[Miscellany]

* Saturday morning in Melbourne town saw me braving the western subs for a bit of brekkie, coffee - and apparently a trip of self discovery. For it was on this day while perusing the more unsavory of the Melbourne newspapers that I spied a "What Kind Of Personality Are You?" type test. Being a student of psychology and no stranger to the myriad of different personality tests out there - pushed on me via the route of "lab requirements" of unimelb undergrad psych, I thought what any other sane and rational person would think when faced with a personality test in their morning paper; oh goodie!.

With only 12 questions the test promised to tell me who I was. Since I'm always up for being told who or what I am I looked around left and right, before quickly pocketing the offending page and quickly finishing off my eggs.

So I took the test and here's what I found out:

I display very high levels of Neuroticism and Openness and high levels of Agreeableness. I score quite low on Conscientiousness and Extraversion. All this seems by and large on the money. I am a worrier, analytical and a thinker hence the neurotic label. Indeed I'm also very open to different kinds of people and ideas. I have strong opinions but am not actually judgemental when it comes down to it - which all apparently makes me 'open'. Agreeableness is related to being sympathetic and helping others (hello! Teacher!). I'm not known for being organised, methodological or being anally retentive and am also not known for screaming 'here I am' when I enter a room so it's only fair I score low on Extraversion and conscientiousness.

All this, I have no issue with - but then I had a look at the pictures which accompanied the personality blurbs. This is what represents me.

Yeah, hi that's the Neurotic me a cross between Herman Munster and THE GRINCH. Don't make any sudden movements or I'll rain all over you with my big black cloud of doom. I'm so Emo, now where the hell is my blacker than black eyeliner?

Hi again, when I read 'open' I thought, open to new ideas and all people - but apparently it just means that I'm about to join the Ralean sect. It also means I am a little bit wacko (look into my eyes...if you can find my wonky pupils that is) and am either into mooncakes or have stolen some kind of meterorite from the astronomical section of the Scienceworks museum. We've been observing your earth, and we'd like to make contact with youuuu.

Oh, I'm so huggy aren't I? Come here, let me hug you! Come onnnnnnn! COME HERE I WANT TO HUG YOU!! I WAAANNNNAA HUUUUUUG!! PLEASE SNUGGLE WITH ME!!! WHERE ARE YOU GOING? Where?.... oh.. :( Actually, ..there is a reason why I have the profile photo that I do.

So yes, after seeing those pictures I felt very well adjusted and normal didn't I? Don't worry about me - my recipe is apparently: One part Herman Munster, One part alien worshiping wack job and One part little Miss "I Psychotically love you to DEATH". Stir with swivel stick, drink and call the paramedics immediately.

* Anyway I was a tad traumatised after doing the test so was looking forward to some friendly company at dinner that night. Finally the group was going to meet L's new man. He was lovely and it was also lovely to see my friend B, who was down from QLD for a visit. Bonus of Bonuses, she turned up to the dinner with my star chart (she's a qualified astrologer). Oh goodie, another personality test - without actually having to take the test! Anyway, she starts the conversation with "you're a dark horse aren't you?" and ends with "we've been underestimating you for a long time" - which, may I add makes me feel like a bit of a fraud for some reason. Everyone went a little silent and looked at me quizzically for a while (trying to figure out my dark horse side, probably). I wonder if she was referring to my Herman Munster side.

B did tell me something that has made me want to change myself for the better though. She said that I find it hard to let people go. I have done a lot of self analysis and soul searching in my life and I had never really thought of myself in these terms. Weird I know, but as soon as she said it I knew it was true. Funny how revelations only ever feel like an anvil falling on your head but it's true, I do find it incredibly hard to let people go. I'd love to think of myself as a love 'em and leave 'em - and who really cares about 'em anyway.. type girl but I'm not. I embrace any kind of affection that comes my way - even if it's bad for me. There are a lot of reasons for this, not least the lack of affection shown to me during my own childhood and my need to feel that someone finds me worthy of their time. I've seen friends of mine go through the whole 'going back to people who make you feel bad about yourself' thing with men and the like, advising them to have the strength to say no.. when all the while it was me too. I don't want to be that girl. Closer to the case - I don't want to be her ...anymore. I don't need anymore fair weather friends. They tear me apart.

I thought about this all night, and all of today. I guess I have to be a stronger person - maybe I have to let that "agreeableness" part of me go a little and be less agreeable and be less open. Those people that use me shouldn't be welcomed by me with open arms ever again and those people that don't see my good qualities - well, it's their loss isn't it? I shouldn't see myself for being at fault just because THEY are idiotic. Stop making excuses for other people's mistakes, that's basically what I have to do.

* Meanwhile and since it's all about me today: on Idol (I know, please don't hate me for using Idol as my Musical Monday crutch for two weeks in a row) they had 'choose music from the year you were born. I thought it was a smashing idea and I've come up with a song from a band I've been meaning to do for a while now. The Rolling Stones.

I'm certainly no hardcore fan, as you will probably tell when you hear my song choice but one of my very earliest memories I have of myself enjoying music is while I was listening to The Rolling Stones. It was the 80s, I was wearing my pajamas and jumping up and down on the couch with my bro to Start me Up, which happened to be playing on Countdown one night. I did think it was an excellent song - even though I sang Stompio (hence the stomping on the couch) instead of Start me Up, but that's just a technicality surely. I mean Mick probably sang the wrong words half the time too. As for Keith, good christ, did he ever know the words? (God love 'em) But I digress. That was the early me.

In my mid teens I re-discovered them when I was going through my 60s rock and I'm depressed with the world phase. In fact Paint it Black was a constant fixture in the soundtrack of my life around that time. I can't even being to tell you how many times I listened to that one. And of course at 18-ish when I decided that Get Off My Cloud would be my theme song (I might take it up again). Then again, at 19 sitting on the floor of some filthy bungalow down by the beach singing along to As Tears Go By being played beautifully on guitar by a sad friend. And lately, with this one - 1978, my year. I love everything about it, the slightly bluesy influence, the sexy beat and all the lyrics; yes every single one - even the Peurto Rican girls just dyyyyyyyyyyyyyin' to meet you. Love it.

Miss You - The Rolling Stones



So you see, they've been around for a while; The Rolling Stones. Never really at the forefront of my life but there, behind the scenes, definitely in the soundtrack - a perfect accompaniment. Don't you just love it when must does that?




err sorry, slip of the button... what I meant was..

Labels: aries is the best chuck out the rest, beach, blurry girl, change, childhood, choices, conversations, divination, friends, girls and women, idol, mixed bag of me, musical monday, newspaper, personal

posted by M at 10:22 pm 17 comments

The Sunday magazine had an interesting perspective on men and relationships today. Basically it said: times are a changing and men are being left without partners. Men are being left on the shelf now, not women.

The impression I got was that there are a lot of men out there who want marriage, babies and the like but no one to have these things with because women have their own thing going on. I know a couple of guys out there who really do want these things. But on the cusp of 29 years of age I'm getting the impression that for guys it's just more like: ...yep I want all that stuff in the future just not yet. The story from 29 year old woman is that marriage would be the ideal position to be in right now. So maybe there is a difference of opinion on the when rather than the what of relationships. We both want that stuff just at different times.

Maybe after a certain age women think - 'I'm going to have to do this on my own now aren't I?' So they get to it. They organise themselves with a future that might not, probably not, involve a guy (and yet might involve a cat instead!!). I know I'm at that stage now. Men meanwhile get to their late their late 30s early 40s - partying the whole way and then think oh fuck, where are all those girls that wanted to settle down? Oh shit, they've settled down or they're doing their own thing!! Women have that same thought at about 29. Why should we wait until 39 for guys to get their act together? Aren't our prime motherhood years wavering and then crashing down into oblivion by then?

The article went on to mention that men are left on the shelf because women have careers now, not relationships. I don't know any woman that would prefer a career over an awesome love of their life relationship. I do however know many women who want to wait until a certain stage in their career before they have children. But as for marriage - any time any where buddy. Just you bring the ring! The problem is that difference in the logistics of when to do all this stuff.

Then again, maybe not. There may be another reason:

I have read a lot on male blogs - or rather a certain types of male blog - that men are scared of getting into a marriage situation because they don't want to lose half of what they have to their wives in divorce court and this is a apparently a very real reason cited for some men's 'commitmentphobic behaviour. I don't know that many (or any) men who get into a marriage with everything financially secure first anyway. In fact house, career etc tends to happen AFTER the hitching doesn't it? (thereby making it something they have both earned). But still.. Interesting theory.

Do men hold off getting married because they are scared of losing half of what they have in divorce?

The article also mentioned another reason for men being left on the shelf as doing with women being more independent now than they ever have been. Women don't actually need men so men are left helpless and not knowing how to offer something to women who have it all. Related to the divorce thing, and the difference in when we want to have babies and get married. I do know that women are very conscious of being labelled as gold diggers, so much so that they would rather have some sort of personal financial security before getting hitched. Meanwhile couple that with men might not want to get married and bogged down with a family before they are thirty women have just decided to get live their lives instead of waiting around.

What do you think?

Are men being left on the shelf? And what's your theory on why? Or are newspaper articles just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill and that women are left on the shelf at late 20s early 30s and men are being left too, just later in life.

Have our priorities changed in the family way?

Labels: men, newspaper, questions, relationships, women, wonderings

posted by M at 4:06 pm 38 comments