New job update

white tulip 2013

Friends, my new job is going well.  It was intensely overwhelming the first week - but each day it's becoming more manageable.  I just don't have a great deal of free time. 

This is a good thing.

Perhaps (as one friend observed) I'm still in the honeymoon phase.  But I'm struck that I should have done this a long time ago.  I didn't, and there were specific reasons for not leaving.  I also find I am being overly negative about my former job.  But I recognize that as well, and also recognize that it's not who I want to be.  While I wasn't responsible for everything there, I am responsible for my choices and actions.  I chose to stay in a situation that was not ideal.

I know the honeymoon won't last.  It's always nice to realize that I had the right take on the situation for me, that I made the right decision for me.  

Cleaning out the closets

I have a few days between jobs, and I am cleaning.  Generally I dislike cleaning.  Organization does not come naturally. 

One of my sisters moved recently, and I thought about how difficult it would be for my family to move at the moment.  We have a lot of stuff that keeps accumulating.  And on top of that, I have a general reluctance to throwing anything away. 

So in this closet cleaning process, I have piles for donation, for resale, for recycling.  But some things I will need to simply throw away. 

Here are some of the things I've gone through already:
-a vase that was a wedding gift (never taken out of the box)
-a clock we got from the wedding that hasn't worked for over ten years
-coats I never wore
-a cheese plate that I never unpacked
-old medications and beauty products (lotions from ten years ago, etc.)
-old VHS tapes
-old VHS tapes that people gave us as gifts that were never watched or opened

And the list goes on.  Sometimes I give things away, and then regret that choice.  I worry - in downsizing - that I will give something away that I really want or need. 

Without organization, however, I can't even find the things I know I already have.  Anti-itch lotion is a perfect example - I had three unopened tubes in various places. 

And the chances of me using that vase are unlikely - I thought it was ugly when I got it.  I could have re-gifted - but it was too ugly to give to anyone I cared about. 

My mantra has been that someone else can use it (this is true).  That things can't replace memories.  That if I haven't used it in the past year, it's on the list.  If it doesn't fit or is broken, it's time to go. 

I could so easily end up like relatives who had phone books from the 1980s (true story) next to extra cans of varnish. And drawers full of keys.  I don't want to be that way.  I don't want to put my friends and family through that.

It's a metaphor for life (of sorts).  Periodically, it's important to re-assess and re-organize.  To concentrate on what's important, and let the other stuff go.

Trust and Money

Recently I read an editorial which stated that if you don't trust your spouse/partner with money, then you don't trust your spouse.

It's true that many couples have issues surrounding money.  Money is very important in our culture.  It is true that in our culture, people are more comfortable talking about sex than about money (their salaries).

When I read the quote above, I get the impression that one needs to have all money in common (in a couple), even asking permission from the other partner before spending money.  And perhaps that's a good goal for many couples.

I know money was a huge deal for my parents growing up.  With six kids and one working parent, there was never enough.  It was stressful.   At some point for parents, when money is really tight, you think about whether or not your child will get glasses, or you'll get something new for yourself. 

In my own marriage, we disagree about where to spend money sometimes.  My husband and I have different priorities.  There are things he values and will spend money on, and things I value that I will spend money on.  A simple example is lunch; I will often buy lunch.  Usually what I buy can be a little pricier - since I try to buy healthy, fresh food.  If I bought a hot dog from the gas station, it would be much cheaper.  But long term, for me, healthier is more important than less expensive. 

On top of navigating money issues when there isn't a lot of money, and with different priorities, there is also always the chance of things going wrong.  When my grandfather passed away in the 70s, my grandmother struggled for the first few months because nothing was in her name.  She couldn't get credit.  I haven't been able to talk with her about it, but it must have made the loss even that much more difficult. 

Other friends separate and divorce. As fifty percent of marriages end in divorce, it seems reasonable to at least consider the possibility.  If all money is in common, if all the retirement accounts are in common - it could be difficult separate them fairly.  That doesn't stop some divorcees from making poor financial decisions. 

So it's more complicated than just not trusting the other person in a relationship. 

I agree that it's important for each couple to be working towards common goals, and have common priorities.  I completely agree that couples should talk about money, and about all the emotional baggage that can go along with money.  But I'm not sure that it's advisable for all couples to always handle finances in the same way.  People are different.  Couples are different.  And more than anything, I think both partners should be financially solvent (where possible) and maintain credit. 

Traditional Marriage

My fb feed has been lit up this week about the marriage equality issue. 

Many people have written eloquently about this issue, much more eloquently than I could.

I was listening to a commentator today explain their position against same sex marriage.  First, he started by saying that he appreciated that we were able to agree to disagree, to disagree peacefully (specifically in the protests in D.C.). 

I agree. I'm glad that the protests (on both sides) are peaceful.  Violent protests help no one, and violence with this issue would not be helpful.

Then he explained why he supports traditional marriage, between a man and a woman.  This is where his opinion offended me, a married mother of two.  From what I could surmise, his argument was that society had changed, that marriage was no longer a long term commitment.  That many children were being raised in single families without fathers.

Now I can't explain the causes of poverty, and I can't speak to parts of the community where fathers don't take an active role in their children's lives.  But it seems to me that the issue of gay marriage is not related to this at all.  The argument is that same sex marriage "cheapens" the marriage brand, and therefore makes fathers unwilling to marry their children's mothers.  Or divorce is easier and children suffer.

Again, I can't speak to some of the community issues.  I live in a middle class area, I have an education.  I have friends who may not be married to their children's mothers, but they all support their children.  I also know people who have gotten divorced - and for some - it was really the best solution.  I am thankful that divorce is an option for everyone.  Sometimes people do get screwed in divorce, and perhaps there should be divorce reform.  That's not an argument against gay marriage.  I

I enjoyed the pbs "Makers" program that recently aired.  And I can't help but think, when some people talk about traditional marriage, it's a euphemism for returning to the bad old days.  Where a woman couldn't divorce her husband, even an abusive a**hole non-providing husband.  Where it was perfectly acceptable to beat and/or rape one's wife (there was no such thing as rape within marriage).  Where women were routinely paid less for equal work and were not given promotions.    

I don't want to go back to that society.  Maybe there are parts of our society that have been lost, and perhaps that harms us going forward.  There are certainly values worth maintaining.  A wife who is property is not one of them. A marriage where the wife is a slave is not one of them.

My husband and I lived together before we married - I was shocked by how many people told us we were on the road to divorce (at least nine).  And these were not necessarily my conservative mormon relatives either.  (And yes, they were almost saying - maintain two separate residences before you make it legal - even if you never actually live at one of them).

While living together first can be complicated, I will recommend it to my children (if they ask my opinion).  As long as children from a union are supported (physically, financially, emotionally), that's what matters. 

Some people simply can't live together, and some relationships are better off ending.  I would much rather my friends and loved ones had happy, fulfilling relationships, than just staying together miserably. And legally, it seems to me if two people want to commit to one another, we should support that. 

It's just business

Everybody knows that it's now or never

Everybody knows that it's me or you...

Everybody knows the deal is rotten

"Everybody Knows" - Leonard Cohen

At one of my first jobs, a co-worker mentioned that he hadn't planned on working for his prior employer for ten years.  He just woke up one day and found that he had been there ten years.  At the time, I was skeptical. 

Yet I have found myself in a similar position.

In the fifth season of Mad Men, Don takes Peggy's work for granted.  He tells her that everything she's earned is from him.  As the last straw (not surprising for a fictional drama), he throws money in her face.

When she discusses a move with the person who really discovered her, her friend reminds her that Don wouldn't think twice about taking a business opportunity.  He bluntly remarks that it's just business.  Don wouldn't think about it emotionally, in terms of loyalty.  Peggy ends up taking the promotion (and raise) and leaves the advertising agency.

It's a scene I've thought about often in the past few months.  Truth isn't always stranger than fiction.

I have decided to take a new job opportunity.  I've also woken up after being at my employer for over ten years.  It's amazing to think about what's changed in ten years on the internet. 

I've learned a lot.  I've worked hard (in fact, that's what my boss specifically said about me when I mentioned I was leaving.  That I was a hard worker.  Go me!  That's exactly what I want people to know about me). 

But I've hit a glass ceiling of sorts.  And, much like Peggy's character, I know I'm not really getting what I'm worth. 

I think the modern workplace is structured this way.  It's human to take people and situations for granted.

Multiple people have told me that the only person looking out for my career is me.  It's true.  My company isn't looking out for my career.  And some of my co-workers - if they had a good opportunity, they would also take it without looking back, without thinking twice.

For me, the change is odd.  I tend to stay in situations simply because I've been there a long time, not because they are what's best for me.  Sometimes I stay longer than I need to.  And I admittedly have some anxiety about the whole thing.  Part of me would rather stay where it's safe, to stay with what's known. 

But life is too short. And this is just how business works. 

The Lottery

I listen to podcasts frequently.  I listen while I work (and can listen while I do work around the house as well).

This freakonomics podcast discussed the lottery, and incentives for people to do "the right thing" (whatever that means).  There was a huge jackpot in the lottery some months ago, I don't think I bought a ticket even then. 

Despite not being a math major, I know enough about the probability of winning.  I would have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening.

In the podcast, it mentioned a new type of savings account to entice people to save their own money.  You put a certain amount of money into the account, and winners are drawn weekly.  In South Africa, the interest from the accounts was pooled, and that is what one person would win.  The principal is still in your account, and can be withdrawn for emergency or savings purposes.

We dumped our bank a few years ago on dump your bank day.  It wasn't that we disliked the people at our bank, or even that we agreed (or disagreed) with the Occupy Wall Street protests.  But the bank had just enacted a steep fee (what I consider a steep fee) for having your money in a checking account, even those of us who had been loyal long term customers. 

So we moved to a credit union.  So far, the credit union has provided the same amount of service, the same features that the bank did.  In fact, they provide interest checking and these types of lottery savings accounts.  I signed up for one  after listening to the podcast. 

Again, I probably could save more and also, I have a better chance of winning something than playing the lottery (I'm competing against other account holders, not millions of people).

History as we want it to be

***Downton Abbey season 3 spoilers ahead!  Don't read if you are sensitive to spoilers***




Like many Americans, I've been watching Downton Abbey.  It's a good program, although at times it can be rather soapy.  And a part of me is surprised by its popularity, since I've enjoyed most Masterpiece/BBC programs for quite some time.  I'm not sure what's so unique about this.

However, in one of the episodes of Season 3, there was more than a small anachronism.  Thomas (the valet) is a closeted gay servant.  He's also caused quite a bit of trouble and drama from day one in the household.  (Remember all the trouble Mary got into during the first season with Mr. Pamuk?  That was Thomas' doing).  In this season (after the war) he's back in a life of service. 

He mistakes another servant's friendliness for a love interest (with the help of another scheming servant, O'Brien).  Barrow hits on him (the character Jimmy) and is discovered by another footman. 

The point of all of this is, while some of the servants are shocked and dismayed, in the end, everyone accepts that Barrow is gay.  Even Lord Grantham doesn't have an issue with a gay servant.  This is the same Lord Grantham who, for the record, was shocked that his daughter married a chauffeur and that his granddaughter was going to be baptized Catholic (the horrors).  Also shocking for the Earl, his daughter wearing pants and another daughter writing for a magazine.

It would have been wonderful if in the 1920s, it was not a big deal for someone to be gay.  If gay men and women weren't repeatedly arrested and socially ostracized.  But the truth is, being openly gay was still listed as a disease in the DSM until 1986.  The American Experience program about Stonewall was amazing to me. Clubs were raided and upstanding citizens were arrested, simply for being gay.  Looking at Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited, set around the same time, had an upper class gay character - who ends up full of despair (because at the time, gay characters couldn't be successful and happy - they were doomed to ruin).

The mormon church is far from 1920s Edwardian England, but I can quote many mormon church leaders who agreed with this disease model.  In church leader Spencer W. Kimball's book The Miracle of Forgiveness, it says that it is better for someone to come home dead than dishonored.  This book and its message has been repeatedly discussed in the bloggernacle, but has never been formally repudiated by the LDS church.  Even in 2010, an LDS church leader (Boyd K. Packer) implied that god would never make anyone gay.

But in fiction, we don't have to be fully honest or historically accurate.  Even if it is unlikely that an openly gay servant could remain in a conservative household, the creator could stretch reality.  And there are many uncomfortable parts of human history, some of which we would rather ignore.  I would like to pretend that the United States wasn't founded with slavery.  I would like to pretend that women weren't treated as property for most of human history. 

But that's not the truth. 

This slate article explains that each character defended Thomas for their own reasons.  So perhaps it does work.  I am simply wary of revisionist history that ignores the very real sometimes violent struggle that many people had to face, for human rights.  If we don't accurately depict the way things were - it diminishes how much we have had to overcome.