[Miscellany]

Dear Lady in the Next Cubicle,

You: Humming the tune to jaws.
Me: Listening to you, aghast that you are 1) humming in a public restroom 2) actually a GIRL, humming in a public restroom.

Love,

Surprised.



Dear World,

Everything at the moment points to me feeling sad, but it's just so much easier to just take it out on everyone else and be angry.

Forgive me, but you give the fucking shits.

Love,

Angry Girl.



Dear Parent of a child that will be in my grade next year,

When I say that your son was being silly and calling out (read: being a complete disruption to everyone, having no respect for authority and sometimes being dangerous) during our little orientation program I meant it in all seriousness. You looked surprised, don't worry, I'm used to that look from people like you - it's the "oh but they never act that way around me" look. Bullshit! I heard on the grapevine that you were in the yard complaining about me saying this to you and then laughing about it.

If you think you can try this shit out on me you've got another thing coming. You have met your match lady. This is my little promise to you: Every time your son fucks up I will be seeking YOU out to deal with it at home. If you don't deal with it then we're going to be having many, many after school meetings, behavioural plans, meetings with the principal etc. It's not going to be pretty. I have all night and I'm willing to spend it, with you, talking about the things you need to get sorted, because yes - it's your responsibility to meet me half way on this, not absolve responsibility just because they're at "school".

You think it's funny that your son is undisciplined? I don't. I think it's a reflection of your parenting. I'm not laughing.

Love,

Not Amused.



Dear Egan,

You want 3-5 things that women do/are, which keep them single? I'll take three from me and two from someone else.

According to Sam de Brito (renowned for writing and ill written, second rate Australian men's column usually agreed with by neanderthals with shit for brains, in The Age and SMH - but apparently these two traits are seen an universally true???)
1. not being young enough

2. not being hot enough.

And mine...
3. Being obsessive about spending time together and not letting their man have any time to himself. God goddsake just give the poor bloke a night or two off to watch porn or footy or to complain about you to all of his friends. He's earned it! Falling into this category is the old calling 5 times a day, just to see how he's going.

4. Making plans that are too far ahead, too soon. The second date is not a good time to plan a wedding - not in any culture. Scrap booking your future wedding/house/family is also not a good idea.

5. Only having one interest in life: him.


Love,

M.


Dear Random Reader,

You found my journal by searching "do men ever fake it?".

Do men ever fake it? pft. You know when you're talking about how your sister's best friend's hairdresser saw some D-grade movie actor at some incredible night spot and your boyfriend is all like "uh huh?" "sounds interesting" "mmmmm, wow" "yeppppppp"?

...he's totally faking it.

Love,

Boys just have a different way of doing it.




Dear Reports,

So I hear you're not going to write yourselves. Good one, but this means I'm still at square one.

Love,

Frustrated.




Dear Head Honchos at the Australian Football League,

You are shit.

Seriously, you are shit.

Ben Cousins is a drug fucked dickhead who is taking the piss out of everyone. He's had his chance and fucked up - BIG TIME and you are still going to let him play? I don't get it. The football world is not a good place for someone who can't handle the pressure. Any other athlete would be out on their arse by now and so should he.

Cut him loose - he needs to go find a real job and give a rookie a chance to get drafted instead.

Love,

Amazed.



Dear Tracie and Rich,

I loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooove pot psychology!


Do Guys Ever Taste Their Own Semen? from Pot Psychology on Vimeo.

You guys are so funny,

Love,

M.

PS: Hey boys, come (cum) clean (haha), have you ever eaten your own spunk? A lot? Regularly? Never but will do so now? Never and never want to? Cum on, answer!

Labels: letters, rant, relationships, stressed teachers, weird things, what men want, what women want

posted by M at 5:23 pm 27 comments

The other day I serendipitously found a discarded DVD from unknown origins on the street, which I immediately popped into my player and discovered it was that new gangland inspired Aussie mini-series (my story and I'm sticking to it). You see, due to the fact that all this mafia malarky happened not that far from where I'm sitting right now and is still being trialled in this fair city us Melbournians are yet to see the show on our television screens this is despite the fact that the rest of you sods have seen it. Seems a little unfair but hey, whaddya gonna do? (find a copy on a street, probably).

Anyway the discarded DVD from unknown origins held about three episodes of the show and I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with it. As a fan of The Sopranos I expected our version to be well not quite right. It's different, and it should be - but it's real and gritty, which is exactly how things are. It's well made, well acted and fucking scary. Not scary in the horror movie sense but scary in that it's all true - or near enough anyway - to be a worry. Killing people because of "business" or just because you didn't like their face is a truth that happens in this world. I can't imagine a world more far removed from my own but it exists right outside my door anyway. I guess I never really had to think about it because it never actually involved the likes of me but thinking about it further I realise that maybe we are all affected, even if we don't realise it.

The mini-series takes a bit of a 'play by play' account of what went on in the hey day of the gangland murders in Melbourne. It starts with the origins and then moves into how things got out of hand and with whom. What interests me aside from the details is the innocent bystanders that get suckered into the vortex of organised crime without actually meaning to. I mean, the people who happen to be standing nearby on a bad day, but more so the people that fall in love with the criminals themselves and then somehow are implicated into all the violence and lawlessness.

Many of the storylines about these mafia men also focus on the women around them. So far there's been the friend of the girl who is sleeping with the gangster who witnesses a cold blooded murder. She decides to testify but immediately it becomes apparent that actually she's not going to testify at all, she's going to go on a long trip to London with her friend and hopefully never be seen again.

Then there's the Stripper - the ex wife of a bikie who washes her hands clean of the bloke but he says he's with her at the time he commits a murder she decides to testify that actually no he wasn't with her at all and so she's gunned down in bed, after the trial has been said and done. A revenge killing.

I'm sure there are many more similar stories of people who have gotten involved on the outskirts of crime but who are affected - simply because they fell in love with the people committing the crimes. Maybe they knew they were criminals before they got involved with them - maybe it became apparent later - but in any case these people are involved without directly being involved (if you know what I mean). I wonder if there are stories of men who marry women who are either in the crime world or who are daughters of crime figures - who then do something wrong (by the girl) but are then killed ...you know just because they can be.

I wonder about these people who fall in love with criminals or people associated with criminals. I think that if I came across a bloke who had dubious connections I would run a country mile - at least I hope I would. But who knows how the heart will react?

I guess you could say that if you get involved with crime then you suffer the implications but I wonder if the heart really has a stronger say in the matter.

What if you fell in love, I mean real love, with a man/woman who was involved in crime somehow? Would you ignore your heart and walk away or would you take your chances and stay with them? Can your heart ever really be ignored? And if your heart CAN be ignored, then is anyone who ever gets involved with a no hoper of some kind ever really a victim?

Also, what I'm dying to ask but not sure if I should is; would you ever testify against your ex/current if they did something unlawful? What if they threatened your kid or you if you testified? Would you testify anyway? Is this too explosive a question to ask?

Labels: Crazy Nutters, law, loony loony loony, love, news, pop culture, relationships, TV

posted by M at 8:13 pm 11 comments

A friend of mine recently met a man online through a popular dating website. She's very thrilled with him and indeed from what I hear so far he sounds like a really good person. Yay, for good people! High Five!

Anyway, since I am a ball breaker from way back I was asking my friend every question under the sun about their relationship and it soon came out that though they had been dating for a while now they had still not made the leap into the bedroom. I was surprised, not because it was such a long time to date without sleeping with each other, but because it was a long time for this girl in question.

She explained that due to a suggestion she heard on a popular daytime TV talk show headed by a powerful woman (you know the one) that it was worth her while to wait. By worth her while, she meant that it would have more chance of succeeding past a few weeks than not. My friend is a wonderful person; she's funny as fuck, she's lovely, smart, gorgeous, bubbly and positive and yet she never seems to last long with men. She's not one of these ultra picky women either - she's just your normal everyday kind of girl. She decided that she wanted to give the relationship a chance to develop before they slept together.

I totally applauded the move and she told me that although they were both frustrated as anything that they are both glad they have waited. They have gotten to know each other really well, they really like each other - really, they've discovered a connection beyond "dating", they've met each other's friends and families, are very open with the fact that they are "in a relationship" (again, rather than just dating) AND have discovered something about themselves which is really nice: That they are both gagging for it. Not just for *it*, but IT with EACH OTHER. They're not just horny you see. It's personal. Sounds pretty cool.

You know, I do think that people jump right into sex sometimes. I am no prude but I don't know many people who enjoy *that* feeling of anticipation anymore. Sure anticipation exists with anything, including buying a pair of shoes and wanting to wear them but I mean this is a real anticipation, one that consumes you totally and one that is coupled with something substantial behind it.

In any case, though he is more than thrilled with my friend - her boyfriend still hates Oprah, lol. He IS still a man, after all.

But what say you?
Is there merit in waiting?
How long is too long?
Guys - do you ever put the lid on it or does waiting depend on whether the girl wants to (ie: you're always good to go)?

(I just realised that all my closest friends who are married did not jump into sex with their husbands. They all waited a good deal longer than is customary in this day and age. I *do* have friends who have married their "one night stand" however, even upon examining that I realised that for those that did, they went back and dated them for a good while without sleeping together - even though obviously they HAD already slept together. Funny how that turned out).

Thinking music today courtesy of The Chemical Brothers. This song is awesome and definitely one I have on repeat (along with much of their back catalogue actually) a lot.

Hey Boy, Hey Girl - The Chemical Brothers

Labels: love or lust, men, musical monday, oprah can turn anything into a best seller, relationships, sex, what women want, women

posted by M at 7:45 pm 33 comments

I'm not even going to apologise for watching Oprah, but it IS the holidays folks. I've been an Oprah hater for many years, and so of course I watch her when I have the chance. Yes, I am a healthy and well adjusted person! Thanks for asking. Incidentally I'm under the impression that even O has pretty much just given up on the schmultzy TV she's producing. She's not even polite to people who have an opposing point of view these days. If Obama doesn't win that election I think she'll throw her hat in next time.

Anyway, today on Oprah was a doozy. Basically speaking it was about single women (and how many of us there are - again no distinction made between women who are thinking of marrying their cats and women who are in long term relationships with a man but just not married. Which in my view is a HUGE distinction).

It was yet another typical episode of O: Blonde white chicks wearing Laura Ashley classics giggling hopelessly and taking the prudish high ground while O raises her eyebrows and says "riiiiight". Black women talking sense and O laughing while falling sideways off her chair. Fun!

The bit that got my attention was when in the context of 'there are a lot of single women these days' O says:

Everybody's waiting for a certain cut of meat and that cut is NOT AVAILABLE!

Oprah

Personally I agree with Oprah (for the first time ever). I don't just think that only women do this though. Men are picky, picky, picky as hell these days. A lot of them are looking for 11s, or Jessica Alba (but like, thinner cause she's too fat). Likewise a lot of women are looking for Mr Macho but with secret sensitive side and the fashion sense of Armani meets Ksubi (but cooler). Why do we do this? My take on the matter is that unless you are an exact replica of Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie (WITH their bank balances) then you can't expect your mate to look like that or be as successful. The rest of us humans are going to have to make do with other humans, don't you think?

What do you think causes us to be so picky?
Is this new or an age old thing?
Have you ever been told you have unrealistic expectations?
Do you write people off because they don't immediately meet your criteria?
If so, are you going to stop?
Why?/Why not?

Labels: average guys don't get to judge women on their beauty, average women don't get to judge men on their salaries, men, relationships, what men don't see, what women want, women

posted by M at 1:31 pm 29 comments

Honestly I tried to avoid this as long as humanly possible but I've come to the point where I have to finally come clean or risk living a lie for the rest of my life.

I'm a fan of the song "Last Christmas" by Wham.



There's just something so deliciously warm and inviting about Andrew Ridgeley in a (rather too) thick knit jumper looking over his wine glass knowingly at George Michael. What a lovely civilised Christmas they all seemed to have, even though George Michael's heart was given away (the very next day...but last year. Yes it's all very confusing). Their Christmas was so unlike any Christmas I ever had and I wished they'd invite me over for egg nog and snow ball fights too. I even had a multicoloured thick knit that I could have worn to the festivities. Alas, it was never to be - for one thing we're in the middle of summer and wearing a thick multi-coloured anything is just wrong when it's 30 degrees outside and everyone is playing under the sprinklers and not drinking egg nog at all. A girl can dream though.

Anyway, the point is - although I realise that the song is no classical masterpiece it still warms the cockles of my heart whenever I hear it. I guess that's what nostalgia does for you - good or bad.

Wherever you find yourself at Christmas this year, I hope it's a lovely one filled with many a knowing look across the dinner table over a glass of red with someone with 80s hair. Personally I plan to spend the next few days thoroughly smashed - not because of any fun get together reason but just because it's the only way I can foresee getting through it without having a nervous breaksdown -sans liver sure- but alive nonetheless. Does alcoholism start for many as a method to numb the horror I wonder? We shall have to wait and see.

But no, really Merry Christmas.

What's your favourite Christmas song? I have much too many to list but this is in the winner's circle (I can't help it!).

Last Christmas - Wham!

Labels: 80s icons, christmas, musical monday, relationships, wham

posted by M at 12:07 am 28 comments

You know what Kylie Minogue? I just don't get it. I just don't get you. You've got money, you have a bazillion gay fans, you can wear hot pants without a hint of irony and still make it work and you beat the big C over the head with spiky stick but you are still a magnet for deadbeat men.

There have been many though these were the lucky, lucky, lucky few that lasted longer than a few weeks.

1) Jason Donovan. Okay, there was nothing wrong with him except that he had a mullet but then again YOU had a mullet TOO! You were MFEO, goddamn you I'm still waiting for you two to walk down the isle while Suddenly plays in the background in a quaint little church in the Dandenong Mountains...fer real this time. I fully blame you for his addiction to drugs and foray into reeeeeally bad sappy pop music and finally into ugly land. Lady before you fucked with him he was every nice Smash Hits magazine reading young lass' wet dream. That is all.



2) Michael Hutchence. I totally get it - he was completely fucked up but sexy as hell. Maybe even being fucked up made him sexy as hell. It's a hard thing for a girl in her early 20s to resist, I know. Then again, he was a serial womanizer who was totally seeing other women the whole time he was with you. Then after dumping you the next thing you know he's married to a wacko and then...bam! Dead. I'm not saying you were to blame however, Jase up at #1 didn't fare so well after dealing with you either. Did I mention the words "serial womanizer"?





3) James Gooding - dude used you for sex and then sold your story to the tabloids in a simultaneous dump/humiliation move. Yeah, he was a real keeper. Again - serial womanizer






4) Pauly Shore - well I don't think he hurt YOU at all but my god woman it's PAULY SHORE, even Brendan Fraser in that cracker of a moive Encino Man was more articulate and 'human' like than him - what the fuck were you thinking? I mean jeez, I don't understand.









5) Olivier Martinez. Two words: Love Rat. Here's another two words: serial womanizer. Lady, every single person who has ever picked up a copy of NW while waiting in the check out line at Safeway knew that he was cheating on you and we all groaned simultaneously when we found out that you took him back...again..and again..and again. Okay, Frenchy stayed by your side during your battle with cancer but I'm a cynical bitch and I'm going to say what we we've all been thinking but were too nice to say: The man didn't want to be publicly known as the bastard who dumped Kylie while she had cancer. So..he stayed with you through that and then waited until you were well again before he took up with some young thing..just like he always meant to (or always was). This doesn't make him a "good person for being by your side" but instead a "dickhead that needs his nuts kicked in good and proper".

(honorable mention: That married guy who took you out on hit yacht for a "friendly" trip. Yes, married. No, no one actually believed you were 'just friends').


Girlfriend do I really have to remind you that you are rich, famous, gorgeous and un-wrinkly? What more could a man want in a woman (well so they keep saying anyway)? And this is coming from someone who doesn't even like you. I think you're a vapid attention whore who sings shit songs that are only good for a bout of retro dancing and nostalgia - but even I; a member of the ever hurtful Kylie critics can see that you are automatically five thousand per cent better than any guy out there that has the privilege of being on your arm.

Honey, it's time to go lez.

What is it with fabulous girls who can manage mammoth careers and have it all but can't resist the charms of dead beat idiots? I know so, so many absolutely wonderful (and conventionally beautiful) women who are surrounded by deadbeats! What the hell is going on?

Labels: mean men, messy women, pop culture, relationships, what women want, wonderings

posted by M at 10:44 pm 12 comments

Us singles have a different approach to life and finance than the marrieds do. Since I'm almost 30 and have pretty much resigned to never finding someone to settle down with I'm really thinking about my financial future at the moment, and looking to set myself up in alone-land. Alone-land involves thinking about 'what if I get sick?', 'what if I lose my job?' 'who will look after me?'. The answer is no one, and actually that's fucking scary. There's a lot of insecurity there - and this is because I know what it's like to account for every penny. It's how I grew up. It's not fun.

I've done a bit of soul searching and I've realised that I've been unconsciously doing something for a very long time that hasn't been good for me. I've been waiting. The waiting has held me back. While I *have* been looking for a house I'm realising now that maybe my fear about 'going it alone' has been holding me back from really laying my savings down on the line and buying something. Going it alone is bloody scary when you know that you're not ever going to earn enough to really be totally secure in mortgage land. Whatever I choose to do I know I'll have to be careful with money. That's okay in theory, but actually doing it is scary. The alternative however - waiting is a lot worse for me. Waiting is not on the cards - I need to be truly independent with waiting not even a factor. If this means I'm cutting off certain possibilities then so be it. I'm not going to suddenly win lotto so I need to really plan for my future now.

I hate people saying 'oh but you're so free'. Usually this comes from people who are snug as a bug in a rug in couple land where they're not thinking about how they are totally dependent only on themselves for everything. It's easy to say 'you're free to do what you want' when you've got a kid on your hip and hubby coming home for supper - I once challenged my friend on this and she admitted in the end that if she didn't have her husband then she wouldn't be able to do half the things that she's done. House, trips, etc - they can rely on each other. It's different when it's just you and I know the quirkyalone among you reading this will totally know what I'm talking about - serial monogamists excluded.

Anyway on being free - I don't really feel like going on an extended trip overseas, coming back with no savings and having to start again in a market that is even worse than what it is now. No thanks, I don't want to get caught up later. Honestly, if I was married, I think I would PUSH for an overseas trip right now, perhaps a stint living there for a while - because quite frankly it's easier when you've got two salaries to play with and there's safety in numbers as well. When you come back you have two salaries to bolster yourself up. Spending money on two living together is almost the same as one living alone - but you have two salaries to do it with. Yes, sure I *could* easily pack up my life and go overseas right now and not have to tell anyone about it. It could be great...for now - but while you hear all those romantic statements about living in the moment blah blah, back in the land of reality that ain't happening. Certainly not with the big stuff anyway. I'm pretty naive sometimes but not stupid. I know I have to plan and I know it has to happen now. I wrote an entry about this a while ago, in the context of men who say 'where have all the girls gone?' - well we went and got ourselves financially secure buddy.

Anyway it's taken a lot of soul searching on my part but I'm at that stage where I know I want to be financially secure so that I don't have to stress about it for the rest of my life. I've worked out a way to make it happen and am in a process of creating a future where I will not become my parents.

The relationship my parents had with money has taught me to never depend on another person for money coming in. Yes, that means I'm scarred but better to live and learn than to repeat the mistakes of others. I never want to have to 'talk about my spending' I never want to have to justify the extra pair of knickers I bought, I don't want to have to talk about how 'since I'm earning more that means you do more housework' (which yes, I have seen happen with friends of mine). I reject marrying for money (and all arguments out there that say that all women look for that in a man) because even the thought of someone paying for the date makes me incredibly anxious. Actually KNOWING that they resent doing this (from what I keep reading on the internets anyway) has opened up my eyes in a very bad way. The crap about women being gold diggers is even worse. For someone who already has a chip on her shoulder about being independent this whole money in relationships issue really gives me hives.

It's a good thing I'm planning for alone-land then eh?

So anyway, the point is I've got this plan that is actually going to happen and it's a good one but then something hit me hard - what if someone comes along in the future - waaay in the future when I least expect it? Where do they fit into the financial stability that I've (hopefully) created? I do believe in share and share alike and I'm generous to boot. I just don't want to be dependent - ever. I like the thought of a buddy relationship where you have each others backs and you both contribute the same, that would be ideal - but I'm wondering does that really exist when money and ego come into play?

The other day I was at my friend S's place and we were playing with her new baby. The baby did a poo and S looked at her husband - "can you please do it this time?" she said. He looked at her smiled and made a joke "no, I'm bringing the money in, you change the baby". I didn't say it was a funny joke, in fact it wasn't a joke at all - he was completely serious. These two actually have very similar work ethics and ideas about money and yet, there it was hanging over the room like a storm cloud waiting to erupt. Money.

Does money get in the way of a good relationship? How do you stop that from happening? Singletons, do you worry for your financial future - have you tried to plan for a future alone or are you waiting for someone to come along and help? Marrieds - did you go into your marriage totally financially secure or is this something you've developed together? Have you ever HAD these worries or were you married before it got to crunch time (for the record, I reckon 30-40 is crunch time). Is it detrimental to a relationship if one person is financially secure and the other isn't?

Labels: money, questions, relationships, singletons, smug marrieds, thoughts, wonderings

posted by M at 8:39 pm 37 comments

Dinner with the girls the other night took a turn towards the dark side when everyone started ganging up on E about her overly flirtatious and utterly inappropriate friendship with a male co-worker of hers. It's become a hot topic of conversation - hotter since she got married, that is. I've written about them a few times...

It turns out that for her recent birthday Male co-worker gifted E a bottle of perfume, guaranteed to turn him on. The problem was, that by "him" he actually meant himself and not "him" the ever loving husband. She told hubby about the gift (hubby, is actually fully aware of this friendship, it's not a secret) and hubby said that she wasn't allowed to wear it. She told the girls and I (rather drunkenly) blurted "well we don't want to smell it either! Chuck it away". I'm not one to beat around the bush. As it turns out E has found herself in a group of girlfriends who all think that flirting outside the confines of marriage is a punishable offense. Lucky for her husband, unlucky for her - we are all leaning on his side, in terms of sympathy. L argued that she would be having 'words' if her husband decided to carry on as E had done. I said that I would feel so incredibly sad about it if it was my husband. C said that they have an agreement that since her husband doesn't take his own wife out for coffee then there's no way that he's going anywhere with any other girl. Ez just said that if she received a bottle of perfume from another man then her husband would pay that man a little visit. I asked bro, who simply said that he wouldn't stand that kind of shit from someone he loved.

E insists that the male co-worker's motives are purely in fun *cough* and argued that she's allowed to have friends, surely - and besides (the real crux of the issue) she doesn't really know how to tell him to back off without ruining this so called friendship. Personally I think a friendship means being supportive rather than undermining your friend's life, but anyway. She insists that hubby is fine with the friendship (she insisted this while looking the other way). I insist that hubby is only "fine with it" because has found himself in a situation where if he tells E who to be friends with there will be hell to pay - so he says nothing. Hubby does not like male co-worker, this much we know. Amusingly E discovered that hubby had a facebook request from an old flame which not only did she veto but is still upset about. E recognises the utter hypocirsy of her situation.

While I doubt anything physical has ever actually transpired between them - it still doesn't make the situation less inappropriate. There's a lot of manipulation going on on the part of 'the friend' and a lot of emotional elation going on with E, who is pretty flattered by other male attention she's getting.

If your significant other flirted with a co-worker of the opposite sex to the point where propositions are made regularly (and then laughed off) and then a personal gift is given which implies a sexual innuendo would you be okay with it? Does it have to turn physical for it to be wrong?

Where does one draw the line between "just friends" and "...uh oh" when it comes to having friendship with members of the opposite sex outside that relationship?

Can (straight) men and women ever be just friends, especially when the "sex is already out there"?

Labels: friends, men, relationships, the When Harry Met Sally conundrum, women

posted by M at 11:49 am 32 comments

So after my last boo hoo post about aloneness - by some serendipity I came across the article that expained it all.

Radar's 100 Reasons Why You Are Still Single.

I swear I busted a rib laughing while reading it. Then of course the stark reality set in that ummm maybe I do some of these things.

Here are some of the best bits of the list - of course the whole thing is a best bit really. I've been kind enough to highlight the ones exhibited by yours truly so you can see just how sad I am and point and laugh. I will not name names but I already know that some of YOU guys do some of the things on the list too. I'll leave it up to you to own up.

5. Are only gay when you're drunk

6. Have written poetry inside a Starbucks

13. Use emoticons in handwritten letters (I know this is unforgivable but you see the thing is - once you start this it's very difficult to stop!)

14. Own a "It's Not Going to Suck Itself" T-shirt

18. Can't stop missing Anna Nicole

19. Scream out Wheel of Fortune answers (Wheel of Fortune, Temptation, RocKwiz, Spicks and Specks, even kids game shows - yes unfortunately for you I am always the carry over couch champ of any televised game show!)

21. Won't travel anywhere out of "blading distance"

23. Begin stories with, "I'm not a stalker, but ..." (...only as a joke I swear!)

26. Flash devil horns in wedding photos

27. Eat with one arm guarding your plate

28. Refer to your PDA as a "Crackberry"

29. Have a dartboard in your kitchen

30. Own a calendar featuring babies dressed as cowboys

32. Keep a dream journal (technically no, but I've been known to write about a dream or two, or 25)

36. Have a "lucky" garter hanging from your rearview mirror

38. Refuse to remove your Bluetooth earpiece during sex

39. Take off work each year to celebrate Cinco de Mayo; are Irish

41. Display your framed degree from bartending school

44. Refer to Target as "Tar-Jay" (not anymore, I promise...but I only very recently quit - like about 10 minutes ago when I read this list)

45. Have ever said: "That's sooo Sagittarius" (I can't help it if some people are *very* Leo, others are unfortunately Taurean - haha, yes yes I know a billion of you are Taurus, don't get your knickers in a knot- and some other people are so fabulously Arean they deserve to be king of the world now can I? *cough*)

47. Have a five o'clock shadow, on your ass

49. Cry when you listen to Belle and Sebastian, then, still tearful, blog about it (um..oh lord, it may not be Belle and Sebastian but it's close, veeerrry close and you all know it. I blame WDKY).

52. Have more than zero stuffed animals on your bed

53. Live by two sartorial rules: pleated, stonewashed

58. Have taken more than one cell phone picture of your genitals

59. Close all correspondence with "Prayerfully Yours"

62. Use the word "scrumptious" (it's a perfectly good word dammit!)

64. List "Dungeon Master" on your business card

75. Have a bedside stack of Sudoku books

76. Can only make love to the Mighty Mighty Bosstones

80. Have a screensaver of you posing with your Frisbee golf bros

82. Have cellulite on your face

83. Refer to yourself as a "vagitarian"

87. Get visibly angry during Apple vs. PC debates

88. Are known among your girlfriends as "Heavy Flow"

98. Posted a Craigslist "Missed Connections" ad to find the kid who groped you on the subway

99. Believe the mouth is self-cleaning

Incidentally I partook (is this even a word?) in a PC versus Mac "conversation" at school today. I am one of those rare people that owns a Mac (though rarely use it for internet surfing purposes anymore) and actually COULDN'T GIVE A SHIT about which is better in emotive terms. I find it infinitely amusing how emotional Mac people are about their computers. There's some definite ain't seen any lovin' in a long time type passion going on there with the Mac users and I'm not quite sure why Mac users are so taken with their Macs.

The people I was talking to seemed normal on the outside (except we are all teachers, which of course makes us abnormal to the nth degree) totally surprised me by how far their lovefest went - hell they even got into "classic Mac appreciation societies" for fucks sake - yes apparently they really do exist!. I'm like...yes, I'm one of you but I'm not a freak like you (I actually said that). It seems that next year we will have more than two Mac users renting their edu laptops at the school. The computer techs are mortified - you'd think they'd be rapt.

- It seems that I'm not the only one considering a change at the school next year. The problem with this is that a few personalities I probably wouldn't like working with are planning on making a change to the same level that I'm considering teaching at next year. This is making me think twice about changing at all. Will working in a team I don't like be worth the change? I know the classroom is 'my own' but I'm now used to planning and executing things my own way - especially financially...will I end up killing someone whose ideas I clash with?

I approached Prin about maintaining some Art duties. She seemed receptive to the idea but I know that she doesn't want anymore job and grade sharing going on than is already happening next year. The thing about teaching at a primary level is that so much is always going on. We are not a bunch of specialist teachers - we've all trained as classroom teachers - but classrooms are creative and dynamic places in primary schools and people who go into teaching usually have something a little extra up their sleeves and are creative and dynamic too. You have to be in order to work with kids. Maybe they are arty, or have a knack for organising money, or are secretly computer geeks, or have a way with counseling, or are film buffs, or sporting legends in their tea breaks or musical geniuses, can dance or are amature theatre stars.

Wouldn't it be great that since we are fostering these "extra talents" in children too, that those of us who want to offer more, can? Schools are always banging on about being flexible places that integrate learning but the bottom line is, we rarely integrate teachers in order to make best use of our talents. We teach in boxes most of the time because it's easiest for management and indeed easier to sell to the parents. Sometimes we bow too much to parental pressure - so little John will have to get used to having two teachers instead of one - geez someone call in the authorities little John will have to...*gasp* learn to deal with different personalities - which won't help him in the real world at all, will it? Yes, I understand that if we're going to let teachers follow their own areas of interest then it means that the school will be messy in its structure - but as any teacher will tell you that all the best learning is messy, isn't it?

Labels: relationships, school, singletons, stressed teachers, teacher dramas, teaching, teaching the teacher, wonderings

posted by M at 11:27 pm 20 comments

* The papers are talking about how Kylie Minogue is constantly being snapped having lunch, having brunch, having dinner, having sex..err..not the last bit but speculation is rife - with a married guy. She affirms they are that old adage of "just friends" and furthermore she has never cheated on one of her boyfriends and feels that would be immoral. Meanwhile married guy hasn't said anything much and his heavily pregnant wife has been wondering what the fuck is going on. She eventually came out with the old gem of saying how sorry she was that Kylie is getting a bad reputation. Great comeback me thinks. She's not accusing anyone but she's making it perfectly clear that: when it comes to married men no body is quite innocent even if you are being ..innocent. Indeed, wasn't it always Kylie who was rushing to the side of her numerous boyfriends when they were having a "just friends" dinner with another woman?

Even if nothing is going on, the situation is dodgy as all fuck and yes, her rep *is* under scrutiny here and so it should be. I don't know how often two friends of the opposite sex dine alone on a yacht or dine alone anywhere but hey. Don't friends go out in public places or hang out watching DVDs or make a night of it by ensuring the other gets picked up in a noisy bar? As I said, dodgy as all fuck even if it really IS nothing. Why wasn't the wife invited? The one thing I've learned that about 90% of the time the couple goes places together. There are some friends I just don't see anymore unless they are with their partner. Dinner invite? Invite both. Wedding invite? Invite both. Movies? Invite both. Parties/birthday dinners? Invite both. There are times when the couple certainly *doesn't* do stuff together (ie: the boys weekend etc) but usually, it's a given that they are together - hell they are a couple!

If however, something IS going on then the affirmation of an innocent party in a situation like this is also suspect. Though she's single, Kylie would still be 'responsible' - I don't care what anyone says about single people not having to watch their backs. In my eyes knowingly taking part in an affair from any angle doesn't make me feel sorry should your name be raked through the mud even if you are single. You'd be bad news. If I was a future boyfriend I'd wonder if I could trust that you had any respect for relationships at all - let alone marriage.

And what of the married guy? No one seems to be talking about him at all. He's just the lucky man caught between two women I guess (according to the media anyway). Someone needs to make sure he gets a smack in the head (cue: the woman married to him).

Labels: cheating, media, men, relationships, women

posted by M at 1:00 pm 19 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