Thinking About Money

Cat in a pile of money!

Today one coworker bought another coworker a Coke. The one buying the Coke doesn't make as much as the one receiving the Coke, and she also has 2 kids and can be heard on the phone talking with her fiance about money issues. The coworker receiving the Coke asked how much he owed her and you know what she said?

Don't worry about it.

As in, I just bought you a Coke and do not need you to pay me the $1.25 back. And do you know why? Because the cost of the Coke was so small it wasn't going to make a difference. Her exact words were:

I mean, it's not going to make me go broke.

Hearing her say those words made me feel pretty shitty about myself because I realized I'm selfish enough to know when I've spent $1.25 on someone else. I don't worry about things like that with close friends, my sisters, my roommate or my boyfriend because there's a regular give and take with those people, and something like five bucks, or even a meal or utility bill, aren't worth worrying about with those relationships. But I would remember buying a Coke for an acquaintance or coworker.

I really need to let go of my money worries. I'm constantly recalculating my finances trying to make sure I'll have enough for taxes and car insurance and have been living on a very strict budget since the beginning of the year in order to do so and worrying about money (which is way more fun now that gas prices have jumped 35 cents a gallon in 4 days) is exhausting. And depressing. I know I'm OK and I'm sure I'm going to make it, but I would have asked for that $1.25. Kinda makes me feel like a crappy person. 

I really want to not worry about money. I want to be the person who buys people Cokes, or even lunch, and says don't worry about it. To be the person who tips generously. To take friends out for celebrations on me. To give random presents. And I really, really want to look at the left side of the menu page before the right side, not let price dictate everything I do and be the first question I ask. 

The other want I have, however, is to do something with my life that I feel passionate about, something that's important to others and that might matter in a few years, or even decades. But I'm worried that I'll never be able to have both of those things... to feel like what I'm doing means something and to also not always be so worried about every dollar I spend. I know when I graduated with a writing degree that I said I would be OK with being poor, but if I'm already sick of it at 26 what am I going to do in ten years? My hope is that once large expenses stop I'll be able to save for accidents and unexpected expenses in the future. And then I'll have a buffer so I can stop worrying, and stop feeling bad for saving for fun things, like vacations and computers and bigger beds. 

I feel like I've been saying the word "someday" a lot.

In Which I Admit Defeat

For some reason this is the first picture I thought of.

Palm oil has been a rather sticky thorn in my side as I do my darndest to buy products that don't have it, but today I discovered I will make exceptions.


I bought hippy deoderant (Tom's of Maine, doesn't get worse than that) and very hippy body wash, which surprisingly wasn't even a dollar more expensive than what I normally buy, because of sodium laureth sulfate. I've already found shampoo and soaps that don't have that ingredient and am working my way through my daily routine to replace anything that has it.


Except toothpaste.


I thought there was no choice when it came to toothpaste because not even Tom's of Maine toothpaste is SLS free. But then I discovered a few other brands of toothpaste that you won't find in Target or Vons that don't have SLS. And they start at $5 a pop and only go up from there.


I just can't pay 2 to 5 times the amount of money I'm used to spending on toothpaste. Though there are options on the market that don't test on animals and don't use SLS, but between the cost and really, really wanting to make sure my teeth are in as good of condition as they can be for not having been to a dentist in... 6 years? So I'll be sticking to my animal testing, SLS toothpaste that I buy for $2 and hoping it does the trick and my teeth aren't rotting.


And so I admit defeat. Hopefully my teeth will thank me for it.

Abstinence>Birth Control

 Because if you aren't careful, one of these could be yours.

Abortion, birth control and how people have sex is, for whatever reason, big news in the Land of the Free, and the upcoming election (still 8 whole months away) will likely center heavily on these intertwined topics. And because women's issues are very near and dear to my heart and most certainly my body, I'm quite passionate and opinionated about them.


I've been having a difficult time trying to understand the purpose behind these ridiculous debates, and perhaps because I'm a woman, perhaps because I'm young, perhaps because I tend to think these types of things do not need to be legislated, I doubt I ever will. The most recent comment on the issue of birth control, who should be having sex and how consenting adults should go about having children comes from a Republican WOMAN, who said if married couples don't want to get pregnant they should not have sex. Married couples. Shouldn't have sex.


Unless they want kids.


According to Ms. Blankenbeker (I assume she's married because Republicans are all about the family, and I so want to know what her husband thinks about all this), abstinence is an affordable form of birth control that is available to everyone, regardless of insurance. She also reminds us that condoms are available over the counter to anyone, with or without insurance. So, condoms and not having sex are the only ways to prevent pregnancy, according to this woman. Married couples who love each other but who aren't ready for or don't want more kids better hope their condoms don't break...

Seriously.

I was always under the impression that the only right sex is the sex between a married man and his female wife. Unmarried sex is bad, as is homosexual sex, and any negative consequences that result from bad sex is the fault of the people involved. But a married man and married woman together having sex is now off the table unless they explicitly want to procreate? Now sex between man and wife is only for making babies? The Bible doesn't even advocate that. Who is this crazy woman?


Also, what about married couples who do not want to have kids? I have no intention of having kids at any point in my life, but I do hope that I'll be married at some point in my life, presumably while I'm still physically capable of conceiving. Does this mean I am not to have sex with my husband unless I change my mind about having kids? Relying on condoms isn't realistic for me because I'm allergic (or maybe just sensitive) to latex, and it can be very painful to use them.


These comments were made at a hearing designed to urge Obama to drop the requirement that insurance plans offer birth control, which makes me believe they're inflammatory and actually designed to encourage Obama to stick to his guns. Could she be saying such ridiculous things, things which Republicans don't agree with and the American public doesn't agree with, to ruin her party? A Republican in Democrat's clothing, perhaps? I doubt it, but I don't think this notion should be ignored.


At the same hearing, another Republican woman claimed that birth control pills lead to prostate cancer. Funny thing, though, is women don't have prostates and men don't take birth control pills (yet). So hooooooow would a medication cause a disease/side effect in someone who isn't taking it? It's not second hand smoke: men don't get second hand estrogen when their partners take hormonal birth control. This woman, a Ms. Notter (again, wonder what the hubby thinks), says she was referring to high levels of estrogen in the environment, which is actually true. Men, however, are not affected by it. Frogs, fish and other wildlife can be, but still not on a common or regular basis. So I'm not sure where she's getting her information. 


I've always felt fortunate to have been born at the time I was, rather than even just 20 years earlier when women were less able to live freely or openly. I'm glad that I can be 26 and unmarried and not be an outcast, that I can skip having kids without it being weird (it's still a little weird, but enough women are opting out now), that I don't have to live under my parents, that going to college wasn't to meet an eligible man who would make enough money to support me. But when my government starts deciding whether or not my access to birth control is valid, or having an opinion about my sexual activities, that's when I wish I was born later. I know, I have to believe, that when my generation is older and our kids generation starts learning about these fucking ridiculous legislative attempts and ask what we were thinking we'll have to shrug and say we tried, but people were still bigoted and sexist and puritanist back then, but at least now the country is a better place for all of its citizens, young and old, gay and straight, male and female. 

The Abortion Debate

A panel of men discussing the type birth control that women are responsible for.

I inadvertently sparked an abortion debate on Facebook a couple of weeks ago when I posted a link to an article in which a Republican presidential hopeful said that not only would he work to make abortions illegal but that women should view pregnancies that are the result of a rape as a "gift from God." People have very, very opinionated views on this topic, as can be seen by the 69 very informed comments that post garnered on my wall.

One of the people commenting later posted an unrelated link to a collection of interviews from abortion providers, asking them about their most memorable patients. They talked about the very religious/anti-abortion patients who were getting, that's right, abortions. Women who ran anti-abortion groups with their schools, pro-life parents bringing their young daughters in for abortions, even one woman who brought her (black) maid in for an abortion and sat in the lobby passing out anti-abortion pamphlets to the rest of the waiting patients made the memorable lists. Incredible stories.

The people most opposed to abortion in these interviews, the ones getting abortions, were convinced that their abortions were necessary. They were convinced that the abortion providers and other patients could never understand their reason, and some even called the other patients terrible names even though they were getting the exact same procedure. They did not thank the doctor who performed the procedure and some got snotty, as if it was the doctor's fault the woman was getting an abortion. Some of these women getting procedures they did not "believe in" blamed the abortion providers to their faces and said hurtful things (some of these women were turned away). But it made me wonder why people who are vehemently anti-abortion get abortions. Could it possibly be because they find themselves in the same position many women find themselves? None of the women in these interviews said their pregnancies were the result of a rape (and certainly none of them were life-saving abortions because they occurred in clinics), which leads me to believe these same women are having the same kinds of sex that every other woman has, with the same types of partners, and the same types of accidents occur.

However, people who are anti-abortion are generally (not always, please don't harp on this word) religious, believing abortions should not be performed on moral grounds for any reason. But these same people also generally believe that pre-marital sex is a sin, and a good portion of them believe that using contraception of any kind (which absolutely baffles me) is also a sin. However, my experience has shown me that even religious women have pre-marital sex: the Catholic basketball star in my high school class got knocked up our junior year because she had unprotected pre-marital sex. The women and girls who do so are obeying a very basic, very common and very powerful urge, and possibly some are giving in to boyfriends they don't want to lose. Now, a pregnancy is really the only sure indication that a woman has had sex, so I wonder if some of these anti-abortion women get abortions to save face. They can't exactly preach abstinence if they're knocked up and unmarried, can they? So they get abortions so that no one has to  know there was ever a pregnancy or even ever pre-marital sex. Their purity remains, their future husbands will never have to know, and they won't have to give up any position they've made for themselves. The only other options are to carry on with the pregnancy and have a child out of wedlock or marry the child's father immediately. However, these women are often in the same social and financial situations as the majority of the women who get abortions. They are not in a position to get married, do not have enough money to support a pregnancy or child, and would be condemned by family members and close friends for their actions. An abortion is a great way to save face, protect their reputations and allow them to carry on with their way of life.

Maybe anti-abortion women are less likely to have a second abortion, or maybe they're more likely to acknowledge their actions and tlearn to ake precautions, like using birth control the next time they have sex. But I also wonder if they might be more likely to get a first abortion.

The good part about that collection of interviews was that one provider shared a story of a woman who changed her mind after her abortion, acknowledging that if she could get an abortion she could no longer condemn other women for making the same choice. Gives me hope that people will eventually realize that abortion is a choice that needs to be on the table, for whatever reason. Which is why access to and knowledge about birth control is very important for men and women.

Not Really Our First Valentine's Day

Thought it would go as expected... it did not.

For the first time in a long time, I was actually really excited about Valentine's Day this year. I did the same thing I did the two previous years when I was single (which wasn't much of a departure from what I did when I was in a long term relationship): have people over, make something, drink wine, and make fun of Twilight.

Except this year I have someone who is more romantic than I am, who likes doing stuff like Valentine's Day, who makes me feel loved and wanted every day I see him, and who gets me excited about Valentine's Day.

The funny thing is we spent Valentine's Day last year together, too, albeit within a group of other singles (almost exactly the same group of people). Funnier thing is I was sort-of-seeing someone last year but ended up spending more time that night with my now-boyfriend, which honestly was A-OK with me.

So, technically this was our second Valentine's Day together, but like he says it was our first year together. Last year we made sugar cookies and iced them inappropriately, so this year I decided we'd make chocolate ice cream bowls after seeing a how-to on the internet. And in my own true form it failed miserably.

My research recommended using balloons sprayed with cooking oil, dipped in the chocolate (not too hot) and frozen for as little as 10 minutes for it to set. Seemed simple enough, yet my kitchen ended up covered in chocolate, butter and balloon fragments. And because we used water balloons (geniuses) some of us ended up a little wet, too. After telling my coworkers the story I was overwhelmingly told to not use water balloons... Oops.

The Oatmeal sums up Valentine's Day pretty well: "February 14th has absolutley no bearing on our relationship, but we should pretend to be extra attracted to each other today." Eh, I'm cool with it. It's just another gift giving holiday, except this one focuses almost exclusively on chocolate, wine and sex, so really what's not to like?