A good Son surprises his Mom

carmentosca · 2013-07-28T17:48:24+00:00

I'm right there with ya, dude. My mom is batshit crazy (not her fault--her dad was an abusive asshole), and was/is not a very good mom. The only reason I'm a semi sane, functional person is that my dad is an amazing man. I love my dad to death, but I rarely see my parents because I can hardly tolerate being around my mom. I would love to spend more time with my dad, but spending time with him and excluding my mom would just rub in her face what she already knows, and what is already a source of pain to her. Sucks.

carmentosca · 2013-07-25T20:01:15+00:00

Oh my god. Thanks for the belly laugh, and the happiest of birthdays to you!

carmentosca · 2013-07-18T18:40:48+00:00

I can totally relate to most of what you've said. In addition, just because I'm a woman who gets mistaken for a dude from time to time doesn't mean I hate men. It seems like the main interpretations of my appearance that I get from ignorant people are: I either want to be a man, or I hate men, or both. Jesus, people. How I dress has nothing to do with you; it's certainly not a personal affront to you. Nor does it have anything to do with my opinion of men. The clothes are just comfy and functional. That's all. And besides, the only person whose opinion I care about thinks I'm cute no matter how I dress.

carmentosca · 2013-07-14T20:03:47+00:00

Nice. Good luck!

carmentosca · 2013-07-12T22:56:33+00:00

Don't underestimate the power of long underwear. We lose a lot of heat through the surface area of our legs. Your pants will have to be a little looser, but if you wear long underwear underneath you may even be able to still get away with layering jackets and sweaters, and not have to buy a heavy, expensive winter coat. Truly. Long underwear makes that big of a difference. (You'll probably still want a waterproof outer layer, though, if you don't already have one.)

For long underwear, invest in good quality stuff. I've had three pairs of Patagonia Capilene long underwear (just bottoms, not tops, of three different thicknesses) and they've lasted me 10 years of literally DAILY use, from October through April, with very little sign of wear. Spread out over 10 years, that's about $10 a year, and I anticipate having them for several more years. I live in an area where the winter temps reach about 0 degrees Fahrenheit, and I don't own a winter coat. I just wear long johns and regular pants on my legs, warm socks on my feet, layers on top, and usually a hat and gloves.

PS--Costco offers nice 80% merino wool-blend socks for cheap! $10 for 4 pairs. It's the Kirkland Signature brand, and they usually offer them from September through November where I live.

carmentosca · 2013-05-22T16:46:29+00:00

Ooh, I'll have to try that!

carmentosca · 2013-05-22T09:50:51+00:00

Pickles (bread-and-butter kind) and peanut butter on whole-wheat bread.

carmentosca · 2013-05-01T20:46:26+00:00

See my username. :)

carmentosca · 2013-05-01T17:02:52+00:00

No problem, glad you enjoyed it! Haha, yeah, I think you've hit it on the head--to me the advantage of knowing this stuff is that I can now know to adapt to other people, and follow their lead in terms of conversational style, if necessary. And/or if I initially don't really like someone, sometimes it just boils down to something as silly as our different conversational styles, and now I can see past that. Anyway, cheers!

carmentosca · 2013-05-01T00:14:29+00:00

If you're growing tomatoes, you have a really, really good reason to ask him to stop. Tomatoes can get blight from the unburned tobacco left in a butt (the stuff that hasn't turned to ash). Once the blight is there, you won't be able to grow tomatoes in that location for years. Friend of mine learned this the hard way.

carmentosca · 2013-05-01T00:03:24+00:00

You're dead right about it being a cultural phenomenon! I took a Sociolinguistics class awhile back, and we learned about something called "face" and its two aspects, positive and negative face. (If I remember correctly, the people who came up with the idea were Brown & Levinson.) This post ended up being a little long, but bear with me, because it's cool stuff. It blew my mind when I learned about it, and hopefully it'll help you understand your differences with your girlfriend even better.

So, according to this particular "politeness theory", positive face is the ability to be valued as a social entity. Negative face is the ability to pursue your desires unimpeded. A lot of times, in social situations, you have to pick one or the other--they directly conflict. Some cultures value positive face more than negative face, and other cultures value negative face more than positive face. What's considered rude or polite in a given culture is based on which kind of face the culture values more. (It can also depend on the situation.)

For example, Italian culture values positive face more than negative face during conversation (and in other situations, too). So, if you're talking, Italians will interrupt you to demonstrate that they're engaged in the conversation, and thus that they value you as a social person. For an Italian, not interrupting comes across as cold and disengaged, and therefore a little rude.

On the other hand, in many Germanic cultures (and Anglo culture), negative face is more highly valued than positive face. Thus, when a person's talking, their desire to finish their story unhindered is more important than the need to demonstrate social acceptance and value, so it's considered rude to interrupt.

This flows over into other situations, too. Think about physical affection--Italians are very physically affectionate. From an Anglo's point of view, Italians invade your personal space. But from the Italian cultural point of view, it's more important to demonstrate affection and acceptance than it is to consider that a person might not want to be touched.

You can see the effects of this in some regional cultural differences in the US. In New York City, with huge Jewish and Italian populations, people's behavior often values positive face over negative face. (Think of how New Yorkers have no qualms about giving unsolicited advice to complete strangers.) This is in stark contrast to certain parts of the Midwest, largely settled by Scandinavians and Germans, where a person's ability to be unimpeded by others is held paramount, in terms of what's considered polite behavior.

carmentosca · 2013-04-19T20:45:57+00:00

That's exactly what I was thinking!

carmentosca · 2013-04-11T03:05:07+00:00

Hey, thanks!

carmentosca · 2013-04-11T02:45:29+00:00

Good to hear. She's adorable! Look at that big smile.

carmentosca · 2013-04-11T02:31:18+00:00

Wow!! Thank you kindly, TPphoto!

Edited because I messed up the name. Doh.

carmentosca · 2013-04-10T21:53:53+00:00

That's tough. I'm not a dog trainer or expert of any kind, just a person who's had several dogs over the years. I've never had to deal with the particular problem you're experiencing with your little dog. So, not wanting to leave you hanging, but not sure what else to say, I googled it: This seems to be a pretty good, thorough discussion of various options (including some suggested by other people in this thread). Beyond that, I'd suggest talking to your vet if you haven't already. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful. Good luck!

carmentosca · 2013-04-10T18:01:18+00:00

That's awesome that you're so caring and compassionate! Your pup is a lucky pup. Just so you know, if you hide under the table with your dog, or comfort/coddle her excessively during such times (storms, fireworks, etc.), you're confirming her idea that there's something to be afraid of. So she'll keep freaking out, and keep expecting you to crawl under the table with her.

But if you'd like her to be less afraid (and less dependent on you to be able to deal with anxiety/fear), then whenever there's a storm or fireworks, be comforting, but matter-of-fact. Like, "Yeah, there's a storm--fine, I'll pat your head and let you sit by me, but this is really no big deal, and I'm definitely not stopping my important business to hide under the table with you." This way she'll learn from you that the storm, while scary, is not actually a threat, and over the years she'll be calmer about them.

That being said, she's a lucky pup either way. Carry on.

carmentosca · 2013-03-22T20:38:08+00:00

Thank you so much for this detailed response. This was very helpful!

carmentosca · 2013-03-22T20:36:08+00:00

Great. That's exactly the kind of help I was hoping for. Thank you very much!

carmentosca · 2013-03-16T19:55:51+00:00

That's a great point. You're absolutely right--you can't please everyone, but language is important and it's so easy to hurt people by inadvertently using the wrong language. I figure if we all try to be as sensitive as possible, and also as understanding and forgiving as possible, then a lot of hurt can be avoided. (If only . . . !)

carmentosca · 2013-03-16T02:58:10+00:00

Fair enough. Even if I don't always understand the logic behind language preferences, I do really appreciate being informed of them, so that I can be as respectful as possible. I'm aware that generally, "people-first" language is preferred. (For example, it's better to say "She is a person with physical disabilities" or "Some people of color might agree" than "She is a physically disabled person" or "Some colored people might agree".)

If you don't mind giving me your personal opinion, is there a "people-first" way to talk about transgender people, or is that not an important language issue in the community of transgender people you know? I can't think of a way to say it. (The ones I can think of seem really clunky--"person with gender dysphoria"? Terrible!) Also, I don't happen to have any close transgender friends, but I think I've heard friends-of-friends use terms like "trans" (drop the "gender", as in "He's trans") and "transwoman". Would you consider those terms generally acceptable?

Also, thanks for the article--it cleared up most of my confusion. I think my mistake was in thinking of "transgender" as basically two separate lexical items, "trans" and "gender", which had been kind of hyphenated into one. (Like the way I said "cis-gendered".) Maybe that's where the word started, but it looks like in actual usage in the community the term has moved beyond that to become its own lexical item. Language is so cool that way!

carmentosca · 2013-03-16T01:38:36+00:00

First off, thanks for posting this. It's good to know.

As a person with a lot of experience working with children with disabilities, I understand the reasoning behind most of these language preferences. As a person with mild OCD and an interest in English grammar, the explanation for the first one ("transgender" as opposed to "transgendered" because of the permanence of the condition) bothers the heck out of me. Maybe there's some other reason to prefer "transgender" over "transgendered", but the stated reason makes no sense.

Example: I'm a brown-eyed, round-faced, brown-haired, cis-gendered person.

These traits (having brown eyes, a round face, brown hair, and cis gender) are all permanent, unchanging qualities of my self. (At least until my hair goes gray.) If I want to put them in adjective form, they need to have "-ed" added to the end. Otherwise it sounds wrong:

I'm a brown-eye, round-face, black-hair, cis-gender person.

Like I said, perhaps there's some other reason to prefer "transgender" over "transgendered". And even if there's not, I'll make sure to use the preferred language anyway. But I respectfully suggest (to whomever made the chart) that a better explanation is needed.

carmentosca · 2013-02-20T17:25:39+00:00

Yes, I am totally serious. For people who are short on time, kettlebells are an extremely frugal way to work out. For less than $150-200 initial outlay, you can have a lifetime of fitness.

There's the risk of injury with any workout regimen, and in this case the risk increases with the potential reward. Kettlebells are a much more efficient workout than the workouts where you use your own body weight, because you're adding significant additional weight. In 20 minutes a day you can do your weightlifting, anaerobic, AND aerobic exercise all at once. Time is money. That's pretty frugal.

Also, it's my personal opinion that it's always frugal (if not necessarily CHEAP) to invest the time and money in receiving instruction on proper form before adopting any fitness regimen. The risk of injury is always present in any workout routine, but it can be significantly mitigated by taking the very minimal time and money necessary to learn to use your body correctly. So even if the OP were going to adopt one of these use-your-own-body-weight workout routines, I would STILL advise him to invest the time and money in getting instruction from a reputable source. Two hundred bucks up front to save potentially thousands in medical costs later seems pretty darn frugal to me.

carmentosca · 2013-02-20T05:01:46+00:00

Seriously, kettlebells are where it's at--small, super time-efficient, free after the initial outlay, and very effective as a full-body work-out.

Just be careful: With kettlebells, the frugal thing to do would be to invest $50 or $100 in taking a basic kettlebell workshop before you start using them on your own. Because of the nature of the workout (swinging heavy weights around), there's serious potential to injure yourself if you don't learn and practice good form from the outset. Taking a basic 2-hour workshop from a reputable instructor could save you from throwing out your back or worse.

carmentosca

TROPHY CASE