I recently received a forwarded e-mail containing a "poem" attributed to Maya Angelou called 30 Things Every Woman Should Know by 30. I usually delete that forwarded clap-trap immediately, but as the momentous birthday approaches, I decided to see what it had to say. As I read, I became suspicious that this was not in fact the wisdom of Ms. Angelou. Some light Googling revealed that it was actually an article by Pamela Redmond Satran and first published in Glamour magazine. The actual article 30 Things Every Woman Should Have and Know by the Time She's 30 is worth the two minute it takes to read. Some of the items seemed a little cliche or sexist even, but it made me think about what advice I'd give on the subject...
By 30 you (or I...) should be able to:
1. Change your own tire, set up your own home wireless network, do your own taxes, and put together your Ikea entertainment center without having to call a brother, father, or boyfriend.
2. Dine, travel, or see a movie alone without feeling self-conscious.
3. Coherently articulate your position on the political/social/religious issues that are important to you without simply regurgitating what influential people in your life believe.
4. Cook at least one signature dish extremely well and contribute it to family gatherings.
5. Get what you want from a customer service rep without crying or having your mother call for you.
By 30 you (...I) should have:
1. Relationships with people (family, friends, significant others) that you know you can count on.
2. Clothes that are age- and body-appropriate...remember, great style evolves.
3. A 401k, savings account, and checking account that you contribute to more regularly than you withdraw.
4. An new outlet for that creativity, athleticism, or whatever that you haven't had since high school or college.
5. A tentative plan for the future...When someone asks you where you see yourself in 10 years, have an answer, even if that answer changes over time.
By 30 you (...I) should know:
1. The past, good or bad, doesn't define you now. It's what you're doing right now that matters, so don't live in the past.
2. What you're looking for in a job and a relationship so you'll know a good thing when you see it.
3. How to say no gracefully.
4. How to be alone and be completely entertained by your own company.
5. When to trust your gut instincts...which, by the way, is almost always.
By 30 you (definitely I) should try:
1. Living alone.
2. That food you refused to touch when you were a kid.
3. Exercising twice as much as you did before your metabolism turned on you.
4. Reading more books...maybe even some nonfiction ones
5. To make "you" time regardless of how crazy your day is...if you can't give yourself at least 30 uninterrupted minutes a day, who will?
That's just my .02. I'll be honest--I'm more excited than apprehensive about turning 30. Maybe it's true that life begins at 30...
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
From the Blogosphere...
There would have been a time when I would have been loathe to admit that my daily intellect is sustained by a large variety of blogs I read regularly, even more than those listed in my blogroll. But I'm not ashamed. The blogosphere had evolved from merely a forum for ignorance (although it has it's fair share of that too) to a place where thoughtful people are exchanging ideas, really talking through ideas with each other. When I don't have the heart to write, their words inspire me to at least compose responses in my head. Lately, I've been immersed in reading (and sometimes tentatively participating in) philosophical discussions of social issues on a former professor's Facebook blog. I've commiserated with women discussing how difficult it is to meet and make friends with other women in your post-college years. I've been hooked on a fiction writing blog where three contributors chronicle the trials and tribulations of their fictional hero.
Today I was inspired by yesterday's post from one of the Glamour.com dating bloggers. Ryan Dodge wrote about what fictional characters he found inspirational. It got me thinking about the fictional heroines who inspired me from childhood and beyond, and what those characteristics meant to me. These are some of my favorites in no particular order...
1. Laura Ingals Wilder (of the Little House books)
2. Cadie Woodlawn (of a book by the same name)
3. Jo March (of Little Women)
4. Nancy Drew (of the old ones more so than the newer ones)
5. Molly (of the American Girl series, which I may or may not have been too old for at the time)
6. Claudia & Stacy (from the BabySitters Club books)
7. Elizabeth (from Sweet Valley High)
8. Elizabeth Bennett (of Pride & Prejudice)
9. Scout Finch (of To Kill a Mockingbird)
10. Edna Pontellier (of the Awakening)
11. Elinor Dashwood (of Sense & Sensibility)
12. Hermione Granger (of the Harry Potter series)
13. Offred (of the Handmaid's Tale)
14. Evie Decker (of Slipping Down Life)
15. Various (usually doomed) Shakespeare characters...Desdemona, Lady MacBeth, Ophelia, etc.
Other than the conflicted heroines of the adult books in the list, I think most of them share the same inspirational quality of independence, creativity, and ambition.
What about you (those of you who read)...Who are your favorites?
Today I was inspired by yesterday's post from one of the Glamour.com dating bloggers. Ryan Dodge wrote about what fictional characters he found inspirational. It got me thinking about the fictional heroines who inspired me from childhood and beyond, and what those characteristics meant to me. These are some of my favorites in no particular order...
1. Laura Ingals Wilder (of the Little House books)
2. Cadie Woodlawn (of a book by the same name)
3. Jo March (of Little Women)
4. Nancy Drew (of the old ones more so than the newer ones)
5. Molly (of the American Girl series, which I may or may not have been too old for at the time)
6. Claudia & Stacy (from the BabySitters Club books)
7. Elizabeth (from Sweet Valley High)
8. Elizabeth Bennett (of Pride & Prejudice)
9. Scout Finch (of To Kill a Mockingbird)
10. Edna Pontellier (of the Awakening)
11. Elinor Dashwood (of Sense & Sensibility)
12. Hermione Granger (of the Harry Potter series)
13. Offred (of the Handmaid's Tale)
14. Evie Decker (of Slipping Down Life)
15. Various (usually doomed) Shakespeare characters...Desdemona, Lady MacBeth, Ophelia, etc.
Other than the conflicted heroines of the adult books in the list, I think most of them share the same inspirational quality of independence, creativity, and ambition.
What about you (those of you who read)...Who are your favorites?
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Basic Argumentation
Over the weekend, I read the article about Palin accusing Obama of "palling around with terrorists" because he and Bill Ayers, founder of the radical anti-war group Weather Underground, live in the same Chicago neighborhood and have served on a couple of the same committees and fundraising campaigns. I read similar articles on no less than six news sites and did some searching on my own. My conclusion was that while Ayers may or may not have done some extreme stuff in anti-Vietnam demonstrations in the 60's, charges against him were dropped, he's no longer in hiding, and he's a professor at U of I Chicago. Being board members together and socially cordial hardly seems like "palling around," and "terrorist" is a relative, inflammatory term in this case. In any case, this situation isn't analogous to, say, inviting the bin Ladens over for a 4th of July barbecue.
As I shut down my computer, I shook my head. In politics it seems like people can say anything they want, regardless of the veracity of their comments. Even when fact checkers uncover half-truths or total fallacies, the damage has already been done. The lie lives on in the mind of the average person as truth. How many people do you know that take the extra step to check the validity of the political commercials, debates, and speeches they've heard? A very sad few. Just once, I'd like to see arguments from either political party that would hold water in even a freshman composition class.
When I taught college writing courses, this was about the point in the semester that we started talking about their argumentative research paper. We spent a lot of time talking about what constituted a valid information source (i.e., not Wikipedia or your friend's blog) and how to analyze those facts to construct a solid argument. Inevitably we covered things like not twisting facts to support your agenda. We discussed how to respond to those who disagree with you and what constitutes an appropriate rebuttal. I responsibly taught them that a logical, valid argument doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks, rely on straw man arguments and sweeping generalizations, or make irrelevant appeals (to fear, force, pity, etc.). I told the poor schmucks that this was the kind of critical thinking the professional world expected of them. Some of them were a little annoyed by the whole concept of logical argument and the extra time that would be consumed by weeding out those pesky logical fallacies. Why bother when one can build an entire political campaign (and an administration, come to think of it...) out of an array of artistically spun logical fallacies and outright lies?
As I shut down my computer, I shook my head. In politics it seems like people can say anything they want, regardless of the veracity of their comments. Even when fact checkers uncover half-truths or total fallacies, the damage has already been done. The lie lives on in the mind of the average person as truth. How many people do you know that take the extra step to check the validity of the political commercials, debates, and speeches they've heard? A very sad few. Just once, I'd like to see arguments from either political party that would hold water in even a freshman composition class.
When I taught college writing courses, this was about the point in the semester that we started talking about their argumentative research paper. We spent a lot of time talking about what constituted a valid information source (i.e., not Wikipedia or your friend's blog) and how to analyze those facts to construct a solid argument. Inevitably we covered things like not twisting facts to support your agenda. We discussed how to respond to those who disagree with you and what constitutes an appropriate rebuttal. I responsibly taught them that a logical, valid argument doesn't indulge in ad hominem attacks, rely on straw man arguments and sweeping generalizations, or make irrelevant appeals (to fear, force, pity, etc.). I told the poor schmucks that this was the kind of critical thinking the professional world expected of them. Some of them were a little annoyed by the whole concept of logical argument and the extra time that would be consumed by weeding out those pesky logical fallacies. Why bother when one can build an entire political campaign (and an administration, come to think of it...) out of an array of artistically spun logical fallacies and outright lies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
