I've always wanted to shave my head

But I can't. Oh social convention.

So a pixie cut is the closest I'll probably ever get.

I am getting my hair cut SHORT tomorrow, and I am currently afraid of looking like 1. a boy 2. a lesbian 3. Kate Gosselin so I really hope the stylist isn't awful.

I have been growing my hair out since I last got it cut short, sophomore year of college. The current length is the longest it's been maybe ever.

But it's been annoying me--and I want to donate it--and if I don't cut it all off now, when will I? I figure now is best. I have no man in my life to object--and I have noticed that guys have Opinions about hair. So since the only person I have to consult here is me, snips away.

oh please oh please don't let me look gross please

And THINK of all the money I'll save on shampoo.

Snow Daze

Ooooh I don't want to have school tomorrow

I absolutely don't

(five hours of student conferences followed by a presentation on Henry James? Let it not be, Dear Lord. Even so, come quickly, Snowpocalypse.)

I'm Every Woman?

This is a rant. This is only a rant. The result of too many videos of windbag preachers with faulty scriptural interpretation clogging up my facebook page and the misinformed and asinine defenses that come with them. This does not apply to many, many, many people, so when I use sweeping generalizations and fail to qualify them, understand that this is a rant.

Sometimes I get so frustrated with people.

Specifically (this is going to come with a lot of qualifiers) with the gender-stereotyped mindset of many of my fellow believers in the evangelical church.

The dynamic of June and Ward Cleaver is an incredibly loaded cultural icon: for some it heralds a Lost World, a harking back to the Way Things Should Be. For others it's a black-and-white reminder of what we have escaped. For still others it represents a cultural hilarity, an amusing artifact of our benighted ancestors. Either way, it is an image that has largely disappeared from the cultural landscape.

Living as my generation is in the midst of third wave feminism, girls [in my general socio-economic stratum] have been raised to believe that we can do anything we set our minds to. We can have the same careers as boys do. What were once closed doors, men-only clubs, are now viable options for a successful and fulfilling future, regardless of sex. This is what we are told; this is what we take for granted. Leaving aside the grandiose childishness of career opportunity, we've also been raised, for the most part, in an economic climate of career necessity. Our mothers worked outside the home because we needed groceries, or rent, or mortgage payments, as much as they did because they were following their dreams, or loved their work.

The point is that many of us were raised by working mothers as well as fathers. This is largely regarded as a necessary evil in the Church, rather than an historic opportunity or a possible good. The shifting gender roles of the 20th century have, in the evangelical church, been blamed on (not explained by) such anathematic movements as Feminism and Women's Lib (never mind the historical movements in gender that go way past Betty Friedan or even the activism of Margaret Sanger and her ilk. As though gender role shifts were nonexistent until their advent.).

At any rate, the churched children of my generation have been raised with a somewhat schizophrenic reading of gender roles: little girls are told to be anything they want to be, while little boys are told that they must, under no circumstances, relinquish the role of primary economic provider within a family structure. Young women are expected to simultaneously believe that careers are an open opportunity for them, and that housekeeperhood (not just mother- or wife-) is the obvious first and best choice, with all other callings, gifts, talents, or dreams becoming necessarily secondary to the undeniable claim staked by her reproductive organs and hormonal functions.

And so the little girls grow up dreaming of careers that they are expected to faithfully forfeit as soon as they wear a wedding band, or as soon as they first ask for maternity leave. While economic necessity forces many mothers to work, many pastors still paint working mothers as at best a worst case scenario (woman who would much rather be a keeper at home needs the income to make ends meet for her family) and at worst absolute selfishness (woman who despises children seeks self aggrandizement in a soulless search for money and prestige). Rarely are we presented any sort of middle ground, and just as rarely do we see a woman who feels a greater call to a particular field of work than to mothering, helpmeeting, or housekeeping, as a figure to admire or emulate.

Far be it from me to malign in any way the godly, holy calling of motherhood. I would never disgrace the insanely difficult, demanding, and challenging job of the stay-at-home mom by suggesting that it is somehow less than a career in itself. I will say, however, that even though women as a gender are built to carry children, not all women are called to be keepers at home. Not all women, despite their ability to carry children, or even their desire to bear children someday, feel called to forego the gifts that God has given them in favor of full-time housekeeping. If you are so called, be blessed. Work hard. Be devoted to that job. But if, like a case I have in mind, you are gifted in, say, languages, and feel called to work in international business, then do that. Do it well.

And--here's the kicker--do it even if and when you have kids. Why is it wrong to ask a man to take a prominent role in the home life of his children? Why does that make him somehow less manly? I am not advocating for stay-at-home dads. I am not saying that wives and mothers should all leave the home and enter corporate America--far from it. But I'm asking for a little reciprocity. I keep hearing the virtues of the "either-or" dynamic. What is so wrong about a "both-and" family? Why is a man providing for his family only considered in economic terms? What about emotionally? Spiritually? Surely a man can do a more fulfilling job as head of the household if he spends more time with his children, even if that means his wife maintains an extra-domestic career of some sort, whatever that looks like. Surely a woman would do a better job of raising her children if she showed them that she had a set of gifts and abilities that she used to make their lives better and to bring glory to God.

I guess what really gets me is the idea that everyone accepts that there is more than one type of man in the world--you have engineers and fighter pilots and dentists and cricketers and midshipmen and lawyers and accountants and professors and musicians. A man can be any of these things and still be considered manly. But too often (see disclaimer above) women who do likewise are not considered womanly enough. And that frustrates me. If a woman is following the will of God for her life, how could she be otherwise than womanly?

Tip

If you can, watch people enjoy eating something you cooked. It's the best.

Why I write; also, Why I don't

Do you know, I have so much terrible poetry stored up in me from my childhood; and, do you know, it still affects me, sometimes, more than some of the excellent poetry I have loved and learned since then?

I have High Ideas about art--I would rather not write at all than not write as well as I want to (I am understanding how stupid that is)-- but they are not right ideas. Is it better to produce something that meets my own personal standards of brilliance or to produce something that affects people, that stays with them, however lowbrow it may be? I can't decide.

On the one hand, I feel personally compelled not to contribute to the mass of terrible writing that is already available for consumption. A recent trip to B&N resulted in an hour of bemused disgust in viewing sequel after sequel of Pride and Prejudice, including but not limited to Mr. Darcy's Sister; Mr. Darcy's Daughters; Mr. Darcy and Me; Elizabeth's Betrothal; The Shades of Pemberley; Mr. Darcy, Vampyre; The Wooing of Elizabeth, equivalent in my mind to a sort of literary prostitution. Poor Jane. Of course you can imagine something that's already been imagined. Of course you can warp what's already been created. If you can't write or imagine or "make up" yourself, that is. I don't think loathing is too strong a word for what I feel for this sort of "literature". I hate it. I think it could all be destroyed and the world would be a better place.

The same is true, to an even greater extent, with fiction marketed as "Christian." I pick on the Jane Austen fanfics because those are currently saturating the market. But as a Christian, and as one who, if not a writer herself, at least appreciates writing, that stuff makes me alternately writhe with rage and howl with laughter. It also makes me squirm with discomfort. My great fear is that if I were to begin writing, really do it, actually attempt the presumptuous act of fictive creation--that it would end up like that writing I judge and mock and scorn.

So I don't write. I know something of my capabilities: I've finished a few short stories and memoir pieces. It is rarely a satisfactory experience. I want to write better than I do, and of course, the way to improve is through writing more. Practice. But some people practice--and practice--and practice--and never achieve anything better than Mr. Darcy's Harem.

On the other hand, however I may rail against them, those books have found an audience. People who read them are entertained. I don't just want to entertain people. Would I be false to my ideals to produce and share writing that I am not proud of? That is not up to my standard of what is Good Writing?

Or, worse--could I stand to produce anything and have it ignored? Could I stand to fail? As it stands, no. I can't. I have, apparently, an imaginary reputation to protect.

It remains to be seen how I will handle this. I have a convenient collection of empty notebooks. Maybe it's time I began to fill them, to see what I'd have at the end of it.