Money, Money, Money

Money and relationships. Can the two go together? They usually do. To form a relationship-- one (or both of you) is spending money to make that happen. Dinner, movies, concerts, museums. Who is paying for all of these things? Should we share it? Should they pay for it at the beginning? How fair is that??!

But then again.....

I was raised to expect the man to pay for me. I was raised to expect him to open the door. I was raised to expect him to carry my bags and books and groceries. And old habits die hard. And I am a hypocrite because I want a relationship not tied to gender specific roles (in some cases), and yet I find myself tied to some of these archaic practices myself. I don't want to change my last name when I get married. I want a husband who doesn't mind if I work. I want a spouse who will share the dinner making responsibilites. I want a spouse who is equally responsible for raising our children together. I want all of these things, and yet, I still want him to open the door for me. I think I must be crazy, right?

I'm trying to let go of these unrealistic expectations...but old habits die hard.

I've had some modern day experiences with money lately that have made me feel uncomfortable at first, and then wonder if it should have made me feel uncomfortable at all. It's this entire unknown universe still seeking definition! Because of this, I find myself over-analyzing money everytime I go on dates. I am never sure what I should do/pay for/or offer as I don't want to offend/assume/or exploit.

Up until last year, all my boyfriends (yep, all four of them in the course of my days) and all previous dates I had been on, just paid for me. I never had any weird experiences like my sister April, where the guy asked her out for dinner and then his card was declined (after he ordered several drinks, appetizer, dessert, and she had only ordered a side salad because she wasn't that hungry. She ended up having to pay for dinner AND drive his car home because he got too drunk to drive!). Even after they stopped being my boyfriends and we would just hang out as friends, they still ALWAYS paid for me. Men in my past just paid for me. Is this fair? Is this right?

I've met two different types of men lately:

Summary of Guy #1: He treated me with old fashion gender roles, opening my door, pulling out my chair, helping me with my coat--but still wanted to split the money. So yes, we split the money, but this man would be the breadwinner and I would stay home with the kids and cook and clean. If he is expecting the gender roles, then should he be paying for the dates?

Summary of Guy #2: He treated me with modern gender roles. We are both people and we should show equal respect, so whoever gets to the door first should open it, that's logic. So, yes, we split the money, but this man would also split the cleaning and the cooking and the raising of the kids.



Which is better? What do I expect? What do I want? I don't know!!

I think the thing that I get so worried about is for a man to think I am dating him BECAUSE he has money, or that I even care about MONEY at all. This makes me paranoid. Especially when the man makes more money than I do (which most of them do, because, hey, I'm a poor Utah School teacher). Should it still be 50/50 when one of you makes a considerable amount of money and the other is as poor as a church mouse?

With my recent dates, I find myself offereing to help pay, but none of them have accepted and they have all been paying. Should this bother me? Does that mean they are going to want me to act in a traditional way? Are they not even thinking about it because it's just expected of them? AGH!!!!! Dating is HARD!?! Should I step up and insist on helping out?


How did you handle this when you were/are dating?

Alela Diane and her Slightly Psychedelic Band

Artist: Alela Diane

Album: To Be Still

Release Date: Feb. 17, 2009

Hey music fans! Do you like being put into a trance? A dance trance? A trance where you may or may not end up wearing natural fibers and chewing on a piece of hay as you sit around the fire and smoke something? If so, then Alela Diane's latest album, To Be Still, is the album for you. And yet, don't overlook these melodies as simple campfire songs. If there is one thing that Diane's two albums have shown the world, it's the fact that she is capable of a delicate and haunting compilation of music tracks.

Alela Diane came on the music scene with her simple self-release of The Pirate's Gospel in 2004 (revamped and rereleased in 2006). She caused a rippling effect throughout America, that landed her in Europe where her success and talent have continued to grow. Raised in Nevada City, California, and currently living in Portland, Oregon, Alela Diane is classified in the Psych Folk and New Weird America genres because her meditative lyrics are earthy and natural and her sound combines a trance-like compilation of simple instruments. She is most often compared to Jolie Holland, Josephine Foster, and let's not forget The Be Good Tanyas.

Her follow-up album has been long awaited and much anticipated. But is it worth the wait? Yes. Sort of. No, it really is, but I have some explaining to do. Her first album boasted the amazing title track "The Pirate's Gospel" with a sing-songy "Yo ho yo ho" and a deeper, stronger voice than she shows us in this current album. She just seemed to have more spunk, more energy, more attitude, and more to prove than she does in To Be Still, and maybe this is to her credit. Perhaps the first album was the artistic expression of a girl who had to show the world what she was made of (and we liked it), and her second album is the artistic expression of a woman who is whole and complete. While weighing in at only 25 years old, her voice contains the cadence, pitch, wisdom, and soul of a much older woman, and I just like that. I like that she knows who she is. I like that she wrote every track and every lyric. I like that her voice gives you unexpected sweeps and lurches, almost like sailing on temperamental waves. She has intense diction, and that's rare. I like that her simple symphony sings you to sleep, ahem, in a good way. It's just a calming album. Sit on your porch, relax, and take it in. If your looking for that intensity that the first album made you feel down in your gut, you're just not going to find it here.

"Age Old Blues," with its interwoven harmonies, simple tale of field workers, and quick guitar will be a fan favorite. Also noteworthy is the Celtic feel of "The Alder Trees" as her vocals truly soar and her arrangements are powerful. Yes, those two will be the favorites of the album, but I have to say that I became more awake when I listened to "The Ocean". The powerful drum, the female seeker of truth, "the sunset by the sea is in her mind and she was always hopin' to someday to leave the mountain, domestic chores and children, the darkness of winter. Painting all these mermaids wandering to the seashore. She wanted him to follow, but his heart was with the hillside. In spirit, she drifted to the ocean" just made me feel like I had been sung a good tale.


When asked about the creative journey in producing this album, Alela Diane said, "It began in Portland, OR and was finished in scatters between tours at my dad's home studio in Nevada City, CA. I wanted to record this collection of songs using arrangements which would represent them in their finest form. These songs requested more instrumental filigree than those on The Pirate's Gospel. It was challenging to delicately, yet purposefully incorporate instrumentation into songs that I was so used to singing by myself. I was determined to make it work, because I wanted percussion! I wanted to hear the lonesome bow of the violin! I heard many harmonies in my head, and so I set out to capture them."

Well, Alela, I think you succeeded with what you set out to do.

Can Boys REALLY be Boys?

How have we defined the male in society? Is it fair? Is it just as full of loopholes and stereotypes and judgment as those definitions are for the feminine?

In a recent class with my seniors, we were discussing traditional gender roles verses the modern variations. In writing out their feelings, one of my amazing male students wrote the following:

"Guys in the media are portrayed as screwups. These days I feel like men are victimized by the media . It's frustrating because while there's a level of sexism on either side, it seems that generalizations of men are taken a lot more lightly."

I have to agree with this. How many of us women get angered or spat back quick and sharp (and in some cases witty) retorts when any type of stereotypical comment is made. BUT, I can find myself resorting to trite and blanket statements like, "Men!" (as I shake my fist in anger) and many other colorful variations along that train of thought. And I receive no repercussions because no man would dare to tell me NOT to subject him to a traditional gender role-esque angered comment (really, they wouldn't dare, I can get scary).

And yet, how many of my friends, when figuring out if they can go out for a night sans children have to ask their husbands to "babysit". Um, what? Explain that one to me. Why are YOU raising them and your HUSBAND babysitting them?

How many times does the mother worry leaving *her* baby with the husband for more than a few hours at a time. Like he isn't as capable of loving or nurturing his own child as much as she is??!! I find this completely insulting. If you don't think your husband is smart enough and capable enough to watch your child, then why did you reproduce with him?

The following is a list of topics worthy of discussion (taken from this post). I think that these ingrained mindsets are just as hard for us to break down in society as the fact that all women were meant to be stay at home wives and mothers.


The Myth of Male Weakness, where they are taught that they can not control their baser urges, are seen as untrustworthy (a man with my children? scary), somehow defective, and punished far more severely than a woman for the same offenses (statistically true).

The Myth(s) of Masculinity, where they are taught that real boys and true men only feel anger and desire, not love nor fear nor tenderness nor embarrassment nor giddiness. For shame.

The Superiority of Maleness, where they are taught that girly things are embarrassing and inferior, pink and tutus and dolls and feelings are to be held in the lowest of contempt.

The Culture of Cruelty, where boys are tortured and physically abused and emotionally isolated both by their peers and by adults unless/until they conform to expectations of masculinity.

Doesn’t sound like a barrel full of happy fun to me.


In my world of feminism, I've discovered that I also care (almost equally) about masculism. While I will always fight for equal treatment of women, I think that this should not overshadow the fact that more of my male students are failing, more of them are lost, and more of them feel pretty hopeless or apathetic about life.

The Audacity of Soap

Just one of the beauties of living in a Capitalist society.

Flesh

When are we going to learn how beautiful we all are?

Tonight: Franz Ferdinand

If you didn't know, I write music reviews for inyourspeakers. Thought I'd start sharing them here for anyone who likes to be in the know, now.


Turn it on. Turn on the dance moves. Turn on the techo beat. Turn on the sound of a reinvented Franz Ferdinand. In the third album from the Glasgow-based band, Tonight: Franz Ferdinand makes a new statement for the world of pop (but wait, you were expecting indie-rock, weren't you? So was I). The question for the listener then becomes, did Franz need to be reinvented in the first place? No? No. And yet, despite the deviation from my expectations, there was still a little somethin' somethin' that I liked about this album.

Tonight: Franz Ferdinand marks a departure from the Post-Punk sounds that gave the band their first taste for fame and embraces an eclectic conglomeration of sounds and inspirations. The entire album, excluding the final track, is full of an electronic streak as well as beats and sounds echoing Jamaican reggae and other influences. All of this works together to create the perfect atmosphere for a club. Thankfully, what remains consistent with all three of Franz Ferdinand's albums is the groups talent for finding that danceable rhythm we crave. This album just takes the dance beat and puts it in the spotlight while the lyrics take a bit of a back seat.

While the album is very danceable, it also grows slightly stale by song five. The lyrics vacillate from witty to irreverent to their characteristic deadpan humor, but the first five songs of the album feel so much alike the they could have been made into one long dance party song. This might be the biggest complaint from FF fans. Without paying attention to the lyrics and the subtle differences of the album, it would be easy to say that one song is hard to distinguish from the next. Drummer, Paul Thomson, keeps a steady and yet similar beat throughout the album. This might not necessarily be a bad thing as the beat is strong, the sound is clear, the feeling is intense, and the album itself plays nicely through as a whole. And yet, by the end of it, you feel slightly less than satisfied because it was like they were trying a little too hard to impress and didn't quite succeed. I wanted to be surprised and I wasn't, and yet, I wanted to dance and I did.

The albums first release was "Lucid Dreams" and remains one of the albums highlights. The song is a journey in and of itself, lasting almost eight minutes, with the last three being devoted completely to an electronic symphony that many will find as pure bliss to the ears (I personally didn't, but I'm different that way). The lyrics echo an idea of finding truth and love and meaning when the definition of all three are just out of reach, or might only be able to come to fruition in your dreams. As Alex starts out with his singular sound posing the idea of "I'm gonna give my aimless love, my angry heart, my desire. I woke with wings from lucid dreams, I knew the reason I felt hollow was that I may never know if there is some great truth or not." What is the truth of the album? Much of it revolves around real love, first love, fake love, pick up lines and cigarettes.

One of the most danceable and sexy songs on the album is "No You Girls." Alex starts out with the words "Kiss Me"...not really a request as much as it is a command (one that I would HAPPILY oblige, by the way). It poses the same scenario as "Katherine Kissed Me" which is the final track and the only song on the album not injected with a techo beat. It's a revisit of a typical ballad, but better because it's by Franz Ferdinand. Both songs address men who fall in love with girls who show little, if any, interest. Both songs pose the question of getting a girl to think of the situation of wanting a first kiss from a man's perspective. It's all very sensitive, very sweet, and yes, you do start to wonder "how the boy feels." Yet again, you wonder what the fascination is with all these women smoking their cigarettes and looking to the men with a sense of boredom instead of urgency.

"Ulysses", the title track on the album is synth-heavy and clever. Much of the song is dependent on Alex Kapranos's whispery and sexy vocals, he just sounds good. He just sounds original, and he just has a sound that I want to obey. For that reason alone the album is worth a listen or two.

Tonight: Franz Ferdinand is full on dance club material. People will gather. People will grind. People will forget the woes of a long work week by listening, and yet, when they listen closely, they'll find that nothing really caught them off guard about the whole event.

On Repeat...

I love finding new love on a quiet, foggy, soggy Saturday morning.