In the midst of home improvement projects and practically cutting my finger off with the Cling Wrap box, I decided to investigate how to make my hands prettier.
Fall colors for nails include metallics (I have), green (weird), vampire red (of course, Edward Cullen) and midnight blue (so you look dead).
Enjoy!
Monday, October 12, 2009
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Commentary on my house buying.
So today my friend told her 5 year old that I bought a house.
The five year old (remember, she's five) said, "Did she get a husband, too?"
My friend said, "No!" and laughed.
The five year old replied, "It's not funny other people have husbands." After a short pause she asked, "So, she's doing this all by herself?"
"Yes she is," said my friend.
"Hmmm..." mused the five year old, "I don't know about that."
The five year old (remember, she's five) said, "Did she get a husband, too?"
My friend said, "No!" and laughed.
The five year old replied, "It's not funny other people have husbands." After a short pause she asked, "So, she's doing this all by herself?"
"Yes she is," said my friend.
"Hmmm..." mused the five year old, "I don't know about that."
Sunday, August 30, 2009
If I were a dude I would have a harem
I recently bought a house. By myself.
The other day, I had a lovely female friend over, and we were talking about the new home, furniture and fixtures I was planning to buy, the home improvement projects I had just successfully completed, and the paint colors I had chosen. I've been in the house for almost 3 weeks, and I am close to being finished setting it all up. Cosmetically anyways. The roof, that's another story.
In the midst of the tour, she turned to me, and casually said, "You know how Gloria Steinem said we're becoming the men we want to marry? Well, you're the man I want to marry."
As weird as this sounded, I believe it's one of the nicest things anyone's ever said to me. And ironic because I can't really remember anyone ever telling me that I was the woman they wanted to marry. Well, actually once, in college, when I told some guy how much I liked beer, and how I actually knew the difference between the different types of beers, he told me he wanted to marry me. But that's it.
Having been uncoupled for most of my adult life, I've had to figure out ways to do most of life's activities alone when I have to. Eating, sleeping, taking out the trash, moving furniture (except for the really heavy stuff), paying the bills, planning vacations. I've always wondered if being needier would have made me a more irresistible mate. But being needy is something I can't even fake.
Maybe knowing that I didn't need to be taken care of made me seem a little stand offish. Maybe not being needed, just being wanted, was hard for my former partners to take. Maybe I'm better off without them anyways.
But at the end of the day, the reason the comment made me smile was that I heard in it not only the permission but the insistence that I continue to be myself.
It was freeing to imagine that my independence, ability to work hard and take care of myself and those around me would actually be considered desirable qualities. Because I always thought they were.
The other day, I had a lovely female friend over, and we were talking about the new home, furniture and fixtures I was planning to buy, the home improvement projects I had just successfully completed, and the paint colors I had chosen. I've been in the house for almost 3 weeks, and I am close to being finished setting it all up. Cosmetically anyways. The roof, that's another story.
In the midst of the tour, she turned to me, and casually said, "You know how Gloria Steinem said we're becoming the men we want to marry? Well, you're the man I want to marry."
As weird as this sounded, I believe it's one of the nicest things anyone's ever said to me. And ironic because I can't really remember anyone ever telling me that I was the woman they wanted to marry. Well, actually once, in college, when I told some guy how much I liked beer, and how I actually knew the difference between the different types of beers, he told me he wanted to marry me. But that's it.
Having been uncoupled for most of my adult life, I've had to figure out ways to do most of life's activities alone when I have to. Eating, sleeping, taking out the trash, moving furniture (except for the really heavy stuff), paying the bills, planning vacations. I've always wondered if being needier would have made me a more irresistible mate. But being needy is something I can't even fake.
Maybe knowing that I didn't need to be taken care of made me seem a little stand offish. Maybe not being needed, just being wanted, was hard for my former partners to take. Maybe I'm better off without them anyways.
But at the end of the day, the reason the comment made me smile was that I heard in it not only the permission but the insistence that I continue to be myself.
It was freeing to imagine that my independence, ability to work hard and take care of myself and those around me would actually be considered desirable qualities. Because I always thought they were.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Oh, the inanity
So, I was just hanging around on Facebook....for HOURS...and was thinking about how boring it is. I am reading things like, "Timmy is thinking about beer," and "Sandra is putting on her jammies," and I am thinking about why it is infinitely interesting (or seems to be) to read about the inanity of other people's lives. I mean, some of them are my close friends, and so their lives are infinitely interesting to me. But why do I need to know what a marginal acquaintance is watching on TV on a Sunday afternoon?
Like really? I care that you're putting on your jammies? I mean, maybe this is what this online generation thing is all about. I am wondering if seeing the boringness of everyone else's life is giving us permission to be boring. Or is making everything seem boring because you can have 24 hour access to every move your friend makes, every beer they drink, every trip they take - provided they took pictures. Like world travel is on the same importance level as working on a spreadsheet on Tuesday morning in the realm of Facebook. Is that normal?
I wonder sometimes about the value of this limitless availability to people's personal lives - I mean jeez, I hope you're not reading this thinking it's actually interesting. I am in awe of the fact that people in Belgium and Vietnam have read my blog. How is this possible? How is what I say interesting to a person who lives on the other side of the world?
In one way it is really "it's a small world after all" and what have you. How we can all be so connected. And then I realize that I have no idea what the person sitting next to me on the bus is thinking. And she's RIGHT THERE. Oh, the irony.
Well, whatever. I think it's good that people know when I am asleep and awake, and using whitening strips, and reading Rolling Stone magazine, which is why I tell them via Facebook. It's good that they have something interesting to read about while their being bored out of their minds.
Like really? I care that you're putting on your jammies? I mean, maybe this is what this online generation thing is all about. I am wondering if seeing the boringness of everyone else's life is giving us permission to be boring. Or is making everything seem boring because you can have 24 hour access to every move your friend makes, every beer they drink, every trip they take - provided they took pictures. Like world travel is on the same importance level as working on a spreadsheet on Tuesday morning in the realm of Facebook. Is that normal?
I wonder sometimes about the value of this limitless availability to people's personal lives - I mean jeez, I hope you're not reading this thinking it's actually interesting. I am in awe of the fact that people in Belgium and Vietnam have read my blog. How is this possible? How is what I say interesting to a person who lives on the other side of the world?
In one way it is really "it's a small world after all" and what have you. How we can all be so connected. And then I realize that I have no idea what the person sitting next to me on the bus is thinking. And she's RIGHT THERE. Oh, the irony.
Well, whatever. I think it's good that people know when I am asleep and awake, and using whitening strips, and reading Rolling Stone magazine, which is why I tell them via Facebook. It's good that they have something interesting to read about while their being bored out of their minds.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
The best break-up and blow-off methods (an opinion poll)
I recently polled a bunch of hot young ladies in their 20-30 something years on what type of break-up communication would be least offensive to them. The poll came on the tail of a conversation with a friend of the male persuasion who had sent a break-up email to a woman after one date. He suffered great distress when I told him his break-up email was totally terrible and offensive. To investigate my claim, I sent out this poll:
So, you go on one date with a guy, and a few days later he sends you an email that basically says he doesn't want to go out again. Which reason would make you feel better? And would you prefer an email or a call?
1) I had a great time, but I met someone else and I want to focus on that right now.
2) I had a great time, but I felt more of a friend connection with you rather than a relationship connection.
****
Here are the results:
67% of women preferred the call. 22% preferred email and said they wanted to avoid an awkward conversation. 11% had no preference.
It was a three way tie over which option was better.
33% said they were on the fence with the reasons, saying: either reason was acceptable, both were gross, or as long as it was the truth it didn't matter.
33% chose option 1, the "I met someone else" reason. However, two of these women also found the merit of option 2, the "we don't have a connection" reason. They reasoned that at first, option 2 sounded like a lie. Which is good. This means we all think of ourselves as very sexy, and good self-esteem is important!
33% chose option 2. They reasoned it sounded nicer, and was classier than admitting one was dating around.
Everyone added some editorial comments. Here are some of my favorites:
"Honestly, I am thinking I'd rather hear that they met someone else...I could be mad at him and the other woman, which would help me get over it faster."
"I can understand getting along with someone else more and respect him for saying so......But I'd also let him know I do not plan to be a back up so don't call for another date if that's his decision!"
"I appreciate honesty and being direct, but [option 1] is just simply poor taste.
Decency? Manners? All a thing of the past."
"I think either is acceptable.
PS - He's stupid."
"I would feel more comfortable if I got an email from him instead of a phone call. After you read the email you can write him back and say thanks for the input...have a great life!"
"Email is a pussy way to get out of any more dates."
"That guy is lame. He def should have called"
"guess if I felt kind of into the guy after the date, I'd appreciate a call. If I didn't give a shiz, I wouldn't care if it was email or not. In general I feel like a call shows much more respect. But I'm kind of a neo-ludite."
****
Personally, I said that while the truth is the best policy, I would prefer the "no chemistry" to "I'm into someone else" because it would be better for my self-esteem. I could get over the fact that he just doesn't get how awesome I am more than the insinuation that he thinks someone else is BETTER than me (unless, of course, I thought he was a total dud anyways).
I also think there is something really icky about bringing up the fact that you are dating other people. If we're in a date situation, I want all focus on me, and I don't need to hear about your other escapades. It leaves me feeling covered in slime. There's a reason you want to date her over me (if she actually exists) like I live too far away, I don't share your political views, my laugh irritates you. Say that instead. At least I'll feel like I have a concrete reason.
And I always think the phone is the most adult way to do things. It shows you really care, you're not being a fraidy cat, and you really want to be able to hear the person's response. An email can be such a cop-out in that regard, because it's totally one way.
In the end, I think everyone has a very individual response to being let down, and while there are certain things you can do to make a bad situation better, there is no perfect answer to making a difficult conversation easy. My male friend said he had the best of intentions with his "no more dates for us" email, and reasoned it was better than nothing at all. I think we can all agree that's true!
And there is a happy end. The cast-off woman actually answered the email (so I was told) and seems like they're going to be pals, and maybe go out for coffee sometime. As friends. Who knew things could turn out so rosy? It gives me hope for the future.
So, you go on one date with a guy, and a few days later he sends you an email that basically says he doesn't want to go out again. Which reason would make you feel better? And would you prefer an email or a call?
1) I had a great time, but I met someone else and I want to focus on that right now.
2) I had a great time, but I felt more of a friend connection with you rather than a relationship connection.
****
Here are the results:
67% of women preferred the call. 22% preferred email and said they wanted to avoid an awkward conversation. 11% had no preference.
It was a three way tie over which option was better.
33% said they were on the fence with the reasons, saying: either reason was acceptable, both were gross, or as long as it was the truth it didn't matter.
33% chose option 1, the "I met someone else" reason. However, two of these women also found the merit of option 2, the "we don't have a connection" reason. They reasoned that at first, option 2 sounded like a lie. Which is good. This means we all think of ourselves as very sexy, and good self-esteem is important!
33% chose option 2. They reasoned it sounded nicer, and was classier than admitting one was dating around.
Everyone added some editorial comments. Here are some of my favorites:
"Honestly, I am thinking I'd rather hear that they met someone else...I could be mad at him and the other woman, which would help me get over it faster."
"I can understand getting along with someone else more and respect him for saying so......But I'd also let him know I do not plan to be a back up so don't call for another date if that's his decision!"
"I appreciate honesty and being direct, but [option 1] is just simply poor taste.
Decency? Manners? All a thing of the past."
"I think either is acceptable.
PS - He's stupid."
"I would feel more comfortable if I got an email from him instead of a phone call. After you read the email you can write him back and say thanks for the input...have a great life!"
"Email is a pussy way to get out of any more dates."
"That guy is lame. He def should have called"
"guess if I felt kind of into the guy after the date, I'd appreciate a call. If I didn't give a shiz, I wouldn't care if it was email or not. In general I feel like a call shows much more respect. But I'm kind of a neo-ludite."
****
Personally, I said that while the truth is the best policy, I would prefer the "no chemistry" to "I'm into someone else" because it would be better for my self-esteem. I could get over the fact that he just doesn't get how awesome I am more than the insinuation that he thinks someone else is BETTER than me (unless, of course, I thought he was a total dud anyways).
I also think there is something really icky about bringing up the fact that you are dating other people. If we're in a date situation, I want all focus on me, and I don't need to hear about your other escapades. It leaves me feeling covered in slime. There's a reason you want to date her over me (if she actually exists) like I live too far away, I don't share your political views, my laugh irritates you. Say that instead. At least I'll feel like I have a concrete reason.
And I always think the phone is the most adult way to do things. It shows you really care, you're not being a fraidy cat, and you really want to be able to hear the person's response. An email can be such a cop-out in that regard, because it's totally one way.
In the end, I think everyone has a very individual response to being let down, and while there are certain things you can do to make a bad situation better, there is no perfect answer to making a difficult conversation easy. My male friend said he had the best of intentions with his "no more dates for us" email, and reasoned it was better than nothing at all. I think we can all agree that's true!
And there is a happy end. The cast-off woman actually answered the email (so I was told) and seems like they're going to be pals, and maybe go out for coffee sometime. As friends. Who knew things could turn out so rosy? It gives me hope for the future.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
We're all gonna 'splode!
So I just read this book, The Revenge of Gaia by James Lovelock. There was a pretty awesome article in Rolling Stone that piqued my interest and so I decided to read the whole thing.
Lovelock takes the stance of Bugs Bunny in this book. You know, when Bugs Bunny would finally lose Elmer Fudd at the end of the cartoon, and he would say, "So long screwy, see ya in St. Louis." Basically, when it comes to the environment, we're Screwy. And St. Louis is not such a good place to be. Much like Al Gore gave us a preview of a super heated planet a few years back in his anxiety inducing documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Lovelock tells us about all the bad things we've done to bring about a climate crisis.
Only Lovelock's story does not have nearly as happy an ending as Gore's. According to Lovelock, it doesn't matter how much we recycle, ride our bikes, switch to solar power, or take canvas totes to the supermarket: it's just way too late. By 2040, our planet will have crazy severe weather to a degree we haven't yet experienced (tornadoes in Boston, Katrina style hurricanes are the norm), and by 2100, the Earth will be 90% uninhabitable, with areas like The North Pole being the only places still temperate enough to host human life. Or any life for that matter.
This idea - even if Lovelock is a total loony - scares the crap out of me. I mean really. And this guy has you know, degrees, and has devoted his life to science and climate study. I feel like his theory is probably based in some verifiable fact. Right?
So, if this is true, what does it mean. Personally, I have taken to saying quite often, "Why are you worried about this trivial bull? Didn't you know the world is going to end soon?" Of course, then I feel like Chicken Little, or Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory. You know, he was kind of right, but kind of paranoid schizophrenic?
Lovelock has some great ideas. Like immediately switching to nuclear power, and having us develop some kind of bio-engineered food and start planning to live in bio-domes. You know, when the apocalypse comes. In like 90 years.
The funny thing about these ideas being, the peace-nik types who are usually on the front lines of environmental issues, like members of the Sierra Club and Kyra Sedgewick, would never, ever, ever, not in a million years go for them. So, as in many instances in life, it appears that even though we desire the same outcomes, we have different agendas, and thus, we are at an impasse.
I personally am ready to start lobbying for nuclear power, mandatory black outs, demolishing of cars, and whatever else it takes. I mean COME ON! With the way modern medicine is leaning I could still be ALIVE in 90 years. I don't want to have to move to the Arctic Circle when I am 120 years young. With my children. And my grandchildren. And our pets. We probably won't all fit, and that would totally suck.
I don't really know what the solution to the problem might be. I know that this, like skunk overpopulation, the carbs vs. low-fat debate, or poor writing in the new 90210 series, is not a problem I can continue to ignore. I'm doing some research into this whole crazy nuclear energy business, installing the low wattage light bulbs, and shopping local. But I realize these things are mostly for me. I want to do something for you, too. That's why I'm telling you this. Because we're all in it together. And we've got to get past this impasse and make some progress. Or you, me, the kids and the pets, and Santa Claus will all be fighting for a square foot of space in the balmy New North Pole before this crazy party is over.
Lovelock takes the stance of Bugs Bunny in this book. You know, when Bugs Bunny would finally lose Elmer Fudd at the end of the cartoon, and he would say, "So long screwy, see ya in St. Louis." Basically, when it comes to the environment, we're Screwy. And St. Louis is not such a good place to be. Much like Al Gore gave us a preview of a super heated planet a few years back in his anxiety inducing documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, Lovelock tells us about all the bad things we've done to bring about a climate crisis.
Only Lovelock's story does not have nearly as happy an ending as Gore's. According to Lovelock, it doesn't matter how much we recycle, ride our bikes, switch to solar power, or take canvas totes to the supermarket: it's just way too late. By 2040, our planet will have crazy severe weather to a degree we haven't yet experienced (tornadoes in Boston, Katrina style hurricanes are the norm), and by 2100, the Earth will be 90% uninhabitable, with areas like The North Pole being the only places still temperate enough to host human life. Or any life for that matter.
This idea - even if Lovelock is a total loony - scares the crap out of me. I mean really. And this guy has you know, degrees, and has devoted his life to science and climate study. I feel like his theory is probably based in some verifiable fact. Right?
So, if this is true, what does it mean. Personally, I have taken to saying quite often, "Why are you worried about this trivial bull? Didn't you know the world is going to end soon?" Of course, then I feel like Chicken Little, or Mel Gibson's character in Conspiracy Theory. You know, he was kind of right, but kind of paranoid schizophrenic?
Lovelock has some great ideas. Like immediately switching to nuclear power, and having us develop some kind of bio-engineered food and start planning to live in bio-domes. You know, when the apocalypse comes. In like 90 years.
The funny thing about these ideas being, the peace-nik types who are usually on the front lines of environmental issues, like members of the Sierra Club and Kyra Sedgewick, would never, ever, ever, not in a million years go for them. So, as in many instances in life, it appears that even though we desire the same outcomes, we have different agendas, and thus, we are at an impasse.
I personally am ready to start lobbying for nuclear power, mandatory black outs, demolishing of cars, and whatever else it takes. I mean COME ON! With the way modern medicine is leaning I could still be ALIVE in 90 years. I don't want to have to move to the Arctic Circle when I am 120 years young. With my children. And my grandchildren. And our pets. We probably won't all fit, and that would totally suck.
I don't really know what the solution to the problem might be. I know that this, like skunk overpopulation, the carbs vs. low-fat debate, or poor writing in the new 90210 series, is not a problem I can continue to ignore. I'm doing some research into this whole crazy nuclear energy business, installing the low wattage light bulbs, and shopping local. But I realize these things are mostly for me. I want to do something for you, too. That's why I'm telling you this. Because we're all in it together. And we've got to get past this impasse and make some progress. Or you, me, the kids and the pets, and Santa Claus will all be fighting for a square foot of space in the balmy New North Pole before this crazy party is over.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Marriage is like running a small, boring non-profit
This morning, MSFAM sent me the below article:
Marry Him! by Lori Gottlieb.
Incredibly long but funny and interesting treatise on how single women should settle instead of holding out for Mr. Right. When I laughed out loud twice, my co-workers insisted I forward them whatever what helping me to procrastinate.
I guess being a 30-something single, this kind of stuff really gets my dander up. I don't need someone to tell me to settle. And I really don't need anyone to tell me I'm being picky...we've already talked about the men I've dated. I don't think I'm that picky. And personally, I think my mother or best friends would have murdered me due to pity had I settled for one of the self-absorbed, criminally insane, drug addled Mama's boys of days past.
I can't say I don't believe in settling. For the better part of a year my new dating philosophy resembles the author's "marriage is a boring non-profit" stance. Like, I'm not looking for passion. I'm looking for someone who, despite his treacherous mother and inability to put dirty clothes in a hamper, would still be worth hugging and cooking dinner for. Someone that I could be pissed at but still be pleased to be spending my life with. That sounds like settling to me. I just try not to think of it as settling.
The author makes a lovely point, though, and one I've thought about alot. "The man of your dreams doesn't exist. Precisely because you dreamed him up." By this logic every married woman has settled. Right?
I think I have a pretty "settling minded" brain when it comes to marriage. I remember a married friend telling me a story about how her husband is so good because he cleans the floor. She then went on to verbally lambaste him for not doing alot of other stuff to help with their house and baby, to which I replied, "Dude, you love him AND HE CLEANS THE FLOOR!"
Compared to some other husband stories I've heard, that seemed pretty awesome to me. Plus, no one cleans my floor but me. I'd let any stupid, ugly guy hang out at my house at least for a few days if he promised to clean the floor. Never mind love, honor and obey.
The thing that really bothered me about this article though was that it seemed so black and white in terms of age and the need to settle. Like Ms. Gottlieb really believed she would have had better chances finding a less horrible guy in her younger years that she does now as a 30-something single mom. She describes the older men who her older single friends took up with, as:
"a recovering alcoholic who doesn’t always go to his meetings; a trying-to-make-it-in-his-40s actor; a widower who has three nightmarish kids and who’s still actively grieving for his dead wife; and a socially awkward engineer (so socially awkward that he declined to attend his wife’s book party)."
To which I respond: these men were young and single once, and on the market. Someone even married that one with the nightmarish kids...and then she divorced him. Marriage and settling isn't a permanent state of coma/limbo/eternal predictability. You can get married or settle or whatever you want to call it at any age. The reality is the person you settle for is a HUMAN BEING. They grow, change, make mistakes, do stupid things, and will, inevitably, disappoint you. The young ones eventually turn into the old ones. With the problems described above. And us being adults, we should be able to accept that that's part of the deal.
What Liz seems to fail to see is that the story doesn't stop after marriage. It's not a fairy tale. Lots of things happen during "and they live happily ever after." Like adjustable rate mortgages and crushes on people who aren't your spouse and nasty in-laws and kids with colds, and disagreements on where to take the family vacation. And all those things, along with the good things, made it into the qualifier "happy." Happy is a state of mind.
But the whole article just seemed so fixated on marriage as some kind of end goal over which there is so much competition with her married friends. Relax, Liz Gottlieb. You seem like a complainer anyways. If you got married you'd just complain about that, too.
Marry Him! by Lori Gottlieb.
Incredibly long but funny and interesting treatise on how single women should settle instead of holding out for Mr. Right. When I laughed out loud twice, my co-workers insisted I forward them whatever what helping me to procrastinate.
I guess being a 30-something single, this kind of stuff really gets my dander up. I don't need someone to tell me to settle. And I really don't need anyone to tell me I'm being picky...we've already talked about the men I've dated. I don't think I'm that picky. And personally, I think my mother or best friends would have murdered me due to pity had I settled for one of the self-absorbed, criminally insane, drug addled Mama's boys of days past.
I can't say I don't believe in settling. For the better part of a year my new dating philosophy resembles the author's "marriage is a boring non-profit" stance. Like, I'm not looking for passion. I'm looking for someone who, despite his treacherous mother and inability to put dirty clothes in a hamper, would still be worth hugging and cooking dinner for. Someone that I could be pissed at but still be pleased to be spending my life with. That sounds like settling to me. I just try not to think of it as settling.
The author makes a lovely point, though, and one I've thought about alot. "The man of your dreams doesn't exist. Precisely because you dreamed him up." By this logic every married woman has settled. Right?
I think I have a pretty "settling minded" brain when it comes to marriage. I remember a married friend telling me a story about how her husband is so good because he cleans the floor. She then went on to verbally lambaste him for not doing alot of other stuff to help with their house and baby, to which I replied, "Dude, you love him AND HE CLEANS THE FLOOR!"
Compared to some other husband stories I've heard, that seemed pretty awesome to me. Plus, no one cleans my floor but me. I'd let any stupid, ugly guy hang out at my house at least for a few days if he promised to clean the floor. Never mind love, honor and obey.
The thing that really bothered me about this article though was that it seemed so black and white in terms of age and the need to settle. Like Ms. Gottlieb really believed she would have had better chances finding a less horrible guy in her younger years that she does now as a 30-something single mom. She describes the older men who her older single friends took up with, as:
"a recovering alcoholic who doesn’t always go to his meetings; a trying-to-make-it-in-his-40s actor; a widower who has three nightmarish kids and who’s still actively grieving for his dead wife; and a socially awkward engineer (so socially awkward that he declined to attend his wife’s book party)."
To which I respond: these men were young and single once, and on the market. Someone even married that one with the nightmarish kids...and then she divorced him. Marriage and settling isn't a permanent state of coma/limbo/eternal predictability. You can get married or settle or whatever you want to call it at any age. The reality is the person you settle for is a HUMAN BEING. They grow, change, make mistakes, do stupid things, and will, inevitably, disappoint you. The young ones eventually turn into the old ones. With the problems described above. And us being adults, we should be able to accept that that's part of the deal.
What Liz seems to fail to see is that the story doesn't stop after marriage. It's not a fairy tale. Lots of things happen during "and they live happily ever after." Like adjustable rate mortgages and crushes on people who aren't your spouse and nasty in-laws and kids with colds, and disagreements on where to take the family vacation. And all those things, along with the good things, made it into the qualifier "happy." Happy is a state of mind.
But the whole article just seemed so fixated on marriage as some kind of end goal over which there is so much competition with her married friends. Relax, Liz Gottlieb. You seem like a complainer anyways. If you got married you'd just complain about that, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)