let's get physical, emotional.

as I was walking crosstown with shelly yesterday, after a long day of gardening in central park, I expressed something that, I guess, has been percolating in my head for a pretty long time. I realized recently that I have a very hard time differentiating between physical and emotional attraction. for some reason that's one sphere of my life that I have a very hard time balancing and keeping sorted out and organized.

here's what I realized: that many times I overcompensate for my lack of physical attraction to someone because of an emotional connection with them and, most times, it bites me in the ass. I think I finally have learned (the hard way, after hurting many people) that if there is no physical attraction, an initial physical attraction, there cannot be a successful relationship. for me at least. granted, if the person is a dolt, a very successful relationship is not foretold either.

there isn't very much to write about even, not a lot to expose. just that right now I am in a serious, committed relationship where I am physically and emotionally attracted to someone and it kind of puts previous relationships to shame. and now, after having this, in the future I'll have a lesson learned in my back pocket. I know to not accept anything less the best, to not settle for someone I have to justify; a person should be justified on his/her own merit (lookswise and personalitywise). so, take this post as just a thought that must be shared -- never settle for anyone less than someone you are physically AND emotionally attracted to. if you've never had it before, you'll just never be happy or satisfied, and if you have had it before, you'll just think about how happy you were before. past tense.

right of association?

so I was thinking about it today (when I saw the empire state building blue & white for the israeli day parade) and I realized that one question that people ask me (or us jews, as a general populace) is -- are you an american jew, or a jewish american? now I'm not going on focus on this question because I think it's a silly one but rather the idea that people associate themselves with specific groups of people.

it's easy, sometimes, to lock ourselves into a certain group of people just because it gives us (or maybe just me?) a comfort zone, a group of people that we know we'll have something in common with regardless of our backgrounds. some people associate with the whole "vegan/vegetarian" movement (something I could really NEVER do. I love meat.) some people are really into religion so that's their thing, some people are into theater, some sports (watching/playing), some video games, etc., etc.. granted I'm totally into the feminist movement so maybe that's my jam, but I guess something I have a bigger problem with is the idea that we associate ourselves specifically with one or two groups pretty much because it locks us into a group and a specific ideology.

I don't mean to say that being connected with other people on an interest-based-level is a bad thing because, phrased like that, I sound like an asshole. what I mean to say is that while we all have interests, being locked into one or two groups gives us a pretty stilted, almost jaded mindset if we don't stay careful and open minded. granted, it's nice to know that within bigger groups there are smaller factions and each person comes to the table with a different perspective (I guess that right there would be the beauty of grouping together, in general) but that doesn't mean you have to affiliate yourself solely with that group. groups may be an indication of our passions and interests, but we're not one dimensional people; we don't just have one or two things we love to do. we are complex persons with many many interests and should not have to refer to ourselves as a "dancer" or an "atheist" or a "blogger" even, because it's simply one facet of our personalities, our personas, and shouldn't be the main focus of who we are.

just some silliness that sounds really good, check out the national, a brooklyn-based indie band that got together in ohio way back when. check 'em out.

ooooooklahoma, where the doctors lie with malice.

so for shavuot dinner on tuesday night I went to ilana gleichblooms with a few other girls (shoutout to talia, sarah gott, rachie, emma, margalit & becca) and we had a lovely shavuot dinner/study (I fell asleep on ilana's couch for the study part...I was very tired). afterwards I got to take a peek at ilana's shelf of feminism books (shoutout to gleichbloom for totally having the most organized bookshelf of ever, I'm super jealous) and I found one on analyzing/reading sex and the city (which I didn't take, surprisingly) and one called "manifesta" which I took and am currently reading. apparently it's 10 years old and they're writing a new one at this point...which is really exciting and I cannot wait to read it.

it starts off being like a basic introduction to feminism (not like jessica valenti though who is kind of annoying and masochistic) so the first chapter is about first wave, second wave and the new, (now obsolete) third wave of feminism. there's a whole big part about sex and birth control and abortion and a woman's "role" -- I'm not going to focus on the woman's role bit just because I think I talk about that enough, so I'm going to look at the sex/birth control/abortion bit. it's just so interesting to look at what these women wrote 10 years ago and read it alongside Gail Collins' article on the 50th anniversary of birth control that was published in the times mother's day weekend (irony much?) and then read that alongside the new oklahoma law that says that a doctor can withhold information, mislead or actually straight out lie to a pregnant woman about the health status of her baby if it might make her want to get an abortion (mind you this was passed at the beginning of this month).

obviously I am all for women's rights, a right to choice, a right to full information (pretty much because that's standard ethics and medical procedure and I cannot see how this new law can coexist with the hypocratic oath at all) and I am a big advocate of birth control (even though it's expensive -- gail collins totally addresses that issue in her article so definitely read up on that) so I don't see where progress has been made. I cannot see how progress can occur so rapidly and be so openly accepted in some states while it seems that some states are taking many steps backwards.

so how do we do something about the oklahoma law? how does birth control become affordable for all women (granted, condoms are free at many places but condoms pose a higher risk of breaking than, say, nuvaring does of not working because there is only perfect usage)? how can we take this country and move it only steps forward, not leave some places behind in the dark? and, most importantly, what can I personally do to make all of america a more women's-rights-friendly place? the balance is out of order -- there simply cannot be some states that withhold information because they worry about abortion occurring as a result. I cannot read a book published 10 years ago about the advances that women have made (and we must recognize that we weren't just granted the right to vote in 1920, we fought our asses off for it; we must recognize that when the fda announced that they would approve the pill as contraception on may 9th, 1960, states didn't open such contraception with open arms -- even new york, a very liberal state) while hearing about the way society has regressed in the past few weeks.

I would say that step #1 would be awareness. see if people even know about the new oklahoma law. even women & men who don't identify as feminists can (and should!) feel morally opposed to this new law. bring it to their attention, find a way to weave it into conversation. bring it up. get it out there. get something done.

radical amazement, a la ajh?

so I was sitting in shul tonight and I was listening to the prayers and praying along when I realized during some prayer that neither I, nor my entire congregation, should be praying aloud -- it was technically the part that my rabbi (or any chazan) would be saying alone in order to lead the service. but no, my entire congregation (which was maybe 30 people -- probably only one of whom was younger than me and that would be noah, my younger brother) was praying aloud along with my (female) rabbi and (female) cantor.

this is something that really used to irk me. I was so used to a traditional egalitarian/conservative prayer service for so many years (being that that's what I grew up with in my conservative middle school) that I would hate when people would pray with my rabbi/cantor when she/they were supposed to be the only one/ones singing or speaking. it was a reason why I really loathed going to shul and for a very long time seriously asked my parents to let me go to a different shul (that and the amount of english that used to overwhelm the service, which also used to really bother me).

but tonight I realized the beauty in everyone singing along. I know we don't do a traditional motzei shabbat (friday night) service at my shul with the traditional songs and being on the shabbaton last weekend reaffirmed how much I really do love and miss the egalitarian tunes and melodies and friday night service in general, but sitting in shul tonight I realized how beautiful the ignorance in my community was. the thing is, because I go to a reform shul, no one really knows when it's supposed to be just the rabbi speaking as opposed to when the entire congregation is supposed to join in. while this bothered me for a while, I think I didn't see it in the right way for those years; I was wrapped up in my own bubble and wasn't exposing myself to, what should be, my own traditions and customs. I've always been in a difficult place in my shul because my background (while not very extensive) still makes me more knowledgeable than many people there. tonight though, I opened myself up to my own congregation and our customs and traditions, as traditionally "incorrect" as they may be.

I guess this is one example of what rabbi heschel (ajh = abraham joshua heschel) might have considered to be radical amazement. I was really struck by my community praying together, even though I've experienced it so many times. I was moved by everyone praying as a community as opposed to looking to one person to lead us in song and prayer. it's a really beautiful concept that I might only find in my congregation at my shul, and it's not really something I've ever appreciated, or even approved of, before.

so as much as it isn't really what I grew up with, it was a very beautiful, moving night in shul for me and I'm glad (and proud of myself) that I opened myself up to another of my own traditions, one that I used to frown upon. good old heschel and his radical amazement. you never fail me.

okay, independence.

so I was working in the park today and I realized that being in a relationship sometimes makes it difficult to be independent. I'm not talking about being my own person (I'm quite good at being an individual thank-you-very-much), I'm talking about being comfortable with being alone and not letting the idea of loneliness overwhelm and absorb you. I was talking to one of my best friends today, someone I've known for a really long time and she said that she was feeling lonely again. she has felt lonely a lot this year. I realized when I told her that I had nothing constructive to say (because nothing I would say would get her out of the rut) that I did, in fact, have something to say: when you're lonely, and down, and upset, you cannot focus on it and let it become who you are. if you're feeling any one of those things or more, you need to accept it and gracefully move on. granted, I feel that way about pretty much any emotion, but this seems like the most shrewd way to go about handling those feelings.

what followed that idea was the question: why do I have such a problem with losing my complete independence and comfortability with being alone? is that unnatural?
I realized that when I publicly thanked my grade for making me independent (partially because of a disconnect that I felt, partially because I took it upon myself to learn such a skill) and that I am a different person now than I was in freshman year, 3 years ago, I was telling myself and them that my independence is something that I have worked really hard for and it isn't something that I'm willing to just release; it took me 3 years to get to where I am now, and I'm not ready to throw away all of that progress for a relationship.

now this makes things difficult. where is the balance between my comfort (and, since it's now in my comfort zone, a craving) with loneliness and my desire to be with someone else a good part of the time? what's more, I've used my loneliness to build a life and regimented schedule for myself -- so where does someone else fit in? it's not fair to make someone give 100% and for me to give nothing, but it's difficult for me to give in even 50% because it means losing 50% of the work I've done and the life I've established over the past few years. what's worse is that I know that once I break up with whoever I work into my life (assuming that I date more than one person over the course of the next 10-15 years) I'll have to again rebuild 50% of my life and regiment.

maybe it's a good thing that I'll have to constantly rebuild; maybe it'll force me to constantly reevaluate my situation and will force me to try new things (all good things in my book) but it's still super scary and means I could lose so much of the progress that I have made. ah well, time will tell.

in the meantime, check out metric, a pretty word band with a good electro-synth-pop feel. think less mgmt though and more apples in stereo.

rah, rah, lady gaga.

I don't want to take this post to talk about lady gaga as a female, feminist inspiration (although I do think she is one) but I want to just talk about her as a musician. I recently heard that "telephone" was written by lady gaga for britney spears (a guilty pleasure for me, don't tease!) and it let me listen to telephone with a different perspective. I always knew that something was off when I heard lady gaga and beyonce sing telephone (don't get me wrong, I LOVE lady gaga and beyonce, I really think they're two amazing feminist role models as strong-minded, independent women, especially in a society that suffers from a dearth of those types of women) but I couldn't place it. once I heard britney sing it, I knew that what was strange was the sound of the song itself sung by two women who didn't go for that type of genre of music.

anyway, seeing britney's version made it click and it made me kind of relieved, you know? telephone just wasn't gaga's sound. phew, gaga; that was a close one. rock on ladies.

ideal vs. reality

so the theme for a recent shabbaton was: where we were, where we are, where we will be. pretty classic, standard theme for a senior shabbaton, right? but instead of thinking about my own personal decisions (partially because it's hard to think far in advance, not factor chance/fate in and the fact that I just HATE making decisions for the most part) I really got to thinking about the idea of the ideal situation that I'm in now as opposed to the reality that is life.

so what really got me thinking were two things, both based off scenarios that have to do with judaism (the first being "I will be practice religion differently when I am older" and the second being "in 20 years secular jews and orthodox jews will not talk to each other") but in the end none of my conclusions really have to do with judaism.

in terms of scenario #1, my thought process went like this:
I know in my gut that I want to be more religious. I know that I love the feeling when I observe shabbat with a small community, I love the principles behind a lot of judaism and I would love to invest myself more thoroughly in them.
however, I know that trying to be a real person in a secular environment (I say secular because even if I live on the upper west/east side for the rest of my life, in the end there is a divide between the secular and the religious) is difficult. there is so much that happens on shabbat, so many foods that I enjoy eating that clash with kashrut, so many halachot that I just don't agree with (I can value the halachic process and thought behind them, yes, but I cannot value the halachot themselves). this is the ideal.
so in the end, I don't know what my decision will be. I don't know how my ideal situation and gut instinct really fits into reality and I don't know how much I'll sacrifice to become more religious. granted, this could be extended to any situation. not knowing how much to sacrifice to follow your gut (I don't say heart because I think it sounds terribly cliche) is always an issue, especially because I don't know if it will ultimately make me a happier person. will being more observant make me a happier, more fulfilled, more satisfied person? is there a gap in my life that I am even trying to fill, or do I just want to try out being more observant because of the people I'm with now? this is the reality.

and then scenario #2 went a little like this:
being that my entire family is irish catholic, there are koreans & hispanics, evangelical christians and I even have an adopted black cousin, and we are all so loving and accepting of each other regardless of our differences in beliefs and backgrounds and skin colors, I can't even imagine that the world would get to a point that religious tolerance would not exist within one religion. granted, I suppose that happened in the church for some time and that's why there are different denominations of christianity, but I cannot recall a case where one religion has splintered so much that they cannot put the pieces back together. this is the ideal.
but I do know that a gap is growing, that there are new sects of denominations growing and spreading and there are hotbutton issues (gay marriage, women rabbis, etc.) that are problematic in the jewish community. I've always said that judaism is a pick-and-choose religion, where you can identify in "spirit" and "thought" as one denomination but practice a different the customs of another denomination without much fear of scrutiny, but I think scrutiny is growing. there are more and more people who will call you on this unbalanced, almost "hypocritical" dichotomy; many people say that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. this is the reality.

similarly to these two scenarios, there is an ideal and a reality in where I am right now. how fortunate I am to be in a place where I can think like this and express it openly. that I am at a school where I can see both sides of the issues, where the encourage me to look at everything two different ways. how lucky I am to be in an ideal situation, but how scary it is to have to face reality. next year I will not be in a pluralistic (jewishly pluralistic) environment, a comfort zone, a small community. I will instead be in a diverse environment, new, uncharted territory, a little fish in the big pond. and perhaps diversity is pluralism in its truest, more pure form, so long as everyone is accepting...which is (surprisingly and upsettingly) a lot to ask.

so how to tackle the balance between the ideal and the reality is something I'm not quite sure of. luckily I'm comfortable with myself at this point and that's a good place to start but, coming from where I am now, facing reality will be a challenge. as excited as I am to broach something new and experience something new, I am nervous and worried (which I'm sure is natural). obviously the first place to start is being yourself while staying open to new things. sounds contradictory, but, just like ideal and reality, it's a balance that (out of necessity or curiosity) must be struck.

the anti-demise of the english language.

so I was watching californication on my way to mcgill many moons ago and in one of the early episodes hank, the main character (as played by david duchovny), is dating a lady who uses "lol" and (to be facetious) "bj." you know, text/im language. in this episode hank (who also keeps a blog! but people pay him to do it, so we're a bit different I guess. he also fucks many, many people. another difference.) gets really super worked up about the "demise of the english language." he hates that technology and proper english are inversely proportionate; that with the increase in technology leads to the decrease in proper english and/or the ability to use the language correctly.

now I guess when this show was made (2007), blackberries weren't so popular, the iphone wasn't yet invented and the term "smartphone" hadn't yet been invented. funny just because "smartphones" are now ubiquitous...as in sometimes people (like my father) have two phones, one smart and one, well, stupid I guess (it just calls people, doesn't do much else). so with the rise of these smartphones and stupidphones with qwerty keyboards (what a silly thing to call a full keyboard, a qwerty keyboard!) I've noticed that people don't use little isms like "lol" and "btw" and "brb" as frequently anymore. maybe on im they do, but definitely not via text.

I just thought this was interesting because it shows the total shift in colloquial language based on the growth of technology. funny enough, the only person who still texts me using "2" instead of "to" and "r" instead of "are" is my mom, because she totally has this old school throwback '00s phone. and they say the youth is the problem? silly society, it's the old people who are still doin' it!

so I realized that there haven't been ANY music updates in a really long time. for that reason, check out:
#1. dr. dog (their album fate is pretty legit and their semi-new album shame, shame is alright, a little more in terms of yelling than on fate), and;
#2. the apples in stereo (just some groovy kinda jams). enjoy.

self-destructive much?

so I realized today (while talking to dan) that we want people to know the bad things that we do, and want to hear the things that other people will do when we know they'll hurt us. like when you're listening to someone half-tell a story and you know you're missing something, or you get kind of jealous when an ex-boyfriend/girlfriend gets with someone else and you explicitly ask them about it? it's that total LACK of reining in your emotions that is such an interesting concept to think about -- why do we want to know about things that will hurt us?

sometimes I think it's just curiosity, like how we would compare to the other person? or letting the other person know that they just don't compare and you're happier and better off without them? is it just satisfaction that is getting the better of us? it seems really self-satisfying and selfish (which it very well may be) I just don't know how else to justify our inherent desire to be hurt.

I think I ask questions like those for 2 reasons:
#1. I'm a curious person, and;
#2. I kind of like being hurt by things.

I mean #1 is pretty self-explanatory. I'm a curious person. I like asking questions about everything, anything. I like knowing everything about everyone. not in a gossipy way, seriously I really try my best NOT to gossip, I'm just curious. my mom used to call me nosy. I guess I am nosy, but I don't really think it's such a bad things anymore -- it doesn't have the same negative connotation anymore.

the second part of this post got deleted so I'll make it short. I like being hurt because it means I have emotions, it means I can feel, it means there is someone in my life that can really have an affect on me. and I am not moved by things very easily or by people's stories very easily so to know that there is someone who can have an affect on me is a really nice reality check. yes I am human, no I am not a robot.