred me). He asked for reconciliation and forgiveness. I think I surprised him when I replied to his e-mail.

Monday night, Amanda and I met Don and his lovely wife, Tiffany at Starbucks not far from my house. We had a great time. It was good to get to know him again. Sometimes we get this idea that people can't change. For the majority of people, that is correct. What I saw was a change that could only have been from God. He is happier than I've ever seen him, and he's actually accomplishing past his potential. It was beautiful. Amanda and I have often said that we were the ones that made it out of the hole where so many of our friends ended up, but I think that Don must have made it out too--even if he had to dig from the bottom.

It's funny because in a way, we weren't the only friends from the past there. I kept sensing a certain someone (Amanda, you know) hanging in the background. Perhaps it was because I knew Michael would have wanted to see us all laughing and happy. Perhaps we summoned him. (For those of you who don't know about him, Michael was a mutual friend of ours from high school who died when he was nineteen. There is a hole in my heart where he used to live.)

So as you can see, the summer has been fruitful in so many ways. I'm glad I'm back to share the fruit with you all!

Man Day...Oops...Father's Day

2006-06-17T11:53:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow we are having a very special episode of Going to Church with Jess and the Kids. See, tomorrow is Father's Day--that day when we celebrate fatherhood. Our church, in an attempt to be inclusive, has deemed this fine day "Bring the Men in Your Life to Church Day" by our worship committee, and "Man Day" by me and Gina.

I know that my church means well. I know that they look at this as a chance to get people to come to church. It's all good...really. I just am not sure they really thought out what they were doing here.

It is easy to assume a few things about this sort of "holiday:"

1. Everyone gets on with their father (or mother if it's Mother's Day).

2. Everyone has a man in their life that they can bring to church.

The truth of the matter is often not in line with these assumptions. There are children who would rather not celebrate Father's Day. Perhaps their fathers are deceased, or even worse, their fathers are not the sort of fathers you want to celebrate. What about the kids that have never met their father and wouldn't know him if he passed them on the street?

There are also people with no men in their lives. I actually have only two very close men in my life. My dad, who is a great guy, and Stuart, who is growing into his manliness at age 10. I do have other male friends, but mostly I only see them at work and school, and they are usually married and have other Sunday obligations. My own dad has to be at his church this Sunday for their celebration. So, how many men am I bringing to church? One--Stuart. He is at my side every Sunday, so I don't think he'll count.

Now, some would argue that it is my own fault I don't have a man in my life. It has been said that I am smart, funny, and rather attractive, so I should be able to have a man in my life if I really want him there. I'm not so sure, and maybe it's that uncertainty that causes me to be manless. Perhaps it's that same uncertainty that causes me to ache just a bit when we celebrate "Man Day" at church. Celebrating "Man Day" feels like someone is pointing out that there is no man in my life, which I know isn't really the case at all; no one would be so callous as to point out that missing component in my life.

I have tried to take a positive outlook on this whole episode. Maybe "Man Day" will allow me to meet some interesting men. Gina and Stuart, however, think that this take is rather, to put it in Gina's preteen word, "Pathetic." I don't think she's right, however. I really want to look at all the possibilties that are thrown at me.

Perhaps "Man Day" won't be so bad. At least maybe the view will be good! Now if I can do more than just open my eyes to the possibilities. I can look all day long, but I still have to open my heart to it.

Happy "Man Day" to all my male readers. If you happen to also be a parent (I know some of you are), Happy Dad's Day as well. Thank you for participating in your kiddo's lives. One day, not now, they will thank you for it.

My Daughter Eats Sushi!

2006-06-10T07:17:00.000-04:00

This week, Gina and I have spent lots of time together because Stuart has been at camp. As much as I've missed my little man, I have really enjoyed having time to have some adventures that only Gina and I could have. One of those adventures included sushi.

I'm probably one of the few people left in my generation (Generation X) who hasn't really eaten sushi before. It's a really telling thing when my own, twelve-year old daughter has eaten more sushi than I have. Anyway, there's this Asian restaurant close to our house that serves all sorts of food including sushi. I wanted to try it, but was scared of eating raw fish.

My brother happens to know the family that owns this restaurant and put me at ease. He told me that Mr. Lei runs the cleanest sushi bar he'd ever eaten at (Mr. Lei had a restaurant in Cherokee County, north of where I live, for several years. My brother lived there during that time). Gina was dying to eat some of his sushi, so I told her that while Stuart was at camp, we would try it.

We went on Wednesday afternoon. She went to work with me, and then we went to lunch. I had no idea how to order, but Mr. Lei helped me the best he could. We ordered a Japanese lunch box. The funniest part of the experience was when Mr. Lei asked Gina "You eat raw fish?" She looked at him in the eyes, almost as if the question was a challenge, and said, "Yes." He got a surprised look on his face and gave an amazed whistle.

The lunch box was amazing! We had California rolls, and five types of fish with rice. Gina and I went traditional and ate with chopsticks. My favorite things after the California rolls? The salmon and the tuna. Both had a clean, delicious taste. The salmon was especially good because even in a raw state it tasted like salmon should. Gina enjoyed the rolls and the crab the best.

What I loved the most about the whole experience was that we got to have an adventure together and had a really good time doing it. Will I eat sushi again? You bet!

If you are a reader that lives in the Marietta, GA area, you need to check out Li's Asian Cuisine on Dallas Highway. It is one of the finest Asian restaurants to come to our part of town.

The Lonely Sponge

2006-06-10T06:08:00.000-04:00

The last two weeks have been crazy and also good. I have graded papers for my students, answered their frantic e-mails, and actually cleaned my office (both offices in fact--a miracle in itself). I also spent last week with my daughter, Gina, while my son, Stuart, was at camp. We had a great time being girls together, and I treasure the time we had with just the two of us. More about that later...

I've also been buying books like there's no tomorrow.

I do this. I go for months without buying a single book, and then---BAM! I practically live in the book store, and I go on a feeding frenzy. It's not that I lack reading material so much as it's I discover new titles that interest me. So, I was in feeding frenzy mode last week, and ended up buying two new books and the new O Magazine. I've bought five in a row now, so I guess I should consider either reading it online, or purchasing a subscription. As many of you know by now, this magazine is one of my guilty pleasures (dark chocolate and margaritas being the others).

This latest issue did not disappoint. I'm still perusing the magazine, and there is so much packed in this issue. Two things jump out at me that would be interesting to talk about here.

There is an article concerning lonliness called, "One is the Loneliest Number." It's supposed to be a "how you can help your lonely friend"sort of thing, but then there's a quiz attached to it. I took the loneliness quiz from the article (why would you need one if the article is about helping a friend?)and here's my score:

THE LONELINESS QUIZ Results

Your score is 27. The average loneliness score is 20; 25 or more reflects a high level of loneliness.

This can't be right. Still, there it is. I have a marginally high level of loneliness. I'm not so sure I really want to believe this. It makes me sound like a hermit. Can't I be somewhat sure that people around me don't often really understand what makes me tick, can't I feel like I don't get enough attention? I wonder how this quiz works on different days. There are some days I feel exceptionally lonely and other days where I feel exceptionally connected to everything.

After giving a score, the rest of the article contains some helpful hints on how to help your lonely friend. It's very thoughtful, and as I read through the hints, I find that, yeah, there are times that I need a shove in the social direction, or I need a friend to just drop an e-mail or a call. I also find that there are just as many times when I really enjoy being alone. It's a bit of a schizoid thing.

I think that my score is just reflective of the singularity I've been feeling for the last few weeks. Finals do that to you. Perhaps, the quiz should have a warning--"Don't take this if you are exhausted or just finishing the end of the quarter."

*************************

The second article of note, besides the drooly Hugh Jackman interview (you can actually listen to this) Oprah conducted (notice that she didn't let anyone else do this interview), is one I can really relate to. "The Sponge People" discusses how some of us are "spongy." Yes, my friends, it's true. Many of us are "spongy" (let's all join in a chorus of "Under the Sea"). According to author, Martha Beck, "some people put out a lot of emotional energy—and others pick up a lot of it."

This is something I've known for a while. I know I'm a sponge, and I know that emotional states can be contagious. I have to be extremely careful, especially in the work place. If several of my work friends are feeling panicky or are upset, I will pick up the emotions and carry them around with me. Strong feelings are the worst, and sometimes if I have a similar emotion going already, my sponge works at taking in more of that feeling. So, I have to watch who I hang out with.

I think that's where "you are whom you associate with" really makes sense. I have that quote on my computer. Let me give you the whole quote:

Walk briskly away from destructive people. Find generous people to hang out with. You are whom you associate with.

This one quote has helped me time and again. When I find that a person continually feeds out negative emotions, and I can feel my attitude swerving due to my sponginess, I step back and examine what's happening. At first, that was very hard, especially when I had to examine a very long relationship with a terribly destructive person, but the reward was excellent. Now, it's not so hard. By knowing my spongy tendencies, I have learned the value of listening. Listening to the people around me, listening to my own words, and listening to my heart, which tends to tell me the truth. If I'm spewing negativity, I make myself stop (most of the time). If negativity is brewing around me, I try to get away from the center of it.

So, are you lonely or spongy today?

You turn your back for one second!

2006-06-09T11:16:00.000-04:00

Well, it happened. I turned my back for just sec on this blog, suddenly, a week has gone by and I have nothing to show for it.

I apologize. Finals week got the best of me. I had 40 essay exams to read, and grades to post before my students self-destructed at my office door. Now that all of that is done with for a few weeks, I can get in some quality posting, I hope.

I have some good stuff that I want to talk about, and will probably begin posting again tonight. For those of your that keep up with my other journal, The Other Invisible and enjoy the Writer's Weekly Question, get ready, because I plan to post a new question tonight.

Bear with me. It will get better.

Women in the Driver's Seat at Indy, or We Can Drive as Fast as You, Boys!

2006-05-30T13:26:00.000-04:00

I have loved racing and Richard Petty for as long as I've been aware of racing, meaning, most of my life. As a kid, my uncle worked on and played with cars of all sorts. I became enamoured with the sport because, well, most of my family was. Richard Petty was the coolest because he drove a huge Dodge Charger (remember when they were that big?), and he always seemed to be in control of his car, his career, and well, the entire sport of racing.

Last week, Richard broke this little girl's heart, and said, "I just don't think this is a sport for women." See, in spite of the fact that I'm probably better off not getting on a track with anything faster than a bicycle (some would question this as well), I've always harbored this dream of sitting behind the wheel of a race car and dusting everyone in my path. I play racing video games (this is one of those things that lifts my status with my son, Stuart. He thinks it's cool that I often win these games) in an attempt to fufill those dreams. These dreams are actually connected to my deceased grandmother. See she also dreamed of racing. She wanted my uncle to build her a race car so she could go down to the local speedway and race against the boys. If she had survived cancer, I believe she would have driven to victory.

NASCAR, and racing in general has not been extremely open to women racers. Apparently, Petty's views go back some thirty years or more. I guess I should have known he'd take this position, but being a fan doesn't always open you to grasping the intricacies of your favorite celebrities position. His target in the past was Janet Gu thrie, the first female racer to earn a starting position in the Indy 500. Today, his target is Danica Patrick, a twenty-four year old who has managed to place in the top ten in the last two Indy 500s. THE TOP TEN! I'm not sure that Petty's argument holds much water against such accomplishment.

Petty is correct--racing is a difficult sport. He says that "being a racer, making a living out of it, it's kind of tough." Well, duh. It's tough for the men as well, but that doesn't seem to stop them from continuing to succeed at the sport. It doesn't seem to stop them from working harder and harder to go faster and faster. If a woman wants to get out there and push herself to the same degree, why can't she and why can't her competitors welcome her?

Perhaps, Petty is not truly reflective of today's racing circuit. Perhaps, he's just reflecting the views of his generation, and not the racers of today. As a fan of racing, I can only hope that is the case. If it is not, then it looks as though the men of the circuit are going to learn a lesson the hard way. Girls like Danica aren't going to go away. They will keep coming, and they will continue to win. It may take a while for a woman to actually go to the winner's circle.

I think Sheila Scarborough of FastMachines has the right idea:

Ya wanna spout off like that, go ahead. It's America. But don't expect many
people to take you seriously.

Still, the attitude does break my heart. You'd think his mama would have taught him better manners. You'd think an old coot like Petty would know better than spouting off to the press about such nonsense. I guess this is what happens when an old racer gets bored.

The Response was Deafening and Delicious

2006-05-22T09:51:00.000-04:00

I was a little taken aback at the overwhelming response to my last post. At first I was going to post this as a response in the comment section of the blog, but then I realized that I'd written a post, not just a comment. Because of this, I decided to make a post with my comments. Here it is:

Wow! So many comments, so little time! Thanks to all of you for the great insights, corrections, and general discussion here.

Marionette: Thank you for the insight on Jean Grey. I've never been a real fan of this character, but you've made me really reconsider. Still, I have to wonder about the whole Mastermind thing. It seemed a bit contrived. I have to wonder why, with all of the power that Phoenix had at that point, she didn't fight him a lot sooner and a lot harder. Still, I like your "18 wheeler" analogy. The "everyone has evil tendencies" argument just really doesn't wash with me. I still love the storyline, otherwise I wouldn't have shelled out what I did to purchase and re-read the story arc. I just think that sometimes the women of comics get the short end of the stick.

Oh, and thanks for the heads up about Andrew. I will do more research, and dig deeper. I wouldn't want to end up losing characters I love.

ARJ: I had totally forgotten Hal Jordan, but he's the only male character that I can recall that has had and experience like this.

100LittleDolls: I'm not really fond of this whole "going crazy because I can't have babies thing" either. I would say it is completely unrealistic, but honestly, I know someone that did have that happen. She went over the edge, and ended up destroying herself and her family.

I think Wanda did consider adoption at one point, but for some reason (I think it had to do with her lifestyle), it didn't work. I also believe that she became obsessed with having babies (I think that had a lot to do with her divorce from Vision).

To all of you:Thanks for such a lively, and energized discussion. I often post things like this because I want to hear what others have to say. Even if I don't completely agree with what you have to say, it's very cool to see that others are thinking about such crazy things. I have learned much more than I ever thought I would when I posted my thoughts this weekend. Keep up the comments and I'll continue to try and respond.

Absolute Power Only Corrupts Powerful Women Absolutely?

2006-05-20T22:32:00.000-04:00

What do these two lovely women have in common? Let's take a look:

Both are superheroines and are pretty.
Both have tapped into cosmic levels of power on more than one occasion.
Both women have used the cosmic power they've tapped into to either change their universe or, much worse, to destroy and devour their universe.

If you read my other journal, The Other Invisible, you may have seen my post from Thursday concerning Phoenix (the lady in green and gold) and the X-Men.
I am a big comic book and X-Men fan from way back, and I am fascinated by female superheroes, mostly because I'm female and of course, many people have this idea that comics are mostly geared for and written by males. In case you are unfamiliar, let me introduce the ladies at the left. At the far left is Wanda Maximoff, also known as the Scarlet Witch. Next is Jean Grey. Some of you may recognize the name from the X-Men movies that have been released over the last few years. She is also known as Phoenix, though not in the movies (not yet). As Phoenix, Jean Grey is the most powerful mutant in the universe. Unfortunately, she's not ready for the cosmic powers she wields and ends up almost destroying the entire universe in order to fill her mighty hunger. She finally self-destructs in order to save the very universe she desires to devour.
I probably need to explain why I'm even talking about these two characters in this blog in the first place. This isn't exactly the place you'd expect to find a discussion about comic book superheroines.

Let me explain:

I am an unusual woman in that I adore comic books and have since I was a young girl. While other girls were reading about horses and Nancy Drew (which I did read for an entire year at age 10), I was devouring the latest issue of Spiderman and Avengers.

As I have matured as a reader, (yes, I still read comics) I have seen a trend in the way female superheroes are sometimes dealt with. Karen of Outpost Mavarin, made an excellent comment in response to my other post. She said:

...the Dark Phoenix sequence bugged me, as if she couldn't be strong and not become evil.

Her comment really hit home. I'd been thinking of this for a bit myself, and I realized that she was right. Phoenix wasn't the only victim of this problem. Scarlet Witch has just gone through a similar problem.

You see, the Scarlet Witch has the ability to manipulate reality. This comes in handy when dealing with bad guys, or personal problems. Unfortunately, she is unable to have children, and this desire has become a rather destructive force in her life. She is so distressed that she ends up accidentally killing two very close friends, and goes over the edge. The other superheroes are scared. She has these dangerous powers and she's out of control. A discussion insues about what to do about her, and there is even a discussion about killing her. Her brother, in an attempt to make her (and everyone else) happy, and save her life in the process, manipulates her into creating a world where mutants rule, she has twin sons, and all is well for everyone. Sort of...This misuse of her powers ultimately causes great chaos and pain.

Are the writers trying to tell us women something about how we manage power? It's a curious thing. The writers for both of these stories (stories that were actually issued some twenty five years apart) are men. The Dark Phoenix Saga was written by Chris Claremont, and the House of M series, which was released last summer and fall, was written by Brian Michael Bendis.

Now, I'm not saying that these men have it out for women. I don't think that's the case at all. What I have to wonder, however, is if they realize the message that is coming across in the stories they create for these marvelous characters is less than flattering for women. It's like their saying that women can't handle a huge amount of power without some sort of cataclysmically terrible thing happening that we cannot control. It's almost like these men are afraid of what a woman could possibly do.

Think about it. How many male superheros can you think of that have become cosmically powerful and ended up having to either be destroyed or have destroyed themselves to save everyone else. hmmm

Did you come up with none? I thought as much. I've been wracking my brain for the same answer. There aren't any.

What I find most interesting is that this follows the very Victorian idea that women cannot handle certain tasks because they tax a woman's very being, and can cause a woman to become overwhelmed to the point of destructiveness. A woman can't be given power because she will become corrupted by that power, and could become dangerous. Women may use the power to destroy things, or worse, women can be manipulated by others to use our power to change things in what seems positive but is really a step into chaos.

We might devour whole solar systems!

I know I'm being extreme. I'm not saying that I will not read comic books ever again, nor am I saying that my daughter shouldn't read comics. Comic books have always fueled my imagination. I just have to wonder if there is a hidden agenda here. Some of you are saying, "You're reading too much into this." Perhaps you are right. There are many strong, powerful superheroines that are stable and don't go over the edge. My own daughter reads Spidergirl. Of course, most superheroines don't have cosmic powers either. Still, it's a message that you can't help but see if you look at the comics. I'm also sure that this trend might move differently if there were more female writers in the system.

So does Absolute Cosmic Power corrupt women? I don't know. I do know that we need to help our girls understand that they are powerful and that all people can be corrupted if they have too much power given them without boundaries. All people have the potential to be planet devourers if their power is not put into check...

Playing Catch Up (Not to be Confused with Ketchup)

2006-05-20T00:54:00.000-04:00

I know that I am behind on my usual post this week. I plan to catch up tomorrow (actually later this morning). It is late, I am tired, and I know that if I try anything terribly complicated, I will only make a huge mess.

I want to talk a little about superheroines, empowerment, and how super-powered women might possibly be reflecting things that we don't initially see or recognize.

Blame my tiny obssession with X-Men...see you after I get some serious sleep.

Do the Sexes Really Have Secrets?

2006-05-12T00:02:00.000-04:00

It would seem that I'm am going downhill for the last few weeks. Since the end of my semester, I have become a bit of a tv junkie. Not that I don't watch tv at all during the semester...I stopped doing that my senior year of college, but I have indulged a bit more than I normally do. Last Friday night, my kids were gone with their dad, and I was free to watch "grown-up tv." Some of you remember "grown-up tv." It's that stuff you watch when your kids aren't around.

No, I didn't watch the Chippendales..stop laughing...really!

Instead, I watched something really cool and mildly educational about...the sexes. Yes, I am a boring person, but this series I saw on PBS really rocked! It is a three part series called, aptly, Secrets of the Sexes.The first episode, "Brainsex" questions whether men and women are really, really different. For those of us "out in the field," this is a no-brainer sort of questions. The answer is yes, we are different! Scientists being scientists, however, need more proof,and apparently, so did BBC. So they did a survey and actually brought real people into a lab for deeper investigation. While I expected them to find things that we already know to be true, it turns out that maybe we don't know as much as we think about the other sex. My favorite study was the one they did on promiscuity. It's pretty widely accepted that men are pigs concerning sex, that they think about it often, and that they are only interested in sex, while women are less concerned with sex.

Not so, say the amazing BBC scientists!

According to their work, which included surveys and brain scans, women think about sex about as much as men do. So much for that idea that men are libido driven monsters. The scientists have discovered our female secret!

The second episode is called Attraction, and is by far the episode I enjoyed the most. The BBC scientists are at it again as they set up a speed dating service for twenty young singles (I didn't see a one of them that were old I tell you), and after some study, they attempted to match the singles to other singles in a scientific manner. I thought for sure the scientists would succeed. They did things like discover what woman is actually men's ideal (turns out Queen was right...men dig fat bottomed women), and what man is actually women's idea (the guy looks like a mix between Superman and Aquaman...muscular, but not overly so, and a nice chiseled look to his face). They also theorized that we often choose partners that have similar facial structures. All of this is rather news to me.

In this episode we also meet some of the twenty participants. One was a young woman I couldn't believe was dateless, but anything is possible. There was also a man my age that was an anthropology lecturer at one of the open universities, I think. He was either Welsh or Scottish--I think Welsh. He felt that he was not that attractive. The scientists dressed him in his usual clothing, put him out on the street to talk to women...and no one would give him the time of day. Then they changed his clothes...he was wearing a nice leather jacket, dark sunglasses, and nice clothes. Suddenly, womeon were interested in him. The funny thing is that later on, during the speed dating, many women thought he was sweet, but none of them were really interested in a relationship. They liked him, but not that way. I thought it was sad because he was actually quite attractive, funny, and seemed like a genuinely good guy...but he was passed over.

What I found most amusing is that all the hypotheses set by the brilliant BBC scientists were off base. Only one couple they'd matched up actually got together, and then it didn't last long. For all the wonders of science, it still can't define how we fall in love. In a way, that's a comforting thought. I kind of like the shroud of mystery and magic that hovers around falling in love. If all it took was a little science, we'd all find our mates with only little trouble.

The final episode was on love. It primarily focused on couples having issues and blocking love. I liked it, but having been at that place where you can't save a marriage, it was tough to watch. Still, at least one couple was helped by therapy and a little science. The cool part is that the participants were able to learn how they deal with things differently and that sometimes the way your spouse acts in certain situations is based on chemistry as well as personality and love. It was a bit of an eyeopener for me and it explained a lot about how I respond to certain things, and how I can change how I reaspond.

So do we have secrets? It would seem that we do...let's all revel in those differences, and instead of worrying about what the other has, let's find ways we can be together, work together, and ultimately, love together.

The Twenty-First Century Woman Visits Nineteenth Century Texas

2006-05-04T22:21:00.000-04:00

The last few nights I've been watching something that might seem really silly, but I've found interesting and curious. I have been watching Texas Ranch House. The premise of the show is this: fifteen modern people are trained and then sent to a 1867 style ranch. These people live on a 1867 style ranch for two-and-a-half months. During the two-and-a-half-months, they are expected to make a go of the ranch. I enjoy these sorts of "reality shows" because they are a reminder that as smart as we think we are in 2006, we are not the match we think we are for the challenges our ancestors had to deal with.

What I found most interesting about this particular show is the gender problems that became evident as the episodes unfolded (the closing episode was tonight). In 1867, a woman's place was quite different than what it is today. Not that women were completely subservient (many women were independent in the old west), but they weren't expected to be a part of certain parts of life, even on the ranch. In particular, women weren't supposed to be a part of the relationship between the ranch owner and his cowboys. Unfortunately for everyone, Mrs. Cooke (the rancher's wife) never quite caught on that she needed to tend to the business of the house, and not the business of managing her husband managing the hands. This lack of time-period sensibility partnered with her husband's marked inability to make "manly" decisions without her strong guidance, led to some resentment from the hands. She (and all the women) read this as blatant disrespect and sexism. What was disturbing was that she never caught on that maybe, just maybe, her forced visibility in matters not her business was the root of the disrespect. It would seem that, at least in Mrs. Cooke's eyes, the men could do no right, while, in fact, her manipulation of her husband caused him to lose face with the men, and with anyone else that came within her force range. I'm not saying she should have been quiet, but she should have let him deal with the men without demanding to have a say in every part of the ranch.

Another person that fed the gender conflict was the "Maid of all Work," Maura. She was trained to be a vaquero, but ended up in the ranch house. She took any comment by the cowboys as sexist. I have to wonder if she would have had it harder in 1867. By standards of that time, women were only rarely seen riding after cattle. I think her problems were primarily caused because of her attitude toward the men, and because of the way she ended up getting to join the round-up. Once again, Mrs. Cooke raised her ugly head.

In the end, even the folks that evaluated the ranch pointed out that the ranch would have failed, at least in part, due to the resentment Mrs. Cooke's actions had caused during the time they were working. They also stated that Mr. Cooke bore the majority of the responsibilty for the failure. Translation: Mr. Cooke needed to grow some balls and act like the man he should have been.

********
I know it sounds like I'm supporting the idea that "a woman should know her place" or that "a woman's place is the kitchen," but that's not really what I'm getting at. Or maybe it is. A woman's place should be where ever she can be of the most use and most support for her family, friends, lover, husband...whatever. When she become an impediment to usefulness, or uses her visibility and voice to hold others back and cause tension, then maybe she's stepped out of her place. If Mrs. Cooke had simply let her husband do his job, and offered support without demands and commands, I believe that the whole experience would have been a positive one. Mr. Cooke spent more than his share of time having to make choices to make her happy, often at the expense of his men.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that visibility demands a sense of control (for yourself), common sense, and respect. The number one reason why the cowboys didn't respect her husband is because she didn't treat him with respect. Instead, she hounded him till he acquiesced and did what she told him to do. Sometimes it's best to simply let the man handle the business of the workers, and allow yourself to manage your part of the system. In her case, that would have been the ranch house.

I believe in equal rights and women having a say, but to take over like she did is just...well, wrong. Visibility is not about being in control, or being the most powerful...it's about giving the best that you have in any given situation, and being as kind as you can without losing integrity. To me, the whole family lost their integrity right away. The worst moment was when they ripped off Jared (one of the hands) over a horse, and then had the gall to accuse him of stealing the horse.

It was a great show, but I have to wonder how a different set of people would work out. I also wonder how different women would act in a situation like this.

2006-05-01T06:32:00.000-04:00

A while back I talked about how I wasn't sure about Dr. Phil McGraw and his advice. I'm still not a huge fan (how seriously can you take a man who hosts a show with guests that totally disfunctional), but I think he might have some interesting ideas about getting your head straight about relationships. So, after arguing with myself over whether reading a Dr. Phil book would be helpfu, I purchased a copy of Love Smart, his latest book on relationships.

Ok, so this balding, overspoken Texan is going to tell me how to become smarter about falling in love. Yeah, right. Well, I've read three chapters, and the funny thing is--he makes sense--good sense. So far, he's talked about figuring out exactly what you want in a mate. It's funny, I thought that I had under control--I thought I knew. Once I thought about it, however, I found that I really had never considered what I really, really wanted and needed in a mate.

I feel sort of silly about reading a book like this. I've never thought I needed a book to tell me how to find a mate. Does this mean I can't do this on my own? I'm not sure. I've tried, but apparently I'm not doing or thinking or acting right, I guess. Anyway, it is a curious book.

I've said before that visibility doesn't equal nabbing a man, and I still stand with that idea. At the same time, it is part of visibility. I guess when you get down to it, having a partner in life is a thing we seem to crave as humans, and I'm no different. I don't need a man as definition,but rather as compliment.

It's something to consider anyhow.

I'll tell you how the book goes...

Not-so-girley-girl gets a Skirt!

2006-04-20T11:54:00.000-04:00

By now, many of you know that I am not exactly the girliest of girls in the world. To me, comfort is a nice pair of denim shorts, a t-shirt, and a pair of worn Keds. Still, I feel like I getting more in touch with my "girley-girl" side this year than I ever have before, and shockingly, I like it. So, I've been reading books about being a woman, have started becoming a fan of The Oprah Magazine, and have really sat down and considered what it means to be a woman doing what I do.

Yesterday, "Girley-girl Jess" got excited. I was reading the newspaper (I have time right now because I've been sick the last two days), and I saw an ad in the Living section. It was for a new magazine coming to Atlanta expressly for Atlanta-area women called Skirt.

According to the website,Skirt is "all about women…their work, play, families, creativity, style, health and wealth, bodies and souls. Skirt! is an attitude…spirited, independent, outspoken, serious, playful and irreverent, sometimes controversial, always passionate." Sounds pretty impressive. I went to the website to see what more I could learn about the magazine (I also wanted to check out the contributor's guidelines). It turns out that the magazine is published in several cities, including Savannah and Charleston (imagine, they get something cool before Atlanta, that city internationale, does). It also turns out that there might be a place for a writer like me (I won't make millions, but it's a start).

What's cool is that the magazine is pretty interactive. There is a contest every month, and a pretty active message area for members (membership is free). You can even order a copy of the magazine for free (mine is on the way in May). The magazine is thematic in nature, so there's a chance I could use any one of my articles from the blog and turn it into something nice for the magazine. The only thing that could be better is if I could actually work there.

As soon as I get my copy, I'll read and review it for you right here.

My Oprah Magazine Addiction Continues

On a separate magazine note, the new Oprah Magazine is out. Yes, I've become obssessed with this magazine. I guess I wouldn't care for it much, except that the writing is extraordinarily good. Even the kids have gotten used to me getting the magazine. Stuart saw it at Target last night, looked at me and asked, "You want me to grab you a copy, mom?" So, of course, I couldn't resist. There's an article on office tension that looks promising, and there's an interview with the real Allison DuBois (she is the inspiration for the tv show Medium). Gina immediate got the magazine last night and found the Allison DuBois article. She's read more of the magazine than I have yet. Can't wait to read it!

I Never Knew Protestants Could Go to Confessional!

2006-04-08T23:38:00.000-04:00

I have a confession to make. It's embarrassing, like most confessions, but also like most confessions, it needs to be said.

I am scared to flirt, and therefore have trouble knowing how to flirt.

There, I said it. What used to come easy, is now a feat of great proportions for me. I don't even know where to begin. What's even worse is that I don't know when a man is flirting with me.

So, I've lost my entire surveilance and reconnaissance system.

This loss was highly emphasized this past week when Mike, one of my office spouses, tried to set me up with the Prentice-Hall book salesman that came by to sell me English books for the new year.

The books were great by the way.

This guy was really nice, and he was attractive in a book salesman kind of way (what ever that means). We were all talking, and Mike observed that I was single and noted that the salesman was single. Then he just blurts out, "Jess is looking for a boyfriend." While this is a very true statement (it's my goal every year), it took me off guard and the sales man off guard. I think salesguy even blushed a bit. It was awkward, and then we laughed and it was over--sort-of. The salesguy then followed me to my office, and we talked--books. I wanted to flirt, I wanted to try to get closer (he was attractive), but we took the high road and talked business. I think we were both a little nervous under the sales pitch. I gave him my card, and that was that.

The whole experience scared me, and I think, scared salesguy to death.

Mike, and then Lorainne were very excited that I might have a date with salesguy. Unfortunately, I blew it, and salesguy seemed reticent as well. When he left, I felt sad, and disappointed. I wasn't up to the task. I wasn't able to turn on the charm that was so easy to turn on twenty years ago. I was just lame. Salesguy probably went out thinking, "She's a nice professional woman, and thankfully, she didn't hit on me." He keeps e-mailing me, trying to sell me his books. This is normal procedure--he needs that sale. So, he's being professional too. I guess this isn't all my fault. He didn't hit on me either. I like men that pursue me. I want a man to pursue me. There's a part of me that doesn't want to make the first move. I've done that most of my life, and I want to know that there's a man out there that sees my worth in large enough terms to pursue me. I know that means I have to be visible, and perhaps that means that I have to flirt and make myself visible.

I think, if salesguy had been really interested, he would have made some sort of pursuit. If I had been really interested, I wouldn't have hid behind the professional guise of shopping for books.

Why I'm Scared of Flirting

More confessional--I think I'm scared of flirting because I historically flirt with the wrong men. I don't know what's wrong with me. It's like I have no sense of danger, or in some cases, I put that sense on ignore. I've flirted with lots of men.I could give specifics, but since this isn't a completely confessional blog, and there are people who would get hurt, I will stay silent about the who and when. The ones that pay attention to my misguided flirtations are not always the best men for me. This is scary, especially since usually I have a pretty strong sense of right and wrong. Unfortunately, sometimes that sense doesn't work when I'm attracted to men.

So rather than trust myself, or work hard at flirting with the right guys (I'm still not sure who they are), I think I've made a subconscious decision to not try flirting at all. That way I'm safe. That way my kids are safe. That way my heart is safe.

The fear doesn't compensate for the loneliness.

Lately, I've been trying to get over this fear and try stuff. So, I step out and mess up again. I need help.

Flirting: There are Rules

I did a bit of research. That's what I do when I have a problem, or fear something. I study it, I read about it, and I decide how to deal with the problem based on what my research turns up. This is one of the differences between normal people and geeks. Normal people just keep trying until they discover the right path. Geeks run to the Internet in an attempt to circumvent anymore embarrassing situations than they've already experienced.

I'm not sure which method is more effective.

Anyway, I did some research and found a few websites and articles that actually go into detail about effective flirting. One site I landed on is Cyber00.com. This site has a whole section focused on flirting, including a section for the six rules to flirting. Most of the rules are common sense rules, and, as you can see from the wording of some of the pages, Cyber00 is geared for teens. So, the rules still apply, but the site as a whole makes me feel like an immature chestnut.

Then I found an article entitled, "Rules of Flirting" in The Sydney Morning Herald. It is a few years old, but I think the thoughts still apply. Apparently, the subject of this article, Susan Bradley, has a simple approach that is effective. The crazy thing is that this "Repeated Contact Rule" makes perfect sense. Maybe I should try and apply it. I also like that she points out that "People meet someone and they expect instant chemistry." She goes on to point out that the chemistry thing is just the beginning and sometimes doesn't happen right away. I think that sometimes I miss good possibilities because I don't "feel something." I also think that sometimes I grab the wrong guy because I do "feel something." Chemistry is just chemistry, it isn't exactly, really love.

The article I found most useful comes from the Social Issues Research Centre in Oxford, England. Not only does it define flirting, but it explains what works and what doesn't (in general terms, of course), as well as cultural differences in flirting. It's more "clinical" than the other articles, but it makes a lot of sense, and addresses such things as office romances and how to manage them

Will I Apply These Ideas?

After doing all this research, I believe I am going to attempt to try some of the things suggested in these articles. The worst that could happen is that I make more mistakes, or scare the men I'm interested in. Mike promised me that he would continue to look for prospective dates for me, and I promised to practice my flirting. I just need to find a venue. Lucky for me, Willena is having a birthday party next weekend, and has invited me. I'm not going to go overboard, but if there are interesting men there, I should at least try some flirting. I'd try at work, but unfortunately, there are no single candidates in my building. I'm surrounded by nice, married men. While that's not a bad thing (in fact, it's a comfort), I can't go around flirting with the married population without expected consequences of the worst type.

Is My Journey in Visibility Just about Flirting and Getting a Man?

Some people will read this and think that all my talk about being visibly has nothing to do with self-discovery and everything to do with "getting a man." I suppose if a reader just saw this post, he or she might get that idea. My answer is pretty simple:

Yes, I would love to "get a man." I would love to be someone's girlfriend, or sweetheart, or lady. I miss having a man in my life, not because I need a man to make my life complete. I have a complete life, believe me. I have God, children, a career, an education, and lots to do with each. I don't need a man. I need companionship, friendship. I need a closeness I haven't had in my whole life (going to prove that marriage does not necessarily indicate that you are really close to the person sleeping in your bed). The right man will fulfill those needs, and I will fulfill those same needs for him. I don't need a man to live or survive, I need a man to help me enjoy the wonder and magic that I encounter every day.

I want to visible so that I may know myself, and so that I may know how to share myself with others.

Consider what makes visibility so desirable (if it is something you desire), if it's something you want in your life too. I think that most bloggers want some level of visibility, or we wouldn't lay bare our souls in a place where the entire online world has a way to view those moments of vulnerabilty.

Do you want visibility?

Is the Definition of Visibility Taking a Backwards Step?

2006-04-01T07:04:00.000-05:00

I have been thinking a lot about what Sali Oguri said in an earlier post referenced in my last post (are you following me so far). She said (in part):

"This is a scary time indeed, what with the 1950s coming back en vogue--from the pages of fashion magazines to the Disney channel, I see the subversive quieting down of women and girls starting up all over again."

What is interesting about this quote to me is that other women are making the same observation. Right now I'm reading Maureen Dowd's Are Men Necessary? In this book Ms. Dowd points out that many women are choosing the very life that was spurned twenty-five years ago by her generation of women. Instead of being at the top of the food chain at work, many women would rather be at home raising their children. I think that the magazines and the media in general have picked up on that trend and are maximizing their potential to sell and influence by responding to what women are saying that they want.

I'm not saying that women want to be quieted, or, as some men would say, put in our place. In fact, I think that's where the difference comes with women of the 21st century. We may be staying home, and raising our children (although I'm not part of that trend due to being divorced), but we are far from quiet. Many stay-at-home mothers are far from demure. They are active in their communities through volunteerism, through involving themselves in local politics, and through being visible in their children's lives. The doors are much more open now for that sort of thing than they were in the 1950s. Even if we're donning the pearls and heels of our grandmothers, we are not our grandmothers.
That being said, I find it interesting that many people still limit the way they perceive women to a few tired stereotypes. We shouldn't be surprised. When I think about the 1950s, as well as the 21st century, I am reminded, strangely enough, of the Victorian era. As much as we have fought to be visible in so many ways past these perceptions, somehow we always manage to slip back to these views:

Victorian Era

Angel in the House
In Queen Victoria's time, this was where you wanted to be as a woman. She is a woman that could clean the house, raise the kids, and look just perfect when her husband came home from being manly all day. She is a woman above reproach. No sordid affairs for her. No way. She didn't have time because she was doing so much for her family and her man. No time or need for formal education, in fact education for a woman was highly discouraged. In fact, many Victorians believed that education and (gasp) writing only made women hysterical. Maybe that explains my problem, eh? This stereotype was held up in literature, and in society. Ibsen challenged this concept at the end of the era in such plays as A Doll's House and Hedda Gabler. However, if a woman wasn't an Angel in the House, every one knew she could only be a fallen woman.

The Fallen Woman
She is also known as the "worldly woman." She was the woman many married men of the Victorian Era would visit and even "keep" as it were. She was sexually promiscuous, knowledgable in the finer art of seduction, and was not a woman to be taken home to mother. Perhaps because of the Angel's uplifted position in society, the fallen woman had to take over the more base activities of nature. Afterall, the Angel wasn't expected to enjoy or crave sex. The fallen woman was often more educated than the wife at home, and despite the rhetoric of the era, which warned against consorting with "those type of women" or become one of "those women," were often sought after by men who found their marriages too stifling or boring.

What was considered bad behavior at that time would later translate into what literature calls "the New Woman." This woman was smart, able, and sexually aware. No wonder so many people during this period became afraid as more and more women became suffragettes.

My question is this--have our perceptions of womanhood really changed that much. We like to believe that Betty Friedan, and Gloria Steinem help to crush those perceptions in the seventies. I'm not so completely sure that our belief is well-founded.

Friedan and Steinem were products of the forties, fifties, and sixties. The fifties, in particular, seemed to step back to that Angel vs Fallen woman ideal. The favored women of the time were in both extremes.

Sexual Goddess
You could be Marilyn Monroe, the sexy, soft, fallen woman who moved from man-to-man both on the silver screen and in her own life. Her life was a mess, and everyone knew it but didn't care. She was sexy, and embodied what men secretly wanted in a woman (as evidenced by the fact that she was the first Playboy bunny).

Interesting enough, however, as much as men desired and fantasized over Marilyn, she was not the woman society wanted at home. She was had a role as a mother, or a wife as far as I can remember. She was just a slicked up example of the Victorian fallen woman.

Domestic Goddess
If you weren't Marilyn, your only real choice was to be June Cleaver or Donna Reed. June and Donna were the Modern Era's version of the "Angel in the House." They were pretty, homebound women who raised their families, shopped, went to bridge club,made sure that breakfast, lunch, and dinner were on the table. And they did it wit their hair perfectly coiffed, their clothes perfectly feminine, and their pearls in place. They never broke a sweat and their husbands and sons were always happy to have her in the house. They were often the voice of reason in the house, but never the voice of leadership.

In other words---they knew their place. There was never a discussion of the need for them to work outside the home, afterall they were needed to take care of the kids. They were angels in the truest sense. I think that's why when Barbara Billingsley (June Cleaver) appeared in Airplane in 1980, it was so funny to hear her say, "Stewardess, I speak jive!" She set the image for as the acceptable woman. These women also provided the jumping off point for the women's liberation movement of the 1960s and 70s. After all the bra burning, marching, and divorce, have we really come that far? I'm not so sure.

Post-Modern Era

Desperate Housewives and Other Fallen Women

After all has been said and done about how far we've come, how we are woman, hear us roar. The truth of the matter is that our perceptions have circled around once again. Sali's observations are on track. In spite of our best efforts, society still wants to put women into the same categories we've already seen.

We watch shows like Desperate Housewives. These are women who are married but are doing every man that comes close to their neighborhood. If our society has moved forward, it is to recognize that the "angel in the house" doesn't necessarily just drive the kids in the SUV to school, and activities. She doesn't go home and dutifully clean the house, or play bridge every Tuesday. If we follow the logic of this show, she is a woman that is predatory. She is just waiting for the opportunity for her trusting husband to turn his back so she can go do her best friend's husband...and his best friend...and any other man in the general vicinity of her need. The secret life of the "angel" is that she is actually a sexual goddess. Who knew.

Society also tells us that being a single woman can only mean that we are shopping and searching for sexual pleasures. Shows like Sex in the City (which is a really funny show), elaborate on the desperate search by single women for the right sexual partner. These women may be accomplished, smart, funny, but their worth is place in their sexuality. Once they began to settle down, the show wrapped up and ended. Apparently, there's no such thing as Committed Sex in the City.

Domestic Superwoman

While we are being entertained by the sexual escapades of these women, we're being told something totally different by our society. Society tells women that in order to be successful and acceptable we have to be the best mom, the best worker, the best wife that we can be. We are being molded into the "Alpha Woman." The Alpha Woman is the "Angel in the House" taken to the next level. She breaks the Angel mold in that she is usually highly educated, driven, and has worked outside the home, but has returned to become the power of the house. On tv she is the woman that bullies her husband, babies her children, and does everything as perfectly as possible without messing up her hair or getting tired. She is powerful. She is cheerful. She is superhuman. We've all seen her, and she is all at once captivating and maddening. The only real difference between her and June and Donna is that she is willing to be loud, obnoxious, and push to get her way. What she learned from the woman's movement is that she needs to be in charge of the house, the relationship, everything because her man isn't smart enough or willing to do that work. She is the cynical angel.
.
I'm not so sure I like this stereotype anymore than I like the Victorian angel.

So, how far have we really come...I'm not sure. I do know that we should understand that women can't be categorized anymore than men. Unfortunately, I think society as a whole has a long way to go in gaining this understanding. As it stands now, we are spending a lot of time simply redefining stereotypes established almost too long ago to remember.

One Pink Manhattan, Please!

2006-03-31T23:45:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I had a visitor to this website that turned out to be way cool! Sali Oguri left a comment under my post about the girl that took a hammer to her would be rapist.

Who is Sali Oguri? I had no idea until yesterday evening when I read her comment.She is a New York musician that, apparently, makes music and scent. She also has some very good insights into womanhood. Her observations in my blog were so interesting, I went to read her profile, which led me to her website, her music and her perfume.

I was captivated with her music almost immediately. It is what I would call Asian Fusion. There are elements of classic jazz, 80s rock, and ancient Asian sounds. The result is intoxicating. I immediately purchased her album, Pink Manhattan: Sensorium of Sight and Scent Act I, and a sample of her perfume, Pink Manhattan. I am usually not a perfume girl. I have trouble with perfume--namely most of it doesn't mix well with my chemistry and I end up smelling like a grandma that's rolled in too much lavender. Still, anything that sounds as cool as Pink Manhattan might actually be ok.

I just wish she'd make it a drink. I can see myself sitting at a bar sipping on a Pink Manhattan. Just the thought of doing that makes me giggle a bit. It just sounds so...sexy.

Kicking and Screaming in the Fish Bowl

2006-03-30T15:38:00.000-05:00

I hope my last post didn't cause all this violence that's cropped up in the last few days. Actually, knowing the sources of these two violent cases, I'm not surprised. There have been two rather visible and famous women in the news as of late that have acted in ways we wouldn't normally expect from women of their position. Or maybe I'm an idealist wishing we still lived in Mayberry. I give you:

U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D. GA) and her altercation with a Capitol Police officer. Actually, this is nothing that we in Georgia don't expect from Rep. McKinney. She is a woman that is very visible, and goes way beyond revelling in her visibility. Unfortunately, her visibility is often less than complementary, as in this instance. All the officer did was try to do his job. She was not wearing a pin she should have been wearing, and she went around a metal detector like she was above reproach (those of us that have seen her in action here in Atlanta know better). The man did his job. He called her back repeatedly, but she was too full of herself to respond. Is it any wonder that he took her arm and stopped her? I have to wonder what would have happened next if it had been a mortal like me going around that metal detector. But it was a representative of the United States, and in all of her representativeness (I think I created a word), Cynthia McKinney punched this poor cop. What angers me the most is that he didn't press charges, and so she got off scott free--again. Our young girls need role models. We want them to be competitive and ambitious. We want them to serve our country. How can we expect our girls to act with any sort of grace, or charm when there are women that are very visible and acting like someone that is above the law?
The brawling doesn't end there. Naomi Campbell, famed fashion model,was arrested for beating up her housemaid with a telephone. Campbell's "people" swearm it's a lie and the housemaid was just fired, but I don't know. Campbell, much like McKinney, has a track record of punching, screaming, and acting like a diva gone mad. Intense visibility can cause a sort of mania in women, I think. They get all full of themselves, believe that they don't have to work within the rules and regs of the world that the rest of us live in, and then crazy things happen. And yet, in spite of this diva-ism, there are girls that want to be Naomi Campbell. Is this what we want our girls to be like? Is this what we want them to think of when the consider their own visibility?

I'm not saying that we should all be demure, carry our pastel pink purses, and cross our legs at our ankles. I just think that women in very visible places should consider the larger consequences of their actions. They have chosen the fish-bowl life, and there are eyes on them that take their actions as gospel.This is a lesson I learned during my time as a minister's wife. As a minister's wife, you live in the bowl, people see and make decisions about you and, perhaps, how they should live based on what they see you do. It's like Spiderman (yes, I am secretly in love with the ol' webhead) says, "With great power comes great responsibility." These women bear the power, but abuse the responsibility. I would paraphrase Spiderman and say, 'With great visibility comes great responsibility.' It's too bad these two haven't learned this lesson after so many years in the fish bowl.

Addendum:

In an amazing turn of events, Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D, Ga) may actually have charges brought against her after her altercation with a Capitol police officer. Of course, in true Cynthia McKinney fashion, she had a press conference that ended up sounding more like a rally. "This is an incident caused by the inappropriate touching and stopping of a female, black congresswoman," says McKinney.

So, I guess if she had been a female, white congresswoman, the touching would have been ok. It probably would have been even better if she had been a male, white congressman. Then the cop could have done his job with no outcry or press conference or no punching. Lord knows that the cop singled her out because he wanted to fight with a female, black congresswoman. He was just spoiling for that opportunity.

Visiblity demands that we take responsibility for our own actions. It demands that we not act as victims, especially when it's so obvious that we are not victims.

I hope that the cop presses charges. If McKinney is convicted, it could cost her up to five years in prison. I wonder what she would have to say about the "inappropriate touching" that might go on there. Some how I doubt that the women she'd be joining will care less that she is a "female, black congresswoman."

When Do Our Daughters Need to be Warriors?

2006-03-23T13:27:00.000-05:00

Ours is a scary time period. Unfortunately, the day of safely walking to school, playing in the woods, and going on adventures is slipping away. Usually, we teach our children to not talk or get in the car with strangers, but what happens when the stranger pulls a gun on our children and commands them to get in their car? What then? You teach them to fight like this girl from Toledo!

This girl was smart. She immediately found a way to look for a weapon, and then didn't even hesitate to use it. A hammer to the groin is not exactly what Mr. Pervert had in mind, I'm sure. I think this makes a strong point (not just to the guy with hammer marks in a very private place). We are so worried about teaching our kids to "be nice" to "be polite" that sometimes we forget, especially with our girls, to teach them to defend themselves. We need to remember to nurture not only the natural female instinct of kindness (which is easy to recognize), but also the part of women that will fight for important people and things. It's that fighting attitude that will often save our girls from harm. Even cops will say that a woman that looks confident, and that she might be trouble will often not be targeted by attackers.

We can pretend that this sort of thing won't happen. And maybe, just maybe it won't. Part of being a visible woman is sometimes being able and ready to defend ourselves in times of troubles. I'm not saying that we should act like Xena, Warrior Princess (although she is very cool), or teach our daughters the Xena war cry, but we should teach them to be self-sufficient, and unafraid to stand up for herself or others.

From all of us visible women around the world--"You go, girl!"

CNN extends my thirty seconds...sort of...

2006-03-22T12:48:00.000-05:00

My friend Amanda, author of the Cult of the Invisible Woman blog, discovered that CNN is running the segment I was a part of on Paula Zahn Now! You can see "Office Spouses: A Modern Affair," and hopefully, enjoy it! Thanks for everything, Amanda (incidentally, she allowed me and my kids to come to her house to see the segment last night).

If you have a chance, take a look at her blog. It's pretty darn cool.

My fifteen minutes must be coming in thirty second increments!

2006-03-22T11:10:00.000-05:00

I suddenly have an idea of how Joey in Friends must have felt when his character on Days of Our Lives, Dr. Drake was summarily murdered on the show. No, really, it's not quite that bad...

All that stuff with the cameras following us, them interview all three of us, and the final edit gives me thirty seconds. Actually, I think it rocks that Mike and Lorraine got all the camera time. They are really awesome folks, and deserve some publicity. I had a feeling that this was going to happen by the way the director kept the camera following them and kept me out of some of the shots. Guess it goes to prove that I really might have a face for the internet and radio, but not for tv. It was a great piece, and I hope everyone that watched it really enjoyed watching us try to be realistic.

The kids were happy that I was on tv at all. Stuart was all excited. "My mom's on tv!" So, I guess it worked out. Gina was outraged that I didn't get more air time, but I thought it was rather funny.

I just wish they'd mentioned my blogs--either one of them. The one thing I wanted to happen with this CNN thing is to get a boost in readership. Not that numbers matter, I'd rather have a few readers that are faithful and will actually post comments than a million readers that are nonparticipatory. Still, it would have been cool to think that maybe a few more dedicated readers might have joined the mayhem. Oh well, maybe next time I'll get on for a whole minute! If you're interested in reading my thirty seconds of fame, you can check out the transcript.

Thanks for all the kind words and general support during this strange little excursion. Thank goodness I don't have to move to Hollywood!

My CNN Thing is Tonight!

2006-03-21T17:01:00.000-05:00

For those of you who have been following my CNN adventure over the last month, tonight is the night. I will be on Paula Zahn Now! tonight at around 8:25 pm EST (the show begins at 8 pm). I will be watching it at Amanda's house. I would love feedback, but most of all I would love for you to just watch. We had a great time doing this piece, and we hope you'll enjoy it as well.

Ok, gotta be a kid for a minute--

I'm gonna be on tv! Wheeee!

Oprah? Did someone say Oprah?

2006-03-21T14:15:00.000-05:00

I did a strange thing a week or so back--I picked up a copy of O Magazine. I've never, never read this magazine in my life. In fact, I've avoided this magazine for a very long time. It has always struck me as a "let's-all-be-perky" type of magazine. Those of you that know me understand very well that I am not the "perky" type of girl. Still, there was something, I'm not sure what, that said to me--"read this magazine," so I bought a copy. Then it sat next to my bed for a week. I'm not sure what kept me from digging through the thing except for pride. Finally, I sat in bed Sunday morning and read my O Magazine.

The experience was actually really great! I discovered that what I'm writing in this blog could actually be acceptable material in this magazine. Does that make me perky? I don't know. I found articles that I enjoyed greatly, and I discovered that the message in this magazine is one of personal growth, acceptance, and expansion of possibilities. Over and over there are articles that tell women to love themselves as they are, and to know themselves well. As a woman searching for visibility, this is a great magazine to use as encouragement.
I found a few things in this month's magazine and in the April issue online that I think might work in with some of the observations I've made the last few months.

Physical Visibility
"Are you waiting to be skinnier, thinner, more toned, more tanned, better dressed, sexier, more lovable, nicer, smarter, funnier, or wealthier before you really begin your life? Millions of us are. And it's a complete waste of our time. Body obsession and the quest for perfection are destroying our lives, and we are willing partners in this destruction."--Jessica Weiner, from her book, Do I Look Fat?

I found this quote while I was reading Sunday, and the author is so right! I've watched more women do whatever it takes to pursue this vision of lovliness that seems to be the societal mark we should strive for. I believe that many women have illnesses and problems later in life from this physical quest, and I have to ask if it's worth it. Why can't we find the beauty in all women. Even the plainest women have a certain beauty, even if it's not readily evident every single moment of every single day. We've all gone through this. Each morning brings for most of us that moment in front of the mirror where we decide whether we are attractive or not for the day. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what beauty treatment, surgery, diet, or fancy clothing we wear. If we, for some reason, decide that we aren't attractive, none of that will help us.

I did a bit of research on the book, Do I Look Fat in This?, (yes, this is a question that I've even asked), and found that Jessica Weiner is not only a writer, but an "actionist" and speaker on the subject of women's self-esteem. She seems very concerned with women's view of their own images. I find it interesting that a woman can now get paid to do seminars and give talks about the very thing that women in the past took care of by being connected to other women in their community. It used to be the coffee clatch groups, the bridge club, PTA, and church that connected women to one another and taught them to love each other and their selves (not that that always happened, but I have to believe that it was a part of the female experience in the past). I'm not knocking Ms. Weiner. In fact, I'd love to talk to her and learn from her. She's doing what is an instinctive thing, and making money at the same time. Plus, best of all, she seems to be helping people.

Inner Visibility

I found another article describing a self-evaluation in the April issue of O. I think self-evaluation can be useful, especially for someone who is seeking to become more visible. I like what the author, Martha Beck, says about love:

"There's no risk-free way to love. The possibility of being devastated is always there, but the possibility of joy exists only when you put your battered heart right on the table by trusting that you're lovable. I'm not asking you to do this all the time, or even in large doses—at first, anyway."

As much as I hate to admit it, part of my own quest for visibility involves discovering how I can be more attractive, and, yes, visible to men. It isn't my primary goal--my primary goal is to know myself better and to discover and work on my weaknesses. But, yes, I want to be loved--it's scary, but true. Of course, Beck cuts to the chase--love is not without risk. Inner visibility involves risk. She also give four steps to implement the self evaluation:

logical risk assessment

attack on self-denigration

experiment with exercise, challenges, or new experiences

trust the good feelings you have about yourself

She explains each step very well, so well, in fact, that I am willing to try them myself. I'll let you know how it works out. This is not an attempt to find a man, but it is an attempt to make myself perhaps find a little more positive outlook, which could only help, right?

So, I guess I have to lose my attitude about Oprah. She might actually have some ideas I need to understand.

My Fifteen Minute Walk through the Twilight Zone

2006-03-16T23:21:00.001-05:00

Well, as promised, CNN arrived at my school at eight o'clock Tuesday morning. For the first time in my life, I had an entourage. It was odd. This entourage included me, my two friends who were also being interviewed, the producer, the interviewer, the camera and sound guys, and three people from PR at school. We were followed all day by this group.

First we were interviewed. That was the easy part. We sat in our chairs, pretended the camera wasn't there, and talked. I can honestly say that none of us made fools of ourselves, or the school. We were sincere, told the truth, and generally had a great time. The PR folks from school said that they approved. This was a big relief for me because I was really worried about saying or doing something that would bring their scorn down up all of us.

Then they went to lunch with us, and even picked up the tab (if I had know this was going to happen, I might have suggested a nicer restaurant.). The camera rolled as we ate and talked. It is really weird trying to have a conversation while two guys are sitting at one side of the table with a huge camera and a boom hanging over you. The whole crew came to the restaurant, but couldn't eat with us. The waitress couldn't figure it out. She even asked our producer if they were mad at us or something.

After lunch, they interviewed Mike's wife, and shot us walking down the hall (kind of like Law and Order) over and over and over and over again, until the producer was happy. They also shot in our offices. Lucky for me I took time to clean my office that morning. Before they arrived, it looked rather like a paper bomb had been detonated in that small space.What was surprising is that they were able to fit all their stuff into my little tiny space. The producer wondered if my office was stuffy because it was small and windowless. I assured her it wasn't, but considering how warm I like to keep my office, perhaps she found it to be stuffy.

Soon the day was over. The crew went home with their video, the interviewer went on to talk to more people, and the producer headed back to New York. We went back to our offices in a poor attempt to work. I think we all were ready to leave.

What I liked about the experience was that I discovered that all of these TV people are human. Not that I'd never considered this before, but I think we get this idea of TV people being...well...more than human...maybe. I had a great time, particularly with the camera crew. They were so relaxed and fun. It made it ok to have to film the same shot fifteen times. I also liked the fact that we never felt that we were being led to say things we didn't mean. Now either that means that they are really slick, or that they were sincere about creating a fluff piece.

We've been told that the piece might air next week unless a huge news story breaks.As soon as I know, I'll post the information. I'm really hoping we won't be pre-empted by the latest Saddam-rant from court. I'd hate to have my few recorded moments in the Twilight Zone displaced by an attention hungry madman.

I have learned a bit about visibility from this. In spite of what we're taught my the very media that I interacted with this week, people are interested in things that are curious, and don't much worry about how the person with the curious experience might look. Yes, you do need to look pretty when you are on tv, but I believe that if you are interesting enough, looks don't mean as much.

What I'm trying to say is this--being visible is more than skin deep. People will see you if you have something to show for besides good looks. Visibility of interest is much more valuable than just being pretty. So this week try to find ways to extend your visibility. Take chances, have an adventure. Perhaps there's a Richard from CNN in your future!

PS: I almost forgot to mention what show we're featured on, and when to watch. We will be featured on Paula Zahn Now! I'm not even sure what time it airs, but as soon as I'm sure, I'll post it for all of you.

"Some leaders are born women."

2006-03-09T08:37:00.000-05:00

I discovered something about yesterday that is just way cool. Yesterday I turned on my computer and my Answers.com feed came up along with my Google bar and all the other information feeds I get. You have to understand, I love having access to information. I'm like the poster girl for the Information Superhighway. Anyway, on my Answers feed, there was a little article on this special celebration for women called International Women's Day. I never knew there was a day for us! I mean there's Mother's Day, but what if you're not a mother?

Apparently this holiday, which is now celebrated all over the world, started in 1911 in Germany, Austria, and several other European countries to push the idea that women should have the right to do things like vote, work for equal pay, and run for political office. Since that time, International Women's Day has been celebrated each year with a social agenda in mind. The movement has a terrific website that includes an excellent time line delineating the growth of this social movement.
As the IWD website states, "International Women's Day is a time to reflect on the progress made, to call for change and to celebrate acts of courage and determination by ordinary women who have played an extraordinary role in the history of women's rights."

Something that is exciting and surprising is that there are at least 5-10 groups here in the United States that celebrates this day, and even extends the celebration through out the month. I found several groups online that are sponsoring activities including Mommy Community, which is sponsoring "Celebrating Women's Day" today and tomorrow. There is something really great about women supporting other women in their own empowerment.

Women live best in a community rich with other women who understand, listen, and most of all, guide one another through the journey of being a woman. I think that's why so many of us struggle in the 21st century. We don't have the connections women of the past did because we are so busy. Perhaps celebrations like this can make all of us more aware of how community can make a difference in our feminine visibilty.

Visibility on a Surreal Level

2006-03-02T18:24:00.000-05:00

This has been a surreal week for A Woman Visible and your's truly. Last Saturday, I found a comment on this blog that shocked and surprised me. A producer from CNN (yes, that CNN), left a comment and was interested in interviewing me about office spouses. I was thrilled, but was unsure if this was a real request, or just some weirdo attempting to get closer to me. One of the dangers of being visible online is that sometimes weirdos are drawn to the light. After asking some very pointed questions, and getting some very strong answers, I discovered that Richard and his request was very real.

I talked to him on Tuesday as I drove home from work. I had assumed that it was going to be a one shot, phone interview and that would be that. It was pretty surreal, but nothing I couldn't handle. Then he dropped the bomb--"Would you mind being on camera while talking about this?" I almost wrecked the van right on Powder Springs Road. I stuttered a moment. Then I realized just how big this had become.

I told Richard that I'd have to talk to my superiors. Right now I'm waiting on the PR guy at school to say the word. If all goes well, you may be able to see me on TV sometime in the near future.

See what online journaling can do to your life?

When I signed up to be visible, I didn't exactly have this in mind.

Stay tuned...

How Visible is Too Visible?

2006-02-25T19:06:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, I saw a couple of things that made me consider how far we should go to be visible, and what should we be modeling for young girls. First, there were the Olsen twins. Remember them? The two cute little girls that we vicariously watched grow up on tv. Remember the awful little movies they made? Remember when they went off to college and became media mogels? Take a look at this latest photo spread of the girls on People's faboo website.

Is it just me, or are these photo's disturbing? Designer James Mischa (who apparently is the one that designed the napkins the girls are wearing) says, "They are definitely young women who are coming into their own." Into their own what? They look like couple of Dracula's vampire women waiting for their master to return with someone to feed on! All they need is fangs! I thought they were trying to be role models for younger girls. I just wonder what message they're trying to send to the young girls they are attempting to influence. Is it, if you're rich enough, you can dress and act anyway you like? Or maybe, once you make your millions by being cute, you can wander around a big, huge, empty mansion, and stare at the mirrors and cameras with equally big, empty eyes as a testament to how much you've accomplished. Why can't we celebrate girls becoming women without dressing them up like high-priced call girls and then giving lip service to their "accomplishments." I believe in women learning to accentuate their outer beauty, but not at the price of their inner beauty.

In a related story, CNN ran an interesting story this week concerning the latest Vanity Fair cover. Amanda sent this to me and I just couldn't stay silent about this. Another one of my favorite blogs, Judith HeartSong also had comments related to this story. Now, I understand Judith's opinion. The human body as art is perfectly beautiful--male or female. I have taught my children to respect the nude in art. My daughter has even been known to draw nudes (though I have warned her against doing this at school). This being said, I have to agree with the CNN article--"where are the naked men?" We can watch movies and see women in all their naked glory, but we only are given men's butts when they are nude. Now, I'm not saying I want to see more naked men in the movies. As much as I have enjoyed Mel Gibson's naked butt for many years, I'm not pushing for more than that. What I am pushing for though is for us to consider how Hollywood approaches women's visibility.

The cover in question has two rather successful actresses in their altogether, while the male in the photo is nuzzling Keira Knightly with his clothes on. These actresses don't need to show themselves in this way. This will in no way help their careers, and to make matters worse, they are so skinny looking it's almost scary. Once again, I ask, what does this say to young girls and young women who are trying to figure out how to be visible in our society? Does it say that society only values women's visibility as long as it's physical visibility? What if you're like the majority of American women who fit the neo-classical version of physical beauty, rather than the 21st century stick-waif version of physical beauty?

I have to wonder if, after all our talk of "I am woman, hear me roar," no one really wants to hear us roar or see us in all our powerful, marvelous glory, especially when they seem satisfied to see woman naked and vulnerable, or trying to look older, or younger, or not like who we really might be under that sheer excuse for a dress.

I'm not a prude, but I do think we should show more pride about being total women, and not settle for what society (especially Hollywood and the media) portrays as beautiful and visible.

And Now the Rest of the Story--Trip to Philadelphia, Part Tre

2006-02-23T00:55:00.000-05:00

I got so caught up in my trip last week that I never shared the rest of the story. I enjoyed Philadelphia a great deal! It was a remarkable city! I did not like the fact that it was dirty, but I guess all cities are dirty to some degree. What I liked about the city outweighed the dirtiness, I assure you.

Friday I got up to rain. It was 54 degrees, and I knew that I wouldn't be able to do anything until after lunch, so I did the good teacher thing and attended part of the conference. I tried to go to a session, but because I got caught talking to a book rep about some upcoming technology for the classroom, I didn't make it. So, I loafed around a bit, went back to my room, watched some tv, and then came down for lunch. I also went to check on the ipod I had signed up to win (it was a silent auction and the price was good) and discovered that I had won the darn thing!

Lunchtime came, and my travelling companion and I decided to walk the six blocks to Independence Square. We also decided that we'd wait till we got there to eat. We wanted Philly Cheesesteaks, but we also wanted to eat inside. Lucky for us, we got to Independence Square before we were too hungry to care. At first we didn't know where to go for lunch, but then we found The Bourse. The Bourse originally housed a stock exchange, but was converted into a shopping area and food court. It was there that we found our Philly Cheesesteaks. All I can say is, "WOW!" We watched as they cooked the steaks and onions with the can of Cheese Whiz on one side of the grill staying hot, and then as they put our sandwiches together. I know some folk warned me about people behind the counter being rude, but I didn't find that to be the case here. If anything, the man behind the counter (I assumed he was the owner) was quite interested (especially in yours truly) and chatty. We talked for several minutes while our sandwiches were being prepared, and he was very curious about the South. It was a fun moment. The sandwich was to die for. Absolutely one of the best things I've ever eaten. So, if you're ever in Philadelphia, go to the Bourse, go through the revolving doors, and head straight toward the back of the building. I believe the place was called Rick's Philly Cheesesteaks. Yu-um!

After filling our bellies with Cheesesteaks and some of the best fries I've ever eaten, we headed out to see the Liberty Bell. It was like going through airport security. Before we could see the museum and the Bell, we had to be scanned, and so did our bags. I guess it's all part of that homeland security thing now. Anyway, we finally made it through and got to look at the museum. I love all the history, it gives you a real sense of why this is an important American icon. Then I laid eyes on it. All things considered, it's not that big of a deal. Really...I guess that's why I almost cried when I stood next to it. It was amazing. I wanted to touch it but couldn't, of course. It was broken, and the wood supporting it was obviously old, and in all that, it was one of the most moving things I would see that day. Took my breath away...

Once we were done paying homage to the Bell, we crossed the street to Independence Hall (also known as the Pennsylvania State House, thank you very much). Unfortunately, we were number 86 and 87 and ended up having to wait for thirty minutes to get inside. This wouldn't have been a big deal, except that the temperature was dropping outside. When we started at noon, the temperature was right at 54 degrees, but by this time, two hours later, it had dropped to a stiff 40 degrees. Fortunately, we met a family that was also waiting to get in, and we talked for the longest time. I also got to examine the statue of Washington and see a few other smaller things while waiting. I learned that Washington actually had a house right where the Liberty Bell stands now.

We got to see Independence Hall, finally. It was worth the wait. All I could think of is how much my dad would have loved the place. Even though most of the furniture is reproduction, it's still really cool to see. Also the flooring is cool. Yes, I look at the flooring. It was either pegged or put together with hand made nails. Very cool! All of the rooms were really small, and the furniture was too.

Finally, we spent our last half hour at the Franklin museum. It was so great. There was furniture from his house, comments by people from his period, and then, outside were the foundations of his house. I even got a look at his privy. I would have taken pictures there, but my battery died while I was on this excursion, so I have to deal with memories.

We left for the hotel at around 4 and it was 38 degrees outside. To say we were glad to see the Marriot was an understatement. Overall, the trip was well worth it. I learned a great deal, and I enjoyed what I experienced while I was there. I would love to go again!

How Should a Woman Lead? A Few Tips from Galadriel

2006-02-22T23:40:00.000-05:00

I woke up this morning thinking about some things that are happening where I work (I've been doing that a lot lately) that are less than pleasant, which led to me considering what it is that differentiates a good leader from a bad leader. More specifically, I began to think about what it is that differentiates a good female leader from a bad. In doing this, I thought of a list of things that make females in leadership positions less than desirable to work with, or "too much" to deal with. Some of the things I came up with included attributes such as being controlling, becoming self-serving, and acting condescending. I've seen these same problems with male leaders, but in women these attributes seem particularly upsetting. I guess we expect something different.
These thoughts led me to consider good leadership qualities in women. A good leader is open to many ideas and allows her workers to do their jobs in their way (as long as the way isn't destructive), she does things to benefit everyone in the department, and she gives gifts back to her workers that will enhance what the workers already do (these aren't necessarily gifts that are tangeble). Then it hit me--Galadriel is the icon for the great female leader. Galadriel is the "Lady of Lorien" and the queen of the Elves in J.R.R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy. In Fellowship of the Rings, the fellowship (a group that is all male, I might add) come into her country not long after Gandalf is taken from them. She and her husband, Celeborn, allow them to take refuge in her forest for a season.
Even though she is married, it is clear that Galadriel is the one that is important here. She has a strong partnership with Celeborn, but she is clearly the leader in the relationship and in the politics of Lorien. She is not, however, a shrill, exacting leader. Instead, she is graceful and commands (but never demands) the respect and love of the people around her (even Gimli the dwarf comes to love her), she never condescends because she doesn't have to, and she understands the gifts of each person she encounters, and knows what their best is. Even when she's tempted to lead in a different, more harsh way, she turns from that temptation. When faced with taking the One Ring and using it to bring her dream of peace and harmony to fruition, Galadriel responds:

And now at last it comes. You will give me the Ring freely! In place of the Dark Lord you shall set up a Queen. And I shall not be
dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Morning and the Night! Fair as the Sea and the Sun and the Snow upon the Mountain! Dreadful
as the Storm and the Lightning! Stronger than the foundations of the earth. All shall love me and despair!

Galadriel understands that power used without considering her people, without thinking of what will make things better in the long term, is power that may be used in a positive effect, but ultimately will demoralize the very people that she should be helping and leading. She also understands that this power will not only harm her people, but change her in a way that would cause her to lose herself:

She lifted her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illumined her alone and left all else dark. She stood
before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and
the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice
was soft and sad.

'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'

By remaining Galadriel, she maintains her ability to lead in a gentle, feminine way. This allows her to be more productive as well as grants her people the opportunity to be more productive. Not only does she lead in a gently, instinctive way, but she also notes and supports the gifts of the individuals. When the fellowship leaves Lorien, Galadriel eats with them and then gives each of them gifts. No gift is given lightly, and no gift is an empty gift. Each gift is an amplification of something that each member already has inside himself. For Sam, she gifts him with a box of earth and a Malloran (a tree) nut because he has the gift of renewal and growth (and he uses this gift to great advantage when rebuilding the Shire later on). Frodo receives a vial of light from a star, reflecting his own inner light that makes him the perfect candidate to bear the Ring. With this ability she can be not only a strong leader, but one that is supportive without being controlling (notice that she doesn't tell them how she wants them to use each gift), that is concerned with knowing the strengths of her people, and knows that she has no strength without the strength and genuine love of her people. It is this that makes her not only powerful, but beautiful, and visible as a true leader.
I know that this is the type of leader I want to work for, and that I want to be.

My first day in Philly--Part Two

2006-02-16T23:40:00.000-05:00

After this, I went up to begin my day of conferencing. The sessions were actually interesting, but I was more than happy when lunch came. One of the teachers I travelled with and I went to lunch at Reading Market (pronounced red-ding). Reading Market
is an open market that sells just about everything in the universe, especially food. Going there for lunch is a bit overwhelming. I just wandered and stared for a while. Then we found the place that sold fresh seafood, and served seafood lunch. I had the best restaurant crabcake I've ever eaten, and paid a reasonable price. I then proceeded to find every chocolatier in the market. I bought some lovely "blueberry clusters" (chocolate covered blueberries), and came back for more conferencing. This evening, we went to Maggiano's, a lovely old-style Italian restaurant that is actually a chain. We have one in Atlanta, but I've never eaten there. The Chianti was a perfect compliment to the mushroom ravioli al forno I had for dinner. The cup of coffee completed the experience. Unfortunately, I did not have room for tiramisu or anything sweet.

Something curious, but not surprising, I suppose, happened yesterday afternoon, not long after I arrived. In a part of town called Germantown, a stone steeple from a 150 year old church building fell. This might not have been a big deal, except there were children at the church at the time. Thankfully, the children were evacuated, and no one was injured. Still, it was a big enough deal that the church has vowed to tear down what's left of that steeple. The church is an old gothic-style church, and it is a shame that it is apparently in enough disrepair that the structure is beginning to deteriorate.

Another weird thing that happened tonight: a guy walked into a pizza joint and swore he had a bomb strapped on. He told the crowded restaurant that someone had better call 911. Someone kindly complied (out of fear, no doubt), and the cops arrested him. Very scary.

Well, it's time for me to go to bed. I have a busy day tomorrow. I just wanted to catch up. Tomorrow and Saturday, pictures, I hope. I haven't taken many today because I was mostly in sessions, and I doubted very seriously that you (or my children) would be very interested in seeing a bunch of teachers talking shop. We find it stimulating, but we only account for less than 1% of the population, so I'm not going to bore you with silly pictures.

Have a blessed evening!

Observations of the City of Brotherly Love

2006-02-16T15:33:00.000-05:00

I have been in Philadelphia for twenty-four hours (roughly), and so far, it’s been great! I do have pictures, but I probably won’t post them until tonight after dinner. Right now I am sitting in the lobby of the Marriot watching people move in and out of the motel. It’s a curious thing really. I don’t remember seeing this many people last year in Albuquerque, but I’m sure it has everything to do with the size of the town.
One thing I have yet to adjust to is the fact that I am living, for the moment, in a tower that is one part of the huge system of man-made canyons that makes up central Philly. I never new a city could be so large. Atlanta is a big city, but not in the fashion of Philadelphia. I’m not sure I can really quantify the difference except to use the logic of a child and say that it’s just different.
This morning I made my way down here to sit at Starbucks and use their wireless connection. This Starbucks has a rather colorful person that is apparently a regular in the early morning. Her name is Rose. I have not formally met Rose, but she seems to be a fixture at this location. I’m not completely sure, but I think that Rose is a bona fide bag lady. She was wrapped in an old coat and a scarf that had seen its better days. Her lips were smeared with pink lipstick, as if she was trying to hold on to at least a little bit of civility. All around her chair were bags. We’re not just talking shopping bags, or plastic bags, but what looked like make up bags, and bags that glittered, and bags that were beautiful. For a while she snoozed as I worked on my paper that should have been posted last night, and then an old man, who must also be a regular, sat down and began to talk to her. That’s how I learned her name. I wondered what Rose had been through to come to this point in her life. They talked about the weather. She observed that last night wasn’t as cold as nights earlier in the week. I wondered where she had slept, and wondered just how cold she had been. My first reaction was to feel pity, but then she just didn’t seem to need pity. She seemed ok with her life. People seemed to see her as someone special enough to ask how she was doing and address her by name. I found that mildly comforting and nice. Now I have a better understanding of what “City of Brotherly Love” might mean. As the city came to life, and the sidewalk snow dunes began to melt, Rose picked up her bags and entered the morning.
Tonight, I’ll be back to tell you of my experience at Reading (pronounced red-ding) Market. I hope to also post some pictures. The architecture in this city is fabulous. I’ll also share how one landmark in Germantown is literally disintegrating and causing people to run in fear.

A Woman Visible Goes to Philadelphia

2006-02-14T15:13:00.000-05:00

For the next few days, A Woman Visible will be broadcasting direct from Philadelphia, PA! I will be conferencing in Philadelphia until Saturday of this week. I will share some pictures, and continue to find interesting tidbits and articles that point to women being visible. I may even post a few photos from my trip as I find moments to visit certain sites around the city.

Can't wait to get started. See you in Phillie!

And We Thought Valentine's was Tough in the US

2006-02-14T08:45:00.001-05:00

This morning as I was driving to work listening to Scott Slade of WSB (as I do most every morning because of the traffic reports), I learned something very curious. According to Scott (who I trust implicitly), 70% of Japanese women hate Valentine's Day. Why is this? Is it because Japanese men are not romantic? Is it because Japanese women hate chocolate, diamonds, and flowers? No.

I did a little research and discovered that in Japan, Valentine's Day is celebrated twice. Yes, it's true. The Japanese celebrate Valentine's Day today, and then they celebrate again on March 1st (they call that day "White Day.") The rub is that on February 14th, the women have to gift the men in their lives with chocolate (this includes co-workers). Then the women have to wait a full two weeks to be gifted by the men on "White Day." The traditional gift for the women is white chocolate or lingerie. It's no wonder Japanese women dread today. Poor girls.

It would seem, however, that the younger generation of Japanese working women are taking a stand. According to Yahoo news, more and more women are taking the day and buying cheap chocolates for the men, but keeping the expensive chocolates for themselves. I don't support being selfish, but a girl's got to draw the line somewhere, right?

The Japanese themselves blaim the confectionary industry for this cultural Valentine's travesty. Apparently, the confectionary manufacturers created this double-edged sword for Japanese women to deal with back in 1947, when business was really rugged for them. The industry still counts on these two holidays to support their finances because, unlike Western candy companies, they don't have a booming Christmas or Easter rush.

So, ladies, as you pick through the box of Godiva's that your sweetie gave you on this day of days, or as you model the new diamond to your girlfriends, give a thought to your Japanese sisters, and the sacrifices they are making in anticipation of March 1st.

Kwan Chose the Best Thing in the End

2006-02-12T16:49:00.000-05:00

I am a huge Olympic fan, and especially love the winter games. This is funny because I'm not a winter person at all. Yesterday turned into a bit of a bittersweet day for this fan. On one hand, the US team won it's first gold medal when Chad Hedrick skated to victory in the 5000m event. What a start! Then I watched as Scott Hamilton commented on how early Saturday practice went for the figure skaters and he revealed a nasty fall that Michelle Kwan took during that practice. I'm sure fans all over the world took a breath as she crashed on her side. I knew what was coming, but somehow there was a part of me that hoped it wasn't a bad fall.

I was wrong. This morning, Michelle Kwan withdrew from the Olympic games. The part of me that's a mom was relieved. I had worried about her since I saw her fall. The part of me that is the competitive woman felt deep sorrow as I knew that her dream was being bent in a direction she didn't necessarily want to go. I wanted to reach out to her and tell her that there was more to come. She's only 25, she has the world at her feet. Somehow, however, I knew that would be small comfort compared to what she must be feeling.
What is a great thing in all of this is that she managed to keep herself together and make a very difficult choice with the best attitude. She could have been arrogant and refused to admit that she was in pain, and make a fool of herself in front of millions. Instead, she did the best thing for herself and withdrew. Now others will take their shot, and perhaps, go home with a medal. What she will go home with will be so much more full of impact. She will have her health and her determination to apply to what ever she has coming to her next.

Michelle, you are a beautiful, graceful, and gracious woman. It's good to know that there are women in your sport that are visible in all the right ways. Godspeed.!

Where Have All the Women Gone?

2006-02-09T12:44:00.000-05:00

ABC News posted a story about couple of hours ago that caught my eye as I scanned my Google desktop during lunch. Apparently a study of G-Rated movies revealed that "male characters outnumbered females 3-to-1" in the 101 movies that were surveyed from 1990-2004. What concerns the sponsors at this study is that "the disparity diminishes the importance of women in children's eyes."

The goal here, according to the article, is to push Hollywood toward a more "balanced gender representation" in movies. Geena Davis, star of Commander in Chief and founder of SeeJane says, "By making it common for our youngest children to see everywhere a balance of active and complex male and female characters, girls and boys will grow up to empathize with and care more about each others' stories." Their claim is that this disparity matters because it is one part of how children learn what it means to be male and female.

Women's visibility in the media has been a concern for decades. How are they depicted? How many strong roles vs. empty roles are they afforded by producers, writers, and directors. I wonder if the lack of visible roles is as important as a lack of positive female roles. The study only looked at G rated movies, but how many children are allowed to view movies that are PG13 or R rated and how do those movies measure up? I feel more concerned that children are learning male and female lessons that involve women being very visible in very negative, demeaning ways. Do our young males disrespect women because very early on women are minimalized in their stories, or because the women they do see in the media are exposed in demeaning, unflattering ways? I could ask the same about our girls and their views on men.

I also wonder how this group wants chldren to see women portrayed once they do get adquate screen time. Most of the G rated movies I've watched portray women as

a) The mom

b) The evil witch

c) The clueless mom

d) The wise grandmother

e) The woman in peril/fairy tale princess (Disney is strong in this category)

f) The spunky younger sister

What about the girls that are looking for visibilty, but don't fit the categories presented? Ah, now I see what Davis means. Such limited options can diminish a child's options--if that's the only influence she has in her life. Children have so many other influences that are as strong or stronger than what they view in movies. Girls look to their mothers, grandmothers, fathers, grandfathers, family friends, and each other to find their own visibilty. I think we have to look at the whole experience, and measure accordingly.

So, should we worry about the disparity that Hollywood seems to support? Maybe, but we should also understand there is more than movie magic that grows a girl's (or a boy's) identity, and allows them to journey to their ultimate visibility in society.

You can read the study yourself: Where the Girls Aren't: Gender Disparity Saturates G-Rated Films .

"This Will Be An Everlasting Love" and Other Societal Fallacies

2006-02-08T23:32:00.000-05:00

My best bud and fellow single, Amanda and I have noticed an ugly trend in advertising here in the Atlanta area. It could be that this is a nationwide phenomenon, but I'm not sure. It's those damn EHarmony commercials! They show happy couples mooning over each other, and gushing about how EHarmony saved them from the eternal damnation of being single and lonely. Ok, they're not really saying that, but the message is clear: You have a soulmate, and for the low, low fee of $50 a month, we can find him for you.

Now, honestly I've been tempted by the EHarmony thing. I have. According to the founder, Dr. Neil Clark Warren, all you have to do is fill out a compatibility questionaire, and send it to his firm. They will match you with people that you should be compatible with. It sounds simple enough, but it also sounds too good to be true. In an inteview with Rebecca Traister for Salon, Warren "boasts more marriages per match than any other Web site; 10,000 can be documented. But Warren and Forgatch (co-founder of the site) both suspect the number is closer to between 30,000 and 50,000." Wow. With a rate that extraordinary, how can you lose, right? I even know a couple that ended up marrying after meeting on the site (the cool thing is that they are soul mates), but even they have told me that it was one of those longshots. They both had gone out with several others the site matched to them with limited success.

That's my argument with EHarmony and other sites that boast the ability to make that "perfect match." How can a group of people that have never even met me know how to connect me with my soul mate? Of course, Dr. Warren would say that his 436 question survey is constructed to make my match a scientific one. I have to wonder if this "scientific" approach will take into consideration my ability to draw weirdoes like moths to a flame. What if my compatibility rating only connects me with those same weirdoes? It would be my luck I'd end up being compatible with Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons. I've had a hard enough time finding "the one" on my own, and now some guy with a theology degree is going to match me up. uh huh, right...

I've been reading around the net about EHarmony, mostly because I wanted to see what other people were thinking. If there were really 30,000 to 40,000 success stories from this site, you'd think that there would be loud, racous rejoicing coming from the Internet peanut galleries. What I found, however, was quite the opposite. For every "success story" that is displayed on the EHarmony website, it would seem there are stories of incompatability (Rebecca Traister tried it, but after five bad experiences, she stopped trying), and worse, stories of not meeting anyone. This idea of "this will be an everlasting love" seems a bit over-optimistic to me. No one can guarrantee you will get that everlasting love. All they can do is give you the chance to meet men (or women, if you're a guy) that might, possibly, maybe, oh heck, we don't really know be THE ONE. The operative word here is chance. To say that you can guarrantee more is a blantant untruth.

This is not to say that we should just give up, or not try at all. I just think we need to take a pause before we jump off and pay $50 a month for a glorified matchmaker. It is hard to go through the necessary work to find a good relationship, and I know that online services can help. Perhaps my reticence comes from the fear that lies just below my personal surface. Maybe I'm afraid that by trying a site like this I'm admitting my own ineptitude in the relationship department. I'm not sure.

I'm also not sure that I'm not being manipulated by society in general into believing there's something wrong with my being single. There seems to be a push this time of year to get a mate if you don't have one already. I'm sure this is connected with Valentine's Day. It's a vicious cycle that goes like this: companies want to make more money, so they go to the advertisers, who create this series of ads proclaiming the advantages of being goo-goo eyed over someone who is your 'soul mate.' Then the consumer (i.e. you and me, oh single readers), who is lonely and empty here at this most important holiday, will buy into the idea, and find a mate. All in time for the new mate to purchase some of that jewelry I mentioned a couple of entries ago. It's a huge jewelry conspiracy! That's what it is!

All jests aside, there is this underlying message in all of these sorts of ads that singleness is not a desired life possibility. Maybe it's not for some. Maybe it's not the exact desired life path for me. Nevertheless, should I be beat on by the media or society because, at least in this part of my journey, I am single?

It's hard enough being single without being told that there's something wrong with you because you are single.

Perhaps, one day, I'll break down and cough up the $50 a month--but I think I'd rather take my chances, learn how I draw weirdoes, and try to change that before I make a commitment to a faceless matchmaker.

"Matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match..." as if.

Anyone for a Little Coffee?

2006-02-08T00:15:00.000-05:00

Gather around, girls (ok, guys are invited too), grab your cups and let's talk.

This week's "Coffee Klatch Discussion" stems from something I've been thinking about since last week. A new friend of mine and I were talking last week, and we discovered that we have the same taste in men. What allowed us to make this discovery is the joint admission that we had a crush on a mutual acquaintance for a lot of the same reasons. I felt validated that someone else valued this man, but I also felt a bit silly. A crush? It's admissions like this that make me sense that twelve year old girl that I know lives inside me making herself known.

I've had crushes off and on all my life. As outgoing as I seem in real life, there's a part of me that goes all silent and a bit scared when it comes to addressing my feelings for a man that may or may not acknowledge my existence. I know, you're waiting for my question. "Jess, where are you going with this? This isn't a whinefest is it? Isn't that what your third blog is for?" The answers are 1) I am leading to this week's question. 2) No, this isn't a "poor, pitiful, single Jess" entry. 3) Yes, whining is what my third blog is for, and I promise this will not lead to me wallowing in my own ridiculousness.

Here's the question, for your approval, and hopefully, your response.

Coffee Klatch Discussion Question #2:

Have you had an "adult crush?" What did you do about it? Also do you feel that there is an age when having a crush is a bit ridiculous?

Here's my answer:

Like I said before, I have had several "adult crushes." What I find most frustrating is that I see other women just step up and either voice their attraction openly, or go on what I call "hot pursuit," but I'm not so bold. I feel silly because I'm bold in other areas of my life, just not this part of my life. So, I usually don't do anything about the crush except suffer with the idea that I'm crazy about this person, but I don't have a clue what they think of me. Then I create a whole idea that maybe they don't see me at all, thus the whole invisibility thing I'm trying to get past. It's a vicious cycle really. In the last year, I've had three crushes, and how many of them know how I feel--you got it, zero! They are all fine, great guys, but I just didn't have the guts to say or do anymore than be nice. That's how I deal with this sort of thing--I just be nice.

Honestly, I don't feel that a crush at any age is ridiculous. You feel what you feel. I am beginning to learn it's really about what you will do with those feelings that count. If you stew in your little crush, then maybe it's not so healthy. I think that when you do that, you miss the boat so to speak. What's the worst that could happen? Oh yeah, they could say something like, "No way." But is that really so awful? Can't we revel in the fact that we were bold? I think the answer is "Yes." So raise your cups, take a sip (who put rum in this coffee?), and go out and be a bit bolder. Maybe the rum in the coffee will help.

Disclaimer: Let it be known that all readers are welcome to comment in the Coffee Klatch. While I do tend to aim toward a female audience, male participation is encouraged and welcomed. Simply add a comment here in the comment box, or comment on your blog and then leave a link to share your thoughts with the rest of the known (and unknown) universe. My only request is that you keep it clean and on topic.

P.I.C.K.ing a partner? Let Uncle Sam help you!

2006-02-04T18:46:00.000-05:00

One of my favorite journalers in J-land (AOL's journaling community) is John Scalzi. John will write about anything and always has something amusing or interesting to add to the subject. Today, John mentioned that the U.S military is now doing something to help their soldiers to build strong, long-lasting relationships. It's no secret that military marriages often don't survive for very long or are very rocky. The official name of this program is Premarital Interpersonal Choices and Knowledge, but it's also called (and I love this title) How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk(ette). Apparently there are lots of people involved with making this happen, but what I find impressive is that the program gets couples to slow down and think past the that first blast of hormones, emotion, and lovesickness. What I find particularly interesting is that P.I.C.K. not only dispenses good advice to couples, but offers support groups not only locally, but also right on the website.

I wish there had been a program like this for civilians before I got married. I have to think that there are others that wish the same thing. I did have some advice in this area, but it wasn't exactly the clearest or the best. Most churches have some form of premarital counseling , but sometimes I think the ministers are often either too close to the couple to be honest (like the minister that married me and my ex), or they have never seen the couple before and just do the wedding ( I know of a couple whose "premarital counseling" consisted of meeting the man doing thirty minutes before the wedding. He then prayed for fifteen minutes during the service about the ills of divorce. Ten years later, well, the couple divorced...). It took me years to really understand what marriage was all about. A program like P.I.C.K. could have better informed me about picking a mate. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have made a mistake anyway, but I might have actually engaged something other than my heart and hormones before I got engaged and married myself.

It's an encouraging idea and it's good to know that Uncle Sam cares so much!

Do You Have an Office Spouse?

2006-02-03T10:24:00.000-05:00

I was listening to Neil Boortz this morning while attempting to work (it's Friday, how do you think it's going), and he started talking about the idea of an "office spouse." According to John Intini, "A good office spouse can read your mind and your mood -- almost as well as your real husband or wife." This is a relationship that is totally platonic--sex never enters the picture. Belinda Skelton, Neil's producer, observed that it sounded like a friendship to her, but according to Intini it is a relationship that runs deeper. An office spouse is your closest confidant at work, and is, at the same time, someone you can comfortably introduce to your spouse.

As a single woman, this is an interesting concept. There has been lots of discussion over the years about whether or not men and women can be "just friends" and not have a sexual relationship. Initi says that an "unwritten code of ethics that governs office marriages demands that never, under any circumstances (like, for example, after too much booze at the office Christmas bash) can sex enter the relationship." The only problem that I can see is if the code is broken, which apparently rarely happens. The office spouse relationship seems to point to the idea that men and women can be just friends--very close friends, but just friends. I have some experience with this kind of friendship. As of now I have a couple of guys that might qualify as "office spouses." We go to lunch, help each other out, talk office politics, and hang out (although not outside the workplace). They are both happily married and much older than me. We hang out because we are hall neighbors and we share a common sense of humor. I also appreciate them because I know if I have a work problem, I can go to them and deal with it in confidence.

It's almost a comfort that we can have relationships like this. There's no pressure and no problems that come with an office romance. When the relationship ends, there's no real fall out.
So think about it--do you have an office spouse? If so, how does your relationship work and what makes you close to that person?

Welcome to the "Month of Luv"

2006-02-02T19:52:00.000-05:00

The onslaught has begun, ladies. You know what I'm talking about. Turn on any T.V., radio, or computer that's connected to the Internet, and suddenly, in your face, is that all-encompassing symbol of the kind of love that lasts past the first date, the first kiss, the first--well, you know. Yes, it is the beautiful "diamond surrounded by rubies" set that every jeweler in town swears that you want for Valentine's Day.

I heard my first Valentine's Day ad on the radio about two weeks ago. It was Tom Shane,
a local jeweler who has made about a gazillion dollars off of men who are in love and women who encourage their men to buy them beautiful jewelry. Honestly, I like Tom. Tom is an "old friend" so to speak. He and I go way back to the eighties, when I was in college. He has a rather plain vanilla voice that is funny, mostly because it's very deadpan. I had a friend, Steve Elliot, who did a perfect, dead-on Tom Shane imitation. We would run announcements at the Student Center and he would do Tom's voice. It was great! I don't resent that Tom wants to sell his jewelry. If I had a serious sweetie, I'd even want him to shop with Tom. You have to admire a jeweler that travels all over the world and picks the stones himself.

The second Valentine's Day ad I actually saw on TV. It was from Kay Jeweler's(you know, "Every kiss begins with Kay").The thing that makes me crazy about the Kay ads is that they are actually romantic and nice. I usually cry over them and I am never really sure if I'm crying because I am moved by the romantic moments being played out before me or if I'm actually moved by jealousy because I know that this is going to be one more Valentine's Day when I won't get a box of anything from anyone except my kids and my dad.

In my move to be more visible, I have had to change my attitude a bit about Valentine's Day. This is a difficult shift for me because for a very, very long time I have loathed Valentine's Day and all things concerning its celebration. I deluded myself by saying that I hated it because it was a purely commercial holiday that pushed us to say "I love you" when we should be saying that to our partners, lovers, boyfriends, girlfriends, and everyone that means anything to us every day. Now, in 2006, I have to honestly admit it--I hate Valentine's Day because I am jealous. I'm so embarrassed, but I have to admit it. I want roses, chocolates, and yes, even the ruby and diamond sets that the jewelers push on all of us this time of year. Of course, to get any of that, I have to change my attitude, right? I don't want anyone to think I'm "cold" or "unromantic" (if you saw my office, you'd know I was far from unromantic). People tell me I need to open myself up for romance. The only problem is that I can't find the key to open the door. Maybe I'll find the key if I just keep looking.

As part of my effort to open myself to this holiday, I went poking around the net and found a whole history of Valentine's Day. I guess if I want to reconnect, I should at least understand the history of the holiday, right? Then I found it! The History Channel has a whole huge article on the history of the day. This is heartening (I think I made a funny). Valentine's Day has everything to do with a man doing the right thing in spite of a powerful Caesar, getting a girlfriend, and dying for what he believes in. So, this holiday really shouldn't be about romance at all! It should be about men (and women) doing their best, and standing for their beliefs. I can love Valentine's Day again! YES!

Still, a ruby and diamond pendant would be an especially nice way of having someone "do the right thing."

A Woman Visible: Coretta Scott King (1927-2006)

2006-01-31T09:32:00.000-05:00

The big news today here in Atlanta is the death of Coretta Scott King.

I will be honest--while Mrs. King, wife of Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., did many things to help her husband's cause even after his death, she also did many things that hurt his cause. She was a complex, controversial woman whose presence will hover over the Atlanta area as well as the civil rights movement long after her children bury her and memorialize her at the King Center. I didn't want to write about her at first, but then it hit me--she was a woman visible during a time that marked her doubly:

1) she was a woman in a male-dominated movement

2) she was an black woman living in the Deep South

What made her terribly visible was her willingness to be vocal about what she believed in, and her willingness to stand up in a political arena that wasn't initially geared for a woman with such a large presence. To get what she wanted she often pushed the envelope of what we in the South would consider geniality. Ok, to be more blunt, she was sometimes downright rude. People didn't agree with her, people didn't like her--but things got done around her.

It was her force of nature approach that made the King Center a reality. It was her determination that made her a loud voice in the din of voices that raised after her husband was murdered. I don't have to like her to understand that she was someone that could be considered the "matriarch of the civil rights movement" (WSB radio this morning).

She was a woman visible, like it or not.

My prayers are with her family.

A Biblical Woman Visible

2006-01-29T17:26:00.000-05:00

Since the beginning of the new year, we've been studying the book of Ruth in my Sunday school group. It's been a really interesting study because the class is mostly women and we've focused primarily on the relationships that are made in this book.

I talked a little about what I thought about this text and my classes response in The Other Invisible.

Ruth is a curious, wonderful character in the Bible. She is an outsider who becomes a part of the Hebrew fabric. She is a woman that is bold, beautiful, and adventurous. She is a woman visible.

Today we discussed chapter 3 of Ruth. (The lovely picture featured today is the cover of a book called This Ruth by Harold S. Paisley, a devotional book published by Olive Press).
For those of you that are not familiar with the story, let me give you a quick over view: Naomi, who lives in a place called Moab and is Hebrew, loses her husband and both sons within a very short amount of time. She is left with only her two daughters-in-law, Orpah and Ruth. Naomi decides that she should go back to Israel to her village (most likely Bethlehem--she's related to the family that will be the house of David). She tells her daughters-in-law to go back to their parents. Orpah goes back to her parents, but Ruth does something remarkable. She decides that she will go back to Israel with Naomi, and become part of her family and people.

So the set off and go to Israel, where Naomi's people take them into the village. Because they are widows, the law allows for them to glean wheat from the fields during harvest time to eat.

It's there that we meet Boaz. I love the manliness of his response upon first seeing Ruth--"Whose woman is that?" This is a question that begs a few things:

1. Who is that woman? I've never seen her before.
2. Is she seeing anyone or is she married?
3. Who's family does she belong to?

Boaz is amazing. He makes sure she gets her share and a bit more of the grain, he offers her lunch (the first date in the Bible?), and he tells the other men working the fields to leave her alone. Ruth goes home after working the fields, and tells Naomi everything. Naomi is thrilled! Boaz is her kinsman, and by law, he may be able to help Ruth, and even, possibly, marry her. So, Naomi encourages her to get closer to Boaz by doing something a little sneaky. This is where Chapter Three begins, and my questions begin.

Read the chapter, if you like, and think about this:

Is doing this a form of pursuit? If so, is it ok to pursue a man so blatantly? Something I considered this morning was that Boaz started this, so it was ok for her to continue to show her interest. Also note how he acts--he's just so great! He's respectful, and kind. She is visible throughout the book,but is she visible in a positive or negative way? Can you explain why?

I will post my thoughts more clearly later. I'd love to see a discussion follow.

More later!

Is visibility only skin deep?

2006-01-28T12:10:00.000-05:00

Beth made a a really interesting statement in her response to my first Coffee Klatch Discussion that I think is worth considering. She said,

"I usually make myself visible through words. I tend to argue and I really like to be sure that someone understands my point. I got into an argument with a friend who people don't usually stand up to. I became very visible that night to a lot of people. I became stronger in their eyes."

Most of us that are writers tend to make ourselves visible via words. I am a vocal woman, as Beth can attest to because we are in a class together. For a long time, I wasn't so vocal. My divorce changed a lot of that. I learned that if I wanted to be visible as a person, I had to speak up. That speaking up got a work out when I went back to school, and then started writing on the Internet. So, I guess I've been visible in that sense for a long time. I'm just not sure that my visibilty has always been attractive.

I have moments of real abrasiveness. I say what I think. I never thought about how that would impact anything, I just shot for honesty. Now I wonder about my judgement. My daughter, who is now eleven, exhibits some of the same outspoken traits. This is good, but also bad. She has a tendency to become very visible in very harsh ways. I wish, sometimes, I could have modeled something more than harshness, and loud criticism about life and things around her when she was small.

So does vocal visibilty count? You bet! I think that just like visual visibility, presentation is everything. What I find especially interesting is that there isn't as much written about our vocal visibility as our visual. I guess it's societal. We want to be nice to look at, but I've learned that if I am vocally awful, then my visibility is going to be awful too.

What about you other vocally visible women? What do you think?

Shall we gather for coffee?

2006-01-25T23:00:00.000-05:00

One of the things I wanted to do with this blog is create discussion and thought among my readers. To me, that's really what makes blogs so incredible--the chance for community. On my other journal, I have an almost weekly question called "The Writer's Weekly Question." I wanted to try for the same thing here, but instead of focusing on writing, I will focus on questions to consider concerning what it means to be visible, and how we can impact our visibility. One of the resources that put me on to this idea of visibility is a lovely book called Captivating! by John and Staci Eldredge. The premise of the book is that women often miss opportunities to be visible because we are so busy turning our backs on the very things that make us feminine. What I am finding to be quite wonderful about this book is that they aren't saying what most women's books from the Christian POV seem to say--namely that women are most feminine when we are working for our families and our church. The Eldredges say that isn't the case, and goes on to support the idea that women are on a search for beauty, adventure, and ultimately, visibility (that answer to the question, "Am I lovely?").

So, here it goes, the first

Coffee Klatch Discussion:
Consider the first time you felt visible, and share what you remember about that experience. Was it a good thing or a bad thing? Now, consider the last time you felt visible. What happened to cause you to be visible? How did you know you were visible?

I'll go ahead and share my answer, just to get the ball rolling. The first time I really felt "visible" was at a dance I went to in high school. I wore this dress that was red and off the shoulders. It was beautiful, and I felt beautiful and totally visible. The last time was at a wedding I attended in October. I wore this wonderful brown dress, and actually caught a man (yes, he was single) checking me out. Even though he sees me every Sunday, it felt like he was looking at me for the first time and seeing something other than just plain Jess. I felt beautiful all evening!

OK, this is how this will work:

Anyone can participate in this discussion as long as you keep your comments on topic and clean (this is a "family" blog).
You can post your comments here, or leave a link and post your comments in your own blog.

Dr. Phil weighs in on Visibility--Should I Listen or Be Scared?

2006-01-24T05:36:00.000-05:00

Before I begin, let me tell you that I'm not a huge Dr. Phil fan. I think his show works like every other "dog and pony show" host on TV ("dog and pony show" = most talk shows on TV). He finds people with the worst kind of personal issues, invites them into his lavish studio to make fools of themselves in front of God and everyone else who might be watching, while he tries to offer "sage psychological advice." I digress, however, because this is not what I wanted to share this morning.

Yesterday, on my Bellsouth home page, I saw a link to a Dr. Phil article. Turns out it was sponsored by Match.com, one of the thousands of online dating services living on the Internet, but the article was still of interest. It was about how single women can make themselves more open to relationships--more visible. If I had been a smart blogger (I am about 80% of the time), I would have posted on the article right at that moment. I went back this morning, and the link had been changed to another article, called "Leave the Baggage Behind."

The article was written by Melanie Williams-Galuten and I guess she's basing her information on things Dr. Phil has said. I've heard all of his quotes she uses in this article before including "The past is over and the future hasn't happened yet." It's the same old, same old about not allowing your past relationships get in the way of what you may encounter in the present or future. There's a part of me that says, "I know all this... sigh...isn't there any other way?" What I really hate is that Dr. Phil and the author of the article may have a point, and maybe that's why I'm acting like my twelve year old about this. I am especially disturbed (is that the right word?) when Galuten points out, "if your bag is ‘packed ' there is no room for anyone else to get in. You must make some space for that other person to truly enter into your life. The relationship can't survive if there is no room." Don't you hate it when people you don't even know meddle? Still, in the search for visibility, this is some mighty strong advice.

After reading this article, I went on to research what Dr. Phil was saying on his website about this subject. Of course, he had something to say and had an article of his own called "Single and Sick of It." Apparently he had some singles my age on his show recently and they said a lot of the same things I've said about myself. They sabotage their possibilities,and I have to admit, I too have made a practice of sabotage. I've been too scared to open up to another person, made myself too busy, and been too harsh sometimes. This is probably stemming from that first point of baggage. So, maybe Dr. Phil has a point. Maybe I should make myself more available without being someone I'm not, and maybe, just maybe, I should dump the baggage. What do you think? Have you had similar thoughts?

What do you mean "a woman visible?"

2006-01-19T21:01:00.000-05:00

Welcome to my newest journal! If you are familiar with my original journal, The Other Invisible,
then you may know that this new journal connects to that original journal. For those of you that are new, let me explain myself and, in the process, explain this new journal.

When I started The Other Invisible, it was with the premise that I was a thirty-something, divorced woman who felt very invisible in a society that celebrates--no, worships women that are young and attractive. Since I started in June of 2005, I've learned quite a bit about myself and about how I am actually perceived. One of the things that I've learned is that, perhaps, I'm not as invisible as I thought I was, and, sadly, I may have contributed to my own invisibility.

Just as I originally wondered if other women felt invisible, I now wonder if other women have fallen into the trap of seeing themselves as invisible, and therefore causing themselves to be so. With that in mind, I have determined that this journal will be dedicated to sharing articles, and reviewing books that uplift single women and revealhow beautiful, adventurous, captivating, and strong they really can be.

This is not a journal that is going to try and tell you what to do. As Wil Wheaton
says often, "I'm not the boss of you." I can't tell you how to be a better woman. I can't tell you how to get a man. I can't tell you how to be a perfect woman. What I can do is share ideas that will help you to maybe see yourself in new and different ways.

I see this as a journey that is as much mine as it is anyone's.

Let's see if we can be seen in a new and brighter light.