Julie R. Neidlinger: Lone Prairie Art Works

You can follow the summer's blog posts here.
You can read my experiences trying to learn to fly, which is here.

Plain and simple.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 10 comments link this post

I was recently informed that someone "liked" me because I was plain and simple. It wasn't meant as an insult; I understand both that and the context of the situation. However, the words "plain" and "simple" aren't really words any woman wants to hear herself described as.

Perhaps it's because, as my friend Travis informed me, all women are vain.

"They are. All women are vain," he said.

I'm pretty sure I shot him a dirty glance (my specialty) and scathing comment at the time, but I know that I didn't really disagree. Because I don't really disagree, not really. Women are vain (there is no other explanation for high heels and makeup, all of which are uncomfortable in regular life). That vanity, however, is a response to an equally shallow male requirement. The shallow yin fits tightly with the shallow yang of the sexes. Female vanity is a foil for male addiction to surface perusal.

There is a movement afoot in recent books to rage against efforts to feminize boys. Essay and article and book upon book are appearing telling us to let boys be boys and grow into men. I'm not going to agree nor disagree, but I do want to point out that the theoretical crushing of maleness is relatively new development, while history has a solid track record across time and culture of requiring or encouraging women to do serious physical and emotional harm to themselves for outward appearance's sake. With very, very few exceptions have women in any culture or era escaped this pressure.

My friend Molly, upon hearing the "plain and simple" story, was quick to comment.

"You know what he meant by plain and simple?? Good things in my book -- you are real -- you are you and don't need a bunch of junk on your exterior to introduce you before you get there. Real would have been a better word. Genuine," she said in an email.

That is kind of her to say. Perhaps she's right in this particular case. I don't know.

I do know that much ink has been used to pen songs and poems about beautiful women. Green-eyed, red-haired Jolene. The brown-eyed girl. The lady in red. The pouty child-woman extolled by Billy Joel. The long-legged woman with the "American thighs" (which sounds very much like a potential menu item at KFC, a fitting observation in terms of meat market and lists of exterior requirements) that AC/DC screeched about. Despite Bobby Sherman's best efforts to console all the Julies out there, there just aren't a lot of songs written in praise of the plain woman.

So, let's get back to plain and simple.

"Simple" brings to mind characters from Of Mice and Men, which disturbs me a great deal and I don't think I'll be delving into what would make me seem simple. At least not today.

But "plain." What is "plain", anyway?

It calms the upset stomach, if we're talking plain food. Plain is decidedly un-baroque. It's nothing to write home about. It's basic and functional. It lacks any ornamentation. It might be comfortable like vanilla or an old chair, and is certainly not exotic or addictive. No one is on their knees begging the plain woman. The plain woman is the scullery maid in the kitchen of women. Plain is invisible. At least ugly is made note of.

However, "plain" has time on its side. Time, thankfully, is the great equalizer of beauty in women. It relentless strips away layer after layer of youthful, surface beauty until, at some point, the formerly beautiful and the formerly ugly and plain are on equal ground and are seen for what they are inside.

Perhaps this person who liked me because I was plain and simple simple skipped ahead to that point in time. I think he'd had and seen enough of women who "upset the stomach" and maybe saw value in the bland. Hard to say.

I'm envisioning myself as a bowl of soggy oatmeal, here, which is a disappointing thing.

I know I (almost to a fault) find myself pursuing things that can withstand this lashing of time, things like skills or knowledge or the pursuit of Christian faith (in my case). I can easily get caught up into forcing myself to be the best, the smartest, the most skilled, the funniest, the nicest, the most interesting, the handiest...because I know I'm not ever going to even touch being the prettiest. I'm not even going to register as cute, most likely. I don't have pretty to fall back on, just my wits and the things I've learned. Which sounds pretty good, and is, except...women are supposed to be pretty, or so the subtle and not-so-subtle message goes. To not have some discernible element of exterior beauty is almost anti-woman, is the suggestion.

It's more than a little distressing to thumb through or read the onslaught of Christian books that purport to help men and women understand each other, only to have pounded into my head again and again (sometimes with "supporting" scripture, which is so fabulous!!) that men are visual and they want women to look good on the outside and women should just understand that they need to put some serious effort into it but don't become vain or hung up and God bless you you're special because of who you are inside but still devote time to being beautiful outside because men are visual and we're not asking them to take themselves to task on that since we'll just work around it and understand it.

Blah blah blah.

Where are the blind men when you need them?

I guess I've hit the age where I can see that spending time in front of the mirror, spending money on the latest makeup or hair-care product, spending wasted hours with hot appliances wrapped up in my hair, or spending the time fretting over running mascara or sweat stains and curtailing my activities so as not to muss myself is a complete waste of everything. I certainly don't wander around in a gunny sack with greasy hair; I have my own fair selection of high heels and makeup, but on the other hand...what is the point? Really? Bunions?

I would like to think that when I'm 60 I won't still be putting on makeup as if I were 20, looking like a clown poured into Junior Miss clothing from J.C. Penney's. I would like to think that I wouldn't suffer the vanity that compelled me to visit a plastic surgeon slice up my face and have it stitched up higher and fuss with clothing and scarves that would hide my wrinkled neck and knees. The only catch is that right now I'm not 60, I'm 34, and that makes for three decades of biding my time for time to do its work.

That's the plain and simple truth about being plain and simple.

Now, if I had been called "simple-minded", there would be some genuine ass-kicking going on. No one insults my mind without a little return on the investment.

Labels: essay, my life, personal, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Lovin' this purse.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 4 comments link this post

I recently purchased a purse with the goal of having a bag that wasn't huge but could hold the small hard disk camcorder and other items I'd be wanting to tote around with me while traveling.

I'm a purse freak.

I have many, and though I like most of them, I'd never quite hit upon that "perfect" purse. Some have a strap or a clasp that I don't like, or maybe not enough (or too many) pockets. Or, they aren't sturdy enough or easy to care for... things that I know my guy readers are extremely interested in knowing.

But lo and behold, ladies, I have found the perfect purse. It is Sherpani, and it is the Milli SS 08 model. Perfect size, clasp (strong magnet, all hidden beneath the tough fabric), great color and style, perfect adjustable strap...

Love it.

They had a lot of other great bags, too, that looked well-made, easy to care for, and definitely for women without being all frou-frou and annoying and full of dorky bows and ribbons.

Note: This post was pre-written and published as scheduled. Read more about this here.

Labels: fashion, product placement, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The same invisibility.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 1 comments link this post

I sent a photo to a friend recently that showed what I looked like about four or five years ago. I was much, much heavier. My friend hadn't known me then, so it may have been a little surprise. I'm not skinny now, by any means, but I do look different.

There's the usual "wow, you worked hard!" and "you look great now!" and, of course, "you are so different now!" kinds of comments when people see photos from then (which is nice and encouraging), but there's something I never really tell anyone: to me, there is little difference.

It's all about invisibility.

The same thing that made me overeat is the same thing that makes me more and more uninterested in food now: the desire to disappear. I didn't make a change beyond how I shifted an attitude as it applied to food. There's no real difference.

I've said it to friends and even on this blog, that I'd like to disappear. It's usually taken as "disappear off the grid for a while, on a wee bit of a vacation."

No. I mean, disappear.

Be invisible.

If you're invisible, being ignored isn't such a big deal; it's to be expected. There's a certain peace about it.

Being heavy was a paradox. I was larger in actual size, yes, but I found I was invisible. People didn't see me. I was, perhaps, just another "fat person" and I wasn't noticed. There was something to that that I liked and took comfort in. It allowed me to find a way to live through the things that made me unhappy because, in the pit of it, I could say "I'm invisible, it doesn't matter." Being ignored made sense and I could easily lay it on my weight instead of any other more painful and less superficial reason. I've lost some weight but there is still an element of being ignored going on that now bothers me more than when I was heavy because it shouldn't still be there. I'm no longer defined (in my mind, at least) as invisible, on either ends of the scale, so now feeling as such is actually a kind of acute hurt. I don't actually know what to do with myself; it's like the invisible man suddenly put on a suit and can be seen for who he is.

To be invisible, you need to be really heavy, or nothing to you.

Note: This post was pre-written and published as scheduled. Read more about this here.

Labels: food, health, personal, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Not a road, but an avenue.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 4 comments link this post

I get a magazine called Women's Health. My nephew was selling magazines. I thought such a magazine would apply, since I am a woman, and I would like to take care of my health.

This magazine is nothing more than a kind of Maxim for women with a few articles about vitamins and health tips thrown in for good measure. It is even worse than Glamour or Cosmopolitan -- it sells itself as a magazine about health when it really is about selling women some kind of lie.

Beauty tips? Filled with lists of products that are overpriced from every company imaginable, leaving me to wonder at the kind of payola going on in the background for these companies to get their $45 makeup brush featured in a magazine that purports to be about keeping women healthy and fit.

Every other issue seems to be filled with toy-related articles (toys not found in children's toy stores, let's say), whether rating or joking or suggesting them. The latest issue featured some lame article on when guys reveal secrets and what to do if your guy reveals he has herpes. The answer? Something really great like "make sure the relationship is series before sleeping with him."

Every photo of every woman is of a woman tight, taut, muscled, lean, toned, and airbrushed to beauty perfection. I commented on a friend's blog about how I enjoyed Richard Simmons' exercise tapes because he used real people of all sizes and abilities; instead of discouraging, the entire experience was encouraging. He wasn't selling perfection.

This magazine does nothing to make me feel healthy. It makes me feel pretty awful about myself, mainly. It makes me feel fat and tally up the zits on my skin. It stirs me into a panic about what I am and am not eating, and what kind of exercise I'd better try. It tells me to focus on myself and myself only. It tells me it's healthy to forever continue to improve myself to a point of obsession -- there'd be no more magazine if the need for continuous improving stopped! -- subtly suggesting I'm not OK as I am, helping me feel guilty about things out of my control by coming up with new lists and exercises and faddish over-priced exercise gear that I need to pursue for that month in order to be that mythical active, "healthy" woman.

As I flipped through the latest issue, the ad you see at the top of this post caught my eye. What a horrible message!

The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but the road to selfishness and endless pursuit of meaningless and impossible and empty physical perfection isn't a road at all. It's an avenue. Fifth Avenue.

As long as someone can get me to focus entirely upon myself, I will be entirely unhappy and always a consumer ever needing to buy something to fix all these problems I see. Happiness doesn't sell beauty products the way unhappiness does. Focusing on others doesn't sell much product, either. The push to get us to think only of ourselves has a strong consumerist, market-driven benefit behind it. If there's room to improve, there's someone to sell it to me.

Women's Health cares little about women or about their health. It does care, however, about Fifth Avenue, and any avenue available to get me to buy something out of dissatisfaction with who I am.

Labels: health, media, product placement, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Woman as explained by an engineer.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

A friend sent me an email with images that made me laugh out loud. I quickly forwarded them to my brother (an engineer) and few other friends.

First, check out the rest of the images:

1. Doing the math.
2. Hazardous materials data sheet.
3. Charting the chances of a man winning an argument.
4. Man and woman on the same mission.

I've already gotten an email back from one of my friends regarding the last image. He had this to say: "The problem with this is no real man goes to The Gap to buy jeans. He goes to Mills Fleet Farm*."

--------------------------------

*Store name has been changed from original quote in order to protect the geographic location and anonymity of the contributor. The essence of the quote is the same.

Labels: friends, humor, internet, relationships, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

10 things you should never say to a woman.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 9 comments link this post

::I found an article listing ten things a man should never say to a woman. I've used that list and thrown in my own thoughts for each of the ten points that I've experienced. Other women have also responded to this list. I've had nearly all of these said to me at one time or another and the result can only be ascribed to the category of ways people miscommunicate. If you're a guy and said these and wondered about the reaction you got...here's why.::

1. What did you do to your hair? A haircut is a huge deal for a woman. Watch any of those makeover shows and see how, when it comes time for the stylist to work with the hair, the women will get nervous and uneasy and say that they don't want too much cut off or that they don't want them to mess with it. A haircut is a big deal. It has very little to do with cutting off the hair and mere appearance, and more to do with an overall want to change who she is. So, when you make a haphazard comment on the hair... not good.

2. They both look the same to me. If they were the same, we wouldn't be asking. This is our way of wanting your opinion and wanting you to be involved in our life. Seems silly? Well, it might be but just wait and see if, after continued disinterest in the small things, we ask your opinion much in the bigger things.

3. Relax. This is the cousin of "I think you're getting emotional." When a guy tells a woman this, he's both misinterpreting the importance of the issue at hand for the woman (and negating her by saying it isn't that important), as well as telling her that she is somehow uptight. I was told to "relax" on a blog recently when I didn't even feel all that upset. By merely being involved in the conversation at hand and responding in a way that I considered adept and involved, I was told to "relax." What is a woman supposed to do with that? Telling a woman to "relax" is the best way to make sure that she won't. And, if she wasn't emotional or upset before, she's going to be really fast after that.

4. I've got it all under control. This depends. Do you have a history of pulling it off and having it under control? If not, there's no way a woman is going to find this statement anything but upsetting. She'll most likely already start planning for how to deal with the aftermath in the situation on the assumption that you don't have it under control and things went badly.

5. You're not one of those feminists, are you? This is similar to assigning behavior, interests, and methods of communicating to "the woman card" in my book. Because of the differences between men and women, and the things and ways they choose to discuss and relate through those discussions, women will often choose topics that reference their experiences as a woman. When men say something like "you're playing the woman card" or "are you some kind of feminist?", it is incredibly frustrating and leaves the conversation completely dead. Effectively, the woman's way of communicating has been called inadequate at best, and deceptive at worst. It would be like telling guys they can't pepper their conversations with sports talk, the whole "dude, no way!" way of speaking, or any of the other topics that guys throw around as a kind of filler and hidden message.

6. When are you due? Oh man. Just never say that. I had a friend who was asked that. Is there anything worse than not being pregnant and told that you look like you are? Just never ask that unless you know a woman is pregnant.

7. You're being emotional. (See number 3 above). I've had this said to me numerous times, but only by a man. It's not that I'm never emotional, but a fellow woman knows the difference between being emotional and being involved in a discussion that is of great importance. When a man says "you're being emotional" to a woman in a way that suggests something negative, he is doing two things. He's saying that allowing or showing emotion (something very natural to a woman) is bad and/or weak. He's also implying that the woman is deficient in communication or some other way of existing because she either is, or appears to, allow emotion to enter the equation. Even if a woman is emotional, pointing it out causes the same effect of telling her to "relax": she'll not only not relax, but she'll become more emotional.

8. You're acting like you're mother/my mother/my ex-girlfriend. I've never had this one said to me by a guy, so I can't really relate to it personally.

9. You complete me. Ummm...I guess I'd just lump this in with the idea that a guy shouldn't rely on movie quotes to express genuine emotion because it's weird and creepy. I've never had anyone say this to me. It would be weird if someone did. Find your own words, and say them, I guess.

10. Do you really think you should be eating that? No one has ever said that to me, thankfully. I would probably die a thousand deaths. This comment could stem from actual concern if the woman was trying to lose weight and asked you to help her stay on the straight and narrow, or it could stem from the misconstrued idea in this culture that an overweight person's weight is everyone's business and that we all have the right to judge what they eat. Regardless, no woman is going to take this comment well, so, if your motives are good (the former) find a better way. If your motives are careless and cruel (the latter), shut up.

::The follow-up article? Ten things you should never say to a guy. I can't, of course, respond to them, except to say that women will say "nothing is wrong" as a way of saying "I don't know how to put into words, or I'm not able to talk about what's bothering me, just yet." Other than that...the list is there. Guys, feel free; there's already discussion going on the topic, though some of the discussion isn't exactly valuable.::

Labels: links, relationships, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Bank Columbo.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 4 comments link this post

I was at the bank during my lunch hour to get cash for Nicaragua. I'd reserved crisp bills last week because the money changers on the street in Nicarauga -- yes, that's how we exchange our money -- don't like crumpled or written on bills.

I opened my checkbook and a bunch of stuff fell out. Barely any check blanks left. No deposit slips. Yet this is my "checkbook."

How did all of this crap get in here, I thought, trying to shuffle through and find the checks I was there to cash. The teller had no expression, which was nice, because I felt stupid.

I feel stupid a lot.

Movie receipt from National Treasure. Check.
Grocery list from two months ago. Check.
Sketch of the loud, bald guy at the coffee shop. Check.
Receipt for gas with car wash tacked on that I forgot to use. Check.
A small slip of paper with a phone number -- for who knows who -- written on it in green pen. Check.
Three paper clips. Check.
One bobby pin. Check.
Candy bar wrapper -- pre South Beach Diet. Check.
A piece of cruddy, yet unchewed, gum. Check.
Checks. Check.

My checkbook is like my purse: a huge dump. When my cell phone rings, I about drive off of the road trying to find it in a purse filled with a couple of books I'm in the midst of reading, a set of sketching pens, a notebook, two kinds of chapstick (never know when you want mint or just plain), and just....stuff. Junk.

A pack mule wouldn't carry that much stuff around.

"Sorry," I said, pulling out the rumpled checks and handing them to the teller. I felt like Columbo, and would have tried to give my checkbook a pat down if it had pockets. "A little disorganized..."

Yes, I felt bad about my lack of put-togetheredness...until I heard a raspy smoker's cough and turned around and saw the woman behind me. She was just shy of 50, I'm guessing. Hair like John the Baptist. She had on a huge, sloppy green sweatshirt. And -- bonus -- she was wearing flannel pajama pants. Blue plaid, with yellow ducks.

At the bank.

Car wreck, I thought, though I smiled at her politely. I didn't want to arouse the wrath of all those ducks.

Why would a very grown woman wear pajama pants to the bank, of all places? Pajama pants are meant for wearing to bed.

At least I keep my mess to my "checkbook" and don't parade around like a flannelized Ducks Unlimited sandwich board.

At least I have that.

Labels: fashion, my life, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

About that sharp-dressed man...

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 8 comments link this post

A book I read recently made mention of something I've noticed when I travel to Nicaragua: we Americans, with all our money and access to clothes beyond clothes, dress...like slobs. The Nicaraguans, though -- even in some tough living conditions and extreme heat and the blowing dirt -- look sharp. They really do. I have no idea how they keep their clothes clean and tucked in and hair pulled back. It always amazes me; I can't seem to not get dirty and messed up.

The book pointed out a difference in high context (in this case, Nicaragua) and low context (in this case, us) cultures. Essentially, in Western cold-climate cultures, our societies are so fluid and have had such an influx of cultures, and that, combined (especially in the U.S. and Australia) with a relatively young country, means that we don't have excessive amounts of unwritten social norms and rules.

In other words, we like casual, we like comfortable, and our culture no longer demands that we dress in a suit and tie.

But, I gotta say, it's true about that sharp-dressed man.

Just seeing a guy who has bothered tucking in the shirt, for example, now catches my eye.

I'm not saying guys have to pull a McGyver and button their collars up to the very top (that's actually creepy), but there's something to be said for a guy who shows up clean, with evidence of shaving in the past 24 hours, and neatly dressed.

This is, of course, actually against some concepts of style now, which dictates un-tucked shirts and jeans and a certain kind of tennis shoe and purposefully messy hair. And hideous white belts. Oh, yuck.

There's a line in the movie Clueless (that classic take on the story of Emma from the 1990's) in which the character Cher sums up her own similar traitorous take on the style of the day:

So okay, I don't want to be a traitor to my generation and all but I don't get how guys dress today. I mean, come on, it looks like they just fell out of bed and put on some baggy pants and take their greasy hair - ew - and cover it up with a backwards cap and like, we're expected to swoon? I don't think so.

This, of course, applies to women as well. All joking about my showing up looking like a disaster...I do understand that the same applies for me and so I have been making a good-faith effort to dress nicely and take some time with my appearance. I've long been an advocate of fabulous -- even if uncomfortable -- shoes. I know the sacrifice. I don't do it every day here at home, but when I'm out and about...sure. Crack out the cute shoes and shirts. Why, I now even own a few dresses. This is huge.

Yes, I'm tired of the Youth-Pastor Slacker Video-Game-Player Live-In-My-Mother's-Basement I-Wear "Vintage"-T-Shirts-From-Children's-Cereal-And-Other-Ironic-Themes - look that a lot of guys wear. I think it would surprise some guys (as well as their female counterparts who insist it doesn't matter) at the reaction they'd get if they pulled it together. It doesn't have to be Armani or even a suit, but just...you know. Sharp-dressed man. Nice khakis. Fresh, neat shirt. A tie on Sunday, maybe, not out of obligation to be holy or churchy, but just because it's definitely not going to be a place where, if you're a farmer for example, your tie will get caught in the PTO. Dress nicely for whatever size and shape you are; it makes a huge difference. No one thinks you're thinner than you are if you wear huge, shapeless clothes.

There's just something to be said for the neat appearance of the non-cool dork.

Look, if the goal is to be comfortable, by all means, be comfortable. Wear the Lucky Charms T-shirt and scroungy cap and the ratty jeans. But just know that it really is true: every girl crazy 'bout a sharp-dressed man. Call it whatever you want; chalk it up to women being awful for not seeing the true you inside. I'm just telling you the way it is.

It is for this reason, thinking as I do and finding myself advocating tucked in shirts for guys, that I realize I am old.

Labels: fashion, relationships, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Dollars and sense.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 2 comments link this post

I used to read Rachel Lucas' blog back when I first started blogging.

(What was that, 2002? Geez.)

I thought she was funny. There weren't as many blogs online then, and she was my first samplin' of wicked funny cool conservative.

"Ha!" I said to myself, confusing the point of conservative thinking with some kind of false battle between cool/celebrity/liberal vs. stuffy/conservative/Bible-thumpers. "I can be conservative and not be an uncool doormat!"

Then she had a long post about why she wasn't blogging. It was long. And not funny. Sort of whiny, like the blog posts I write on my "poor me" days -- you know, 95 percent of this blog.

Then she was back.

Then she was gone.

Somewhere in that cycle, of which I lost track, I:

Didn't find her funny.
I moved on from caring if I was cool.
I decided my definition and what qualified as cool needed work, anyway.
I didn't actually want to be aligned as either a conservative or liberal. I found plenty on both "sides" that both interested and repelled me.
I finally -- FINALLY -- realized that being conservative didn't mean you were a follower of Christ and that swearing some kind of allegiance to a cause other than Christ was wrong.
Realized constant swearing and insults didn't actual enliven the topic.
Wondered why male and female bloggers kept running ads with busty women in tight Ronald Regan T-shirts, holding guns, wondering what message they were trying say.
Couldn't depend on her blog not leaving a dead link on my blogroll.

I thought she was gone, until I stumbled upon this post and discovered that no! She was still around!

"Rachel Lucas. She was funny," I thought, and clicked over. Nostalgia. I had fond memories of how she would write sentences. With. Frequent. Punctuation. For. Effect. I remembered her post about George Clooney, and how he was an "asshat."

It was funny. She was funny.

The first post I read upon opening her site? "Why I don't want kids? Let me count the dollars."

After reading the post, I again remembered why I stopped stopping by.

I'm certainly not going to launch into a paragraph of pity, asserting that surely Ms. Lucas is trying to make light of inner pain -- I highly doubt that to be the case and I assume it would be rather insulting to such a well-known and respected blogger to attach such words or emotion to her.

I also don't plan on launching into a long-winded post about selfishness, shortsightedness, the love of money and the root of evil, the "modern" woman, views on part of the purpose of life, views on the importance of life, the use of pets (dogs especially) as stand-ins for children, looking out for personal ease and pleasure, or takers vs. givers.

The post speaks for itself, as does the previous sentence.

Labels: blogging, links, lists, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Useful chick info for residents of guyville.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 92 comments link this post

::My friend Naomi and I had a discussion about a month ago, regarding things guys should (or might want to) know about women. Or at least, some guys, and women like us. Obviously, we can't speak for everyone, so we instead speak for just our own and our friend's experiences. Naomi is here with me tonight, so here you go. The final product. Our masterful thesis. Feel free to add or subtract, in the comments section.::

Note: The women we are talking about below are not women who are gold diggers, habitual flirts, annoyances, or operating with some freakish plan to control and ruin men's lives. They are just good people wanting things to work. SO DON'T LEAVE COMMENTS ABOUT SUCH WOMEN. Thank you.

Note #2: Not nearly enough men will read this. How unfortunate.

Note #3: Yes, these are generalizations and yes, there are exceptions. THIS IS STILL TRUE AND USEFUL.

Leave the safety net. You'll never make a great catch* if you're already in the net. What's the safety net? Maybe a group of friends you always hang around with, or siblings, or habits, or a job -- anything that is safe and less frightening than the thought of approaching a woman you're interested in. Women will appreciate your bravery and courage. (See number five below)

People are not stationary objects. If you put other things before people with the idea of getting back to them when you have time, chances are, they won't be there. Same for women. Don't wait until you have the time, the money, the right job, the right moment -- she might not be there when you get back. Plus, she doesn't care about the time, the money, the right job -- if she's a quality woman. People, which includes women, don't stand still and wait around for things or other people to happen to them. Any woman that does wait around and allow other people or situations to dictate the direction of her life is not a person you'll enjoy being with past one hour.

Be direct, be clear. You don't go to the doctor and talk around the problem if you want a correct diagnosis. Make your intentions known to the woman. Don't just be a "nice guy" and assume she can understand what your intentions toward her are. Let her know, without being creepy.¹ Say what you are trying to say, ask what you want to ask, and don't let the elephant in the room get any bigger. Because it stinks. A lot. Definitions of the relationship are not bad.

Don't allow silence to speak for you. Silence is a language with no translation, at least when it comes to guy/girl relationships. What does your silence mean to a woman? That you're not interested? That you are bored with her? That you were never really interested in the first place? That she's bothering you? That she's not worth your time or effort? This is what women are thinking when you are silent and passive, no matter what the circumstances of your silence.

Initiate. This is attractive to 99.9² percent of all women no matter how much they doth protest. Taking the lead IS ATTRACTIVE TO WOMEN. Women want the guy to pursue, to start, to initiate, to go first. Without stalking, of course. If you are interested in a woman, send the first email, make the first phone call. Don't always make her go first and then play it safe by being a responder instead of an initiator. You'll only end up with a woman who is controlling, over-powering and manipulative. YOU WILL REGRET THIS. You'll spend your life defensively responding and following, not leading. If you are passive, you will attract a dominant woman. If you are interested in a future in the doormat industry, go ahead. Otherwise, lead.

Persistence pays. Even if you are turned down (unless you're stalking and a freak³) women appreciate a guy who isn't a quitter. A guy with class and taste will be persistent in a classy and tasteful way. It could be that the first rejection was because you caught her off-guard and she wasn't expecting you to show interest. She may need time to think, and if you were to ask her again, she would be ready. Or maybe you caught her at a bad time or in a situation (e.g. she was with friends, at a funeral, being rushed into an emergency room) and her mind wasn't really on a date.

Take a risk. Women know it's difficult. That's why we appreciate it.

Save your sob stories. Don't pour your heart out to every woman you meet. You'll exhaust the best of you on women who may not be worth the investment.

Ego-strokers are not quality women. If there is a woman who is initiating or making the first move for you, chances are she's doing it to get attention or for her own selfish motives. It is doubtful that you are, indeed, the hottest guy with the best car and the greatest sense of humor, so any woman that tells you that carries a warning. She's looking for attention. Those lovely ego-strokes quickly turn into shrill poundings until she finds another guy after being bored with you. Quite often quality women roll their eyes as they watch men fall all over ego-strokers, knowing what's going on. Either that, or they figure they have to lower themselves to flattery about glass-pack mufflers and a pretend interest in the Vikings.

*Women aren't fish. Women can't be caught. The pursuit of women never ends. If you think you've caught yourself a woman and can slack off and stop pursuing her as you once did, surprise: nope. Women want to be pursued, always, even if the relationship seems solidified and without question. To women, men pursue what is valued and desirable, and if you stop pursuing us, we must no longer have value or be desirable.

--------------------

¹ Nice guys can be potential friends, and they can be potential romances. How are women, except Miss Cleo, to know what your niceness is all about if you don't tell her? Creepy, for Naomi and I, would be sitting down and grandly stating in some bizarro Victorian fashion, that your intentions are "to go a courtin'" or something. Just be conversational and casual and explain what you appreciate about her character and tell her if you just want to be a friend or if you'd be open to more. You have to make it clear to her what you want and where you're headed because she shouldn't invest her heart and emotions into something she thinks is more when you only wanted someone to go bowling with on Tuesday with Frank and Joe.

² A bogus fact, but our margin of error is something like .01 percent. Which is, of course, another bogus fact. But also true.

³ Let's talk about freakish, creepy, stalking techniques. Anytime you find yourself a) waiting by her car, b) calling persistently and leaving over 20 unanswered messages a day, c) eyeing a baseball bat or 35mm camera with a telephoto lens, d) hating any guy she talks to, e) driving past her residence repeatedly, or f) if her "no" is insistent and you've heard it about 10 times, you are a freak. These are just a few. If you should find yourself with a restraining order, you've gone way past classy and tasteful. Look, it varies from woman to woman. Creepy, freaky, needy women like the stalker tactics. Enjoy your catch, in that case. You'll be filling a Prozac prescription in about three years.

Labels: friends, relationships, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Blog skirmishes.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

I'm from North Dakota. That takes care of the "dakota" part. I'm a woman. Voila! I'm a Dakota Woman. Well, no, not really. I just found a blog today via an earlier post, and decided, in the midst of a ginormous sewing project that I needed a break from, to check it out. The blog is, of course, Dakota Women. I probably wouldn't fit in; it's just my guess, but I think it's a pretty good guess.

I do have, as I pointed out, all the necessary qualifications, though.

As I was scanning the DW blog, I came upon a post with a few curious things in it. This, in particular, has me confused:

Rumor has it that Stephanie Herseth is getting hitched. A successful woman getting married because she wanted to. This must make the forced marriage women are chaste property people have an aneurysm. Congrats to Stephanie though!

What?

I just moved on, because I really had no clue what that's all about. I did start to notice a little back and forth between DakotaWomen and South Dakota Politics.

Brilliant! A blog skirmish! I thought.

The next post talked about women and men in the realm of who is more aggressive and/or violent. First, there was a quote from the SDP blog:

Almost all the murders, assaults, and rapes, are committed by males. I think it is hardly insulting to women to agree with some schools of feminism that hold that woman, as opposed to men, are by nature more inclined to consensus than aggression.

Dakota Women respond as follows:

Nice try but no. Women are fully capable of aggression.

At this point, I'm not sure of the point. I see the SDP theory was that women are less inclined to aggression, with the DW rebuttal being that women are fully capable of aggression. These two are not mutually exclusive. I see no conflicting opinion here.

So then I jump back up to the earlier post on Dakota Women and catch this paragraph:.

I had a martial arts instructor tell me once that he considered women to be a bigger foe in any sort of war or physical conflict. His opinion was that men frequently fought for the sake of fighting and would actually prolong it. He thought that women would not engage in conflict unless is was necessary and would do so ruthlessly, efficiently and as expediently as possible to achieve the end result.

Which seems to support the idea of SDP: women tend to not be aggressive, though they can be. So...(pause. pause)...what?

My gosh! If there's going to be a blog war between two blogs, let's do it right! And let's pick a more pertinent topic, like this one.

Personally, like I've mentioned before, even with my small three-year's knowledge of karate, and also boxing and fencing (college phy-ed: make it worthwhile), I prefer the non-violent route of letting air out of tires or subscribing someone to a million magazines without his or her knowledge. There are a number of fake documents you can make on your home computer and send to a place of business which cause a heightened sense of mortification. Also, if a person has to pay for their text messages, there are many handy sites on the web which you can use to flood them with without knowledge of who is doing it.

Women: We may look like we're smiling, but that might just be a muscle twitch. We'll still get you in the end.

But a Dakota Woman, well, I don't know. I should, but I don't.

Labels: blogging, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

So you have a problem with women.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 20 comments link this post

*See UPDATES below*

Refresher course:

Recent history:

Older history:

Pedestals

Recent history transcript:

Me:
Prairie Princess.

Nice one, Jim. Please point out where, on my blog or elsewhere, I'm actually gloating over Slice disappearing.

Tolkien never did anything to deserve your perversion of his story.

As is normal, today my inbox has been filled with rude emails from your minions.

Or should I say, your Orcs.

-----
Jim:
Sorry about your inbox Prairie Princess.

I didn't say that you were gloating, but rather that you seemed to have been bitten by the Slice-obsession bug. Just judging by your numerous posts in which you talk about your Slice bannings, and your alternate login identities, etc.

Tolkien never did anything to deserve your perversion of his story.

Are you sure? Besides, I thought I improved it in some ways. The original didn't have anything about a Noah's Ark playland.

Now say sorry to my fundy-Orcs :-)

-----
Me:
Jim,
Please check the dates of these posts that indicate some kind of so-called Slice obsession. Please. If you look at the percentage and subject of the posts on the rest of my blog, it doesn't even come close to registering on the obsessed level that these "watch blogs" like Slice seem to have with their target subjects.

I do have a few posts about Slice -- maybe eight or ten or so. In the past week and a half, a few things happened which caused me to write a couple of posts and interact with a new blog. This is by no means an indication of obsession, but of writing on something going on at the moment.

Perhaps you ought to do less judging, as you indicated above, and more thoughtful consideration.

And regarding Tolkein, no, it's not an improvement. Sorry.

-----
Jim:
Ok, well - here's the Google list. Wow! That couldn't be right. You didn't mention Slice on several hundred of your pages, did you? I knew it was a lot, but I didn't think it was THAT many.

Perhaps you are right about Tolkein though. He even seems to defeat me on GoogleFight.com

-----
Me:
(Attempted comment at 8:25 p.m.; was not posted.)

Jim,

Please note that on my blog I have a list of Blogger labels (or as I call them, "topics"). Slice is one of these. What that means is that every single one of my posts, which use the same template, obviously, has this same list of labels i.e. every single post is going to have "slice of laodicea" on it. To the same degree, I am obsessed with my cat Brutus, because his name will appear on every single post due to there being a category for him, as will Christmas, North Dakota, Music, Art and every single other label on there.

Obviously, I have many "obsessions."

Jim, really look at what you're saying, look at my blog, and try to see that what you have said about me on this post (and that other incident we had where you claimed I was carrying on some weird campaign on other blogs against Slice) IS NOT TRUE.

-----
Me:
(Original comment w/o the preface Jim added before it was published.)
Jim,

If you want to be honest, you ought to publish my earlier comment and make it clear to your readers why Slice appears so often on my site. I provided an explanation on the system of Blogger labels and how my template, which lists all labels (which includes posts labeled as "slice of laodicea"), makes all labels appear on each and every post.

This has nothing to do with obsession nor the actual content of each; it is merely how my template works with post pages.

By not including my comment you are effectively leaving people to believe you have "won" the argument when there is a logical answer and clear rebuttal in regards to any obsession you've hinted I have.

If you have lost the comment in your system, I would be happy to provide it; I have it saved on my own web site.

-----
Jim:
(He added this preface to the comment above, so that it was attached to the comment and read before my comment was read.)
From Jim: Here is one last comment from the Prairie Princess and then she has to wait, like . . . 50 more comments, before she posts again. People are starting to yawn over the Little Slice on The Prairie series. They want to get back to the Lord of The Rings movie. Apparently my Google link is not entirely accurate PP says; not all 500 of them are really about Slice. Got it. So here she is one last time to convey that . . .

Email I sent to Jim directly after this:
Jim, you are unkind in what you've added to my comment and the way you've portrayed me. I only attempted to clarify what was a mistake, but you took my explanation and prefaced it with rudeness about me being boring, not letting me speak for myself without adding something to tear it down before I spoke. Why did you do that? Why did you add to what I wrote? Why did you spin it?

I am sorry to have bothered you on your blog. I will remove your blog from my blogroll once again; it was clearly a mistake to have added it, and to keep it there. I am greatly disappointed in you.

Points to note:

Jim responds to all the male commenters by their true name. He responds to me by "Prairie Princess."
Jim did not add a preface to any other comment but mine.
I always addressed him as Jim and tried to be straightforward in my comments with very little sarcasm or belittlement.
If Jim wants to point out an obsession here at Lone Prairie, it would be this kind of interaction that I see on blogs often run by Christian men.

Theory:

Jim Bublitz has a problem with women. Or more specifically, he has a problem with women who do not agree with him and try to get involved in a discussion. He makes light of my comments with snarky preface material in order to dispel any aspect of continued discussion I may have been trying to add to the conversation. He added the preface material to help disguise the fact that he was attempting to build a case for my "obsession" but made a mistake in understanding how a Blogger template works; any mistake is embarrassing to him, particularly if it is one pointed out by a woman. His use of a nickname instead of a real name is his effort to belittle me, while he affords the men -- even the ones he obviously disagrees with strongly -- the courtesy of using a real name. Jim has a blog called "Old Truth" but it's real name is "The Truth Jim Finds Agreeable."

As per the usual way men shut women up, the pattern went as follows: bait into discussion, nickname, patronizing tone, shut her up. Jim is one of many men who has a problem with women who don't kowtow to him. He should consider showing the respect that he demands other people give him and the blog writers he so passionately defends.

----------------------------------

UPDATE: So...maybe things have cooled down. Maybe.

UPDATE 2; 11-17-07: In light of recent events (read here, here, and here) I withdraw any suggestion I may have made to readers encouraging them to visit Old Truth to find useful Christian information. While the excerpts from Whitefield, Spurgeon, et. al. are extremely good, the incestuous camaraderie in the comments section by the regular commenters forbids any disagreement without insult or accusation. You can find plenty of good, online repositories of those Christian sources elsewhere. I also do not recommend any non-believer going there in hopes of finding an answer, since the commenters and writers will see fit to use the Bible as a nearly literal sword only, seeing you as an adversary to conquer for the Lord.

I note that Jim has requested, in the comments section of this post, that I attend to the posts on this site which are inflammatory towards him. While I am sure that he is, as he repeatedly states, a fine father and husband, and no doubt a fine person in "real" life, his treatment towards other father's daughters and sons, and his behavior as an elder in the body of Christ whom I had initially looked to for guidance through his blog over a year ago, is in serious need of adjustment. Though I have been repeatedly asked to examine my heart and become humble and repent of my "rebellion", I see no evidence that those doing the asking are capable of seeing the same things in their own lives. I withdraw any support of Old Truth, and apologize for those I directed that way for helpful guidance in the past. I believe I was wrong in doing so.

Labels: blogging, slice of laodicea, women

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Before you open the box.

written by Julie R. Neidlinger 0 comments link this post

::This is a post in response to an earlier post. Please visit the comments section and see where this stems from.::

I once, about three years ago, wandered into the forum on Moby's webpage.

I don't know why. I'm not even a fan.

Yet there I was, discussing Christianity and politics with other people on the forum. The discussion soon boiled down to me and another fellow, and things weren't going too badly until he made a rather crude reference to male body parts. I informed him that I wasn't male, surprised that he assumed he'd been talking to a guy all along.

His first response was that the way I wrote sounded like I was a guy. The discussion, though, changed from that point on and denigrated into what I've sadly come to know as the male response to women who didn't shut up by guys who wish they would:

You don't understand what we're talking about / You're not intelligent enough to participate in this conversation.
You're being defensive / You're over-reacting.
You bitch.

I've been called that awful name by women before, though it is always in a different arena involving issues that wouldn't make sense to men. Every single time I've gotten an email or comment which essentially called me that by a man, however, was in the arena of debate or discussion in regards to something I disagreed with them on.

I frequently have to re-read the book of James with a lowly head. I'm not prone to being prone. I'm not going to take it lying down. I'm not going to hedge all my discussion in lavender perfume and pink-colored writing and end my sentences like apologetic questions just to make sure no guy is uncomfortable with his male-ness. I have enough respect for a person, man or woman, to approach them all the same. If you tell me you want me to respond, I will. Make sure you want me to or don't ask.

Maybe that's the problem. If a woman zips back in language and tone to men, or if she doesn't respond how a man thinks she should or in a way that he understands, she's not being Christ-like. She's over-reacting. She's not submitting. She's being defensive. She's a bitch. She's missing the point. She doesn't understand the real issues at stake. She's hormonal. She's out of control. She's uninformed. She's not intelligent. She can't handle the truth.

Men and women are different. That is a statement of the obvious. We think, react and respond differently. It's like two different languages, competing for the same space. I have a problem with men accusing me of one thing when I can see that they are guilty of doing the very same as far as my definition of that word is concerned.

Men are not the king of all that is logical, though they are well-versed in male logic, which has its own strength. Women come at things in a different way that is fitting to female logic, often girded up by stronger verbal skills. If you don't know by now that women can be brutal in an argument, you'd better learn quickly. It's nothing to be proud of, as I know first hand, but merely the truth. When women don't take the bait, don't respond to the goading to enter the discussion, it is an extraordinary act of self-control. It has nothing to do with not being equipped for the battle.

Men tell women they're not smart enough, they don't have the intelligence to join in. They do this in subtle language that hides what they are really thinking, but the meaning is there. But then, as women take up the challenge and join in, men respond like I've listed above. You can't taunt a women into speaking and then tell her, essentially, to shut up because she's not responding in your "right way." You can't berate her method of response and then innocently claim a white flag by saying there was no personal attack and for her to stop being defensive. That's weakness.

I hate it when I find myself driven to be a last-worder, those times I have to respond in the comments section over and over on this and other blogs on issues that I have decided to let go and move beyond. Too often I see comments (like Andy's in the post I linked to earlier) or receive emails that assume my silence is evidence of lesser intelligence, evidence that I, being a woman, just don't have the smarts to keep going and that I've acknowledged defeat. What these men don't understand is that most women can see when something is just a waste of time. Check out the comments sections of blogs and discussions on forums. Who keeps harping on the same points over and over and over? It's usually men. Women, for the most part, get tired of the constant bickering.

If I've made my point once, I see no need to respond to the same question even if it is from someone new. That seems illogical to me. If I sense that a person is going over the same ground in a never-ending cycle, I see no further need to respond. It's a waste of time, and illogical. It has nothing to do with me ducking my head and hurriedly opening my second-grade reader in an attempt to increase my lowly IQ.

If you are a man and find yourself telling a woman that she isn't smart enough to join in the conversation yet telling her, once she does, that she's being too defensive all the while thinking in your mind that she is a bitch, I can tell you what you are: an intellectual gelding.

My advice is this: Before you open the box, make sure you have a pair. Pandora's not a bitch, but she's not always in the mood to joke around.

::Caveat: Yes, these are generalizations of men/women. Yes, there are exceptions. Yes, there are plenty of men who are not like this. I know. If this post made you angry and you are a male, however, you might want to rethink your reaction to women in this regards. And don't send me a spate of emails calling me a bitch. I have a large enough collection, thank you very much.::

::Caveat 2: Before you grow concerned that this is a male-bashing post, rest easy. This has nothing to do with disrespect; truly, it does not. This isn't a blog where you'll find me saying that women without men are like fish without bicycles. I don't regularly call men stupid or become Dowd-esque and say they are unnecessary. I don't write posts that are the verbal equivalent of rolling my eyes and cursing the word "men!" under my breath. I'm very certain that people who know me would say I think highly of men for the simple reason that people, male and female, are important.::

Labels: blogging, essay, women

SECTIONS

About

Contact

Breaking News!

Events

Press

Sales & Specials

TODAYS HEADLINES

BLOGROLL

Plain and simple.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Lovin' this purse.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

The same invisibility.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Not a road, but an avenue.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Woman as explained by an engineer.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

10 things you should never say to a woman.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Bank Columbo.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

About that sharp-dressed man...

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Dollars and sense.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Useful chick info for residents of guyville.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Blog skirmishes.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

So you have a problem with women.

Like this post? Subscribe to the feed. Click here to help support this site.

Before you open the box.