Feeling a tad better

Hey y'all,

Great responses to the last entry! Yep, all those kinds of things (success, etc.) are very subjective. Ever notice how people are always trying to inject objectivity into things that are totally subjective? I think of that every time I see one of those aggravating "Best Careers" lists. I was looking at one today, with an extremely complicated methodology involving assigning point values to various job characteristics, stresses, etc. It's so arbitrary, and totally disregards the whole personal interest factor, which at least for me is huge. I'm not even sure what use such a list would serve for anybody. Oh well. Lists of rankings like that won't go away any time soon. We wouldn't want those journalists at the US News & World Report to be out of work.

I had dinner with my parents tonight. It's the last time I'll see them before they drive back across the country. My mom made a comment about how I sounded depressed when I answered the phone earlier in the day (yikes, is it that obvious??) Talking to them did make me feel better, though. They told me what I already know, that it's pointless to keep obsessing about a decision that's already been made, that I did have valid reasons for making that decision, and that I need to move forward. It helps to hear it from others, sometimes I believe them more than myself, ha ha.

I will move forward.

New Year

Happy New Year! But is it "two thousand eleven" or "twenty eleven"? Personally I prefer the latter. After all, one hundred years ago is referred to as "nineteen eleven," not "one thousand, nine hundred eleven."

Someone asked me if I have a new year's resolution the other day. I could probably think of a couple, but the first thing that popped into my head was basically "Feel good about the decisions I make and don't continue to obsess over them after I've made them." It will take some work, haha.

I keep coming back to the same existential questions . . . what should I be living for? What should I accomplish in life? What does it mean to me to be successful? Is it wrong for me to prefer to stay in California, near friends and family, at least for the time being? Is it a weakness? Is it overly selfish? Is it holding me back from my true potential? Certainly if I had a family of my own, a partner and/or kids, it would make more sense. But it's just me. The only attachments I have to this location are psychological. I don't even really see family and friends THAT often, at least not lately. I have a relatively small family, so with my parents across the country it's just my two sisters and their families. I expect two of my cousins (who are my best friends in the world) to be moving to So Cal in the near future though.

I guess a lot of it is because I'm still in the awkward place between the path that I was on and the new one. Two weeks ago I emailed the graduate program and basically told them thanks but no thanks. I'm still (still!) struggling over whether that was the right thing to do. I just hope that once I'm solidly on a different path such feelings will fade.

Another reason might be the people I'm surrounded by at work. When everyone around you is on the research track, it's kind of hard to be the one who ultimately decided against it. I keep reminding myself that it wasn't just the moving around thing that turned me off, but that's definitely the most emotionally prominent reason.

Of course, practically my whole life thus far has been about academics = success. Maybe it's time I changed my definition. How do you define success?

Still around, and all over the place

Hey y'all,

It's been a while. I've been going through another stressful period as I've been struggling (again) to come to a decision. It's approaching the time when I need to apply to the teaching credential programs if it's what I want to do. I talked to a guy that I've known since elementary school a little while ago. He's in his first year as a teacher at a school in the district we went through, and he's loving it. He told me about his experiences in his credential program, and how he was placed in a pretty tough school with difficult students. He did really well and enjoyed it. I'm not sure I'd be the same way in such difficult circumstances, and I guess that's the major source of my apprehension. What if I couldn't get a job in a good school? What if I'm not good at classroom management? Teaching seems to be a very polarizing profession (some love it, some hate it). What if I end up on the wrong side of the divide?

There's some things that appeal to me about teaching at that level, though. I like the idea of being the first (and possibly only) person to introduce kids to various science concepts. I like the idea of trying to improve science literacy, even in people who won't go on to take another science class in their life. I like the idea of possibly being the one to first interest someone in science. In response to Aek's comment at the end of the last entry: yeah, teaching undergrads has it's definite benefits. More depth, for one. And I was always saying before, I'd rather teach people who actually want to be there. But the reality is, the university level job market is so ridiculously saturated that the chances of getting a faculty position are extremely small. And even if you're one of the lucky ones, you have to be willing to pack up and move wherever. I'm realizing that it's important to me to be able to live near my friends and family (at least those that don't move away themselves, cough, Mom and Dad, cough), and that's okay.

Though I am still worried that high school teaching will prove too stressful for me, I've talked to enough people that love it to be encouraged. And I know that if I didn't like it, it's not the end of the world. I'll just try something else. I admit, in the past week my mind has been all over the place. Doing the PhD after all (no, I haven't turned them down yet, argh), doing something in health care like optometry, applying to a different field for grad school like clinical psychology, becoming a school psychologist, all of these things have gone through my mind. This has gone on far too long. I just need to PICK something and live with the consequences of my choice, hoping for the best. If it doesn't work out, then I'll take it from there. Being in this state of mind is not good. I admit, on the morning of the CBEST test (for teaching credential), part of me was hoping my car would break down so I'd miss the test and be forced to wait another year, thus giving me more time to think. It's always more time that I want. More time. Oh, if I only had more time, I could look into this career, or that career! I've read my career books and taken personality assessments, trying to get something other than myself to make the decision for me (I'm a Myers-Briggs INFJ, by the way, at least I think so). Maybe I should change the title of my blog to "Introspection Only Gets You So Far" since it seems to be becoming a recurring theme.

Phew, venting done. So even though my mind has been in many directions lately, currently I'm planning on going through with the teaching thing. It seems to be most in line with what I value (science, education, family).

Following up

Thanks guys for your comments on the last entry. I was second guessing myself after posting that but decided it was how I felt, so it needed to be said. It's pretty crazy how one's mindset can change. Some days I am almost to the point of declaring myself gay, other days (like the last couple) the doubts come back and paralyze me. It doesn't make it easier that I'm going back and forth between dealing with this and my career issue. The difference there: that issue I can actually openly talk to people about. I spoke to some coworkers today about my high school teaching idea, and the lingering doubts about whether turning away from academia was the right move. They agreed with my assessment: it's more important to do what you WANT than what you think you "should" do when it comes to choosing your career. The time pressure on that one is more intense though. I've signed up to take the CBEST in December. I'll need to ask for letters of rec very soon. So it looks like time might just make that decision for me, haha.

Anyways, it's all a work in progress.

Frustrations

I am extremely frustrated. I just wish I could experience "sexual attraction" the way that (nearly) everyone else does. I can look at a guy and think, "He's hot." Or I can talk to a girl and think, "She's nice." But there's hardly any sexual feelings, ever. What does sexual attraction even feel like? How would you describe it? If I only had more intense feelings I would have been able to define my sexuality a long time ago. Perhaps it would have been strong enough for me to identify as "gay." I feel that my conservative nature requires quite a large amount of justification before I do that, though, and without intense sexual feelings I don't see myself reaching that threshold of justification. Which leaves me trapped in this purgatory . . . not straight enough to date girls, not gay enough to date guys. I know I'm just going to have to choose, even if it doesn't feel perfect in the end. Yep, maybe for people like me it really is a choice, in the end. I don't have my libido telling me what to do, so it's all up to my head.

You might be thinking, "But B, in the last entry you posted pictures of Taylor Kinney and talked about how hot he is!" Yeah, I did. He is hot. But do I want to have sex with him? Can't say. He's easy on the eyes, that's all I know. Is that enough to go on?

Anyways, I just needed to vent. I know I've been struggling with this question for a long time. Why is it so hard to figure out? I think like with anything it's hard to imagine unless you've experienced it. My cousin didn't even realize intensity of sexual attraction was something that varied between people until I told him about my issue.

Another frustrating incident: I had a conversation with a friend of mine earlier. He's a bit eccentric and socially awkward. He can come across as arrogant and egocentric at times. But he's a loyal friend and a nice guy, so I've been friends with him for quite some time now. Several times he's mentioned this guy in his class, who is apparently gay. Each time he has referred to the guy as "he/she." I let it slide the first couple times, but tonight I had had enough and corrected him. We argued for several minutes, and I was shocked at how reluctant he was to refer to the guy as "he." He tried "they," hoping that would be some kind of compromise that I would accept, but I didn't. I told him that just because a guy is attracted to guys doesn't make him any less of a man. I argued that since gay guys are attracted to each other, by his reasoning that would make them essentially two women. So is he saying that gay men are like lesbians? He's stubborn, but he finally acknowledged that there are different types of gay men, some more feminine than others. We ended with an "agree to disagree." I warned him that thinking of gay men as "women in all but body" was a position that would be very offensive to a lot of people. Hopefully he learned something.

Werewolves > Vampires

I very nearly became a viewer of "The Vampire Diaries." Not only does it star Ian Somerholder, who was part of the main cast of "Lost" (but for only the first season), but it also features a plethora of other very good looking individuals. Tops was this guy. His name is Taylor Kinney, and IMHO he takes over the "Hottest Guy Named Taylor Who Portrays a Werewolf" title. But, apparently they killed off his character recently. Phew, dodged a bullet there. It's already embarrassing enough that with "24" and "Lost" over with, the only shows I watch are on the CW ("Smallville" and "Supernatural" -- both good for eye candy as well).

Signs from the past, and politics

Recently I remembered a thought that had entered my mind a long time ago, I think back in high school. I had dismissed it at the time, though apparently it has been living somewhere in my memory since. I had the image of a guy with big, strong arms embracing his girlfriend. I don't remember exactly, but the sentiment that flashed through my mind was basically, Damn, too bad I'll never get to experience that, meaning being in the girl's position. Note that I had no desire to actually be a girl, and never have. But the thought of the closeness with the guy appealed to me in some way.

Another clue: there was a nickel arcade in the city where I grew up. My favorite game there: Altered Beast. It's a pretty stupid, repetitive, and frustrating game. But I loved playing it. Why? Well, you start off as a guy who has been summoned from his grave to rescue Zeus's daughter. Periodically you'll get attacked by these two-headed wolf things. If you kill a white one, it leaves behind a floating orb that increases your strength if you grab it. This is accompanied by the hero losing his shirt and getting a dramatic increase in muscularity. Another orb increases his musculature to ridiculous proportions (especially considering his head stays the same size throughout). Only after you get the third orb does your character transform into a beast (werewolf, dragon, weretiger, etc.) The idea of the hero being transformed into this buff hulk captured by interest. At the end of every level you would lose your powers, so you could go through the transformations again in the next one. Suffice it to say, this game has been ridiculed as being homoerotic. There's even a Facebook group I found called "Altered Beast made me gay!"

Evidence for the other side . . .

Well, other than the girls that I've had crushes on over the years (pretty much exclusively emotion-based), I can't really think of any instances. If I remember anything I'll be sure to post it.

Sooo . . .

In other news, apparently three judges who played a role in gay marriage being legalized in Iowa have failed to be reelected. Apparently a bunch of "family groups" got together and campaigned against them. I still fail to see how gay people marrying affects straight families. Or how a vote against gay marriage would be considered "pro-family." I can't stand it when groups use language to obscure instead of clarify. If you're against abortion, you're "pro-life." If you're for abortion, you're "pro-choice." Supporters of CA Prop 23 called it the "California Jobs Initiative." Opponents called it the "Dirty Energy Proposition." And any judge who makes a decision that a particular partisan group doesn't agree with is labelled an "activist judge."

I talked to my dad on the phone today and actually had a pretty calm political discussion with him. I asked him about his reaction to the election results. To convey where he stands on the spectrum, I'll just say that he attended two tea party rallies in a single week. He said that he's really disappointed that California elected Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer. He considers them the worst thing for the state and feels they'll drag the economy down even further with spending. However, I've found some articles online that argue that the economy actually improves during Democratic administrations, and that government spending is actually good for the economy. I'm no economist, but it definitely seems that it's not a clear cut issue.

Ok, bed time.