Opposite days

I am not sure which is more disturbing. My fiancé exclaiming he is definitely team Jacob or his dream that my wedding dress was a white ruffled tube dress complimented by white thigh highs and white “pumps”. Some days Mike says the oddest things.

The team Jacob declaration really is just another piece to our all out opposite war we have going on. Although, he wavers since he does not have a firm clue of what he wants in life. That is what I tell myself to cope with our opposite days.

Mostly, I’m more adventurous and when planning my adventure schemes I find myself feeling even more carefree when I picture Mike with me. As if we could be anywhere in the world and he would make it so much better because I’m shy, he’s not, and people tend to love him. Thus he has the capability of helping to open up the world more for me. I crave this, which is why our opposite days kill me.

I might consider this opposite problem as a balance solution. I help Mike realize there are other options and Mike helps me to slow down and examine my schemes to make sure they actually are adventures. However, with our marriage quickly approaching we find ourselves examining the type of marriage we seek more often. What will we do together? What will we do apart? Will compromise be the solution or a sacrifice?

For now, I know we both can be comfortable with my loyalty to team Edward and a wedding dress without the white thigh highs and complimentary white pumps.

A pause for gendercide

In my attempts to ease my embarrassment of buying the last book of the Twilight series and to actually turn my brain back on I decided to pick up the latest issue of The Economist. I was eager to read “The Worldwide War on Baby Girls”. Then I made the mistake of reading what people posted for comments on the website. Ugg. Often in such heated issues I find myself angry, baffled, and confused when reading what people think. Questions like “did we read the same article?” or “that is what you have to say?” and “who are these idiots?” often come to mind.

I found the article disturbing for almost a limitless number of reasons. It brings up so many different issues that I am not going to tackle. However, I have to pause and pause for a really long time to think about what all of this means. Ignoring all the comments that I read about the article I keep pondering on value. Often it seems there is a debate over how much women and girls are valued compared to boys as if the traits that make one valuable do not contain a certain value of their own. Is there a disparity between how much women think they are valued versus how much they value themselves? Or better yet how much do women value being a woman?

Ok I cannot ignore the comments I read any further. One commenter suggested The Economist ignored the developed world's war on boys. Huh. Yes, more program content is focused on girls and there is a newer trend of boys being left behind in school. But the article was about the huge trend of limiting/eliminating the population of girls. You cannot compare scholastic aptitude with gendercide, but of course separately the issue of boys falling behind is worth discussing.

I quite thoroughly enjoyed another commentator’s thoughtful description of women and their most powerful abilities- this definitely falls under the that and idiot question categories. Apparently women (especially beautiful women) can get anything they want by flashing a smile and lifting up their skirt to bare their legs. I’m not so sure about the anything part, but I do know it works quite well if I want sex. Question: Are these women trying to get anything from men or from women?

Being a woman seems quite tricky today. It depends on where you are, if you are even born, and who you are asking. It depends on the traits we assign the female gender and the underlying value each trait has. Honestly, and quite simply I feel sad for this loss of girls in the world and I feel this loss as a woman, an individual, and hopefully as part of a collective.