Tag: things i think about

You’ve been saved

In my final year of uni, knowing that I would stop being a student soon, I made a pre-emptive strike against the Commonwealth Bank and switched to ANZ, where I don’t have to pay an account keeping fee. Finally! Escaped from the clutches of the Dollarmites!

Maybe you too have been backed into a corner by the Dollarmites or are now battling the legacy of doing well in the Westpac Maths Competition. Be strong! Break free! I know you can do it.

P.S. Back in my more vulnerable days, the Dollarmites were aliens with lots of tentacles. The Dollarmites seem to have had an image overhaul; they now have more street cred and look like humans. They must have changed their publicist. Just like Tom Cruise did.

The Sydney Morning Herald reports on how the Commonwealth Bank is luring little savers with cartoons.

The joke factor

I’m trying to create a joke. I’ve never done it before. What do you think?

Joe saw Mike hunching miserably over his desk.

“Oh no!” Joe said. “You did it, didn’t you? You went back to your old girlfriend.” Mike nodded, ashamed. “Why do you do it, Mike? She’s cheated on you, taken your money and has 30% hearing in her left ear. What keeps you crawling back?”

“I don’t know!” Mike said. “It’s just… I guess she has the Ex Factor.”

Hmm. I don’t know if I’ve quite gotten the hang of it yet. Maybe someone could make a maths joke using ‘X Factor’.

Anyway, I used the term ‘X Factor’ for the first time in my life on Sunday while helping with the Dance School Idol judging.

Elizabeth and Joan

Last night, I saw the new Pride & Prejudice film at the cinema. I enjoyed it. I will buy the soundtrack.

This morning, as I was walking to the station, I imagined that Elizabeth Bennett was walking beside me and that I was going to show her what it is like being a young woman in 2006.

Elizabeth had a lot of questions, as you can imagine.

“Where are we going today, Joan?”

“I’m going to work. Most people nowadays go to work or go to school. I work as an engineer.”

“What do engineers do?”

“Engineers use science to solve problems. For example…” I tried to think of an example that would be understood readily. “There isn’t enough water for everyone so engineers help find ways to share water around or make more water.”

“Not enough water! How?”

“There are a lot more people these days, Elizabeth.”

I live in a typical suburb, another house every 30 metres. I explained that in Melbourne, most people lived in suburbs.

“These areas are always quiet in the day time. People live here but during the day, they travel somewhere else for work or school. We’re going to the city.” As I said this, I imagined the waves of people flowing between the suburbs and the city, then back again, day after day. I shook my head. It must seem strange and unnecessary to someone who lives on an estate that generates its own employment.

She marvelled at the cars but remarked how noisy they were.

“There’s not much grass, Joan,” she said. “I suppose the space is needed for roads.”

“We do have have beautiful places still — parks and forests and mountains. I hope I can show you some of the nice places today.”

It was difficult to explain the overhead power lines. The way I explained electricity to her, it must seem like magic. “People make electricity elsewhere, far away. The electricity travels through the lines to each house. We can then use it to make light, make things move, to heat things up or cool them down. I guess the lines do spoil the sky a little. In some places, we put the lines underground but you get used to seeing overhead lines.”

We caught the train. The train, to her, was like a giant car where strangers would pour in and take seats beside each other. She didn’t mention it but I could see her curiosity and surprise at the sight of men sitting down while women stood up.

She found the variety in clothing and fashion fascinating. “All the women wear pants!” she exclaimed.

“We find it more comfortable.”

“I wish I could do that at home.”

“Many girls still wear skirts. The skirts can get quite short.” I nodded at a group of school girls, whose skirts were hiked up above their knees. “Don’t worry. You are dressed more unusually than most but no one will say anything. People dress however they like.”

We arrived in the city and looking at it anew, I noticed that the city isn’t all that much different to the suburbs. The buildings are taller, there are more people, but it’s the same concrete around, pavement and bitumen, piped music and announcements, shops selling food (I had a go at explaining parking signs to her). I was a little embarrassed by the sameness of it because I had wanted to show Elizabeth something different.

I’m not sure what she made of my office. I meant take her to one of the parks at lunch time but I was caught up talking to workmates. By the time I left work this evening, I realized that I hadn’t left the concrete jungle all day.

Even with all our impressive technology, I felt apologetic. I had shown my visitor from the 19th century nothing beautiful today. I get the feeling she might have concluded that 2005 wasn’t much of an improvement on 1813 (except for the pants). And it really should have been.

Maybe I could have done a better job of being a tour guide if I had a few more days.

Having an imaginary visitor made me look at my daily routine and surroundings with fresh eyes. The outcome was unexpectedly unfavourable. I really am surprised.

I love bubble wrap

I love bubble wrap. I love the potentiality of it. I like to gently touch the pads of my fingertips on the lightly textured air-filled rounds. I even kind of like the frustration of not being able to pop any of them because I have to use the bubbles to wrap the DVD I made so that it can be safely couriered overnight to Brisbane.

I’ll keep my stupid promises

I heard Grinspoon’s “Better off alone” on the radio today and I was winded by the memory of the video clip, which I saw many months ago.

The song is about breaking up. Of course, the video clip has nothing to do with this. However, it affected me greatly when I watched it. I was washing the dishes on Saturday morning and I became transfixed by the TV. I had to stop my washing.

There’s a young man and woman in a car. They crash into a lake and by the time they regain consciousness, the car is filling with water. They’re panicking. The woman manages to unbuckle herself from the seat. The man struggles. He can’t undo the seatbelt. She tries to help. Together, they fight the black strip but they can’t undo it. He is going to drown. It becomes clear that if she is to survive, she must leave the car and the man now. She doesn’t leave. She sits back in her seat and holds his hand. They’re terrified and holding hands as the water rises and their faces are pressed against the roof of the car.

That’s the end of it.

Something about the song (which itself is very expressive) reminds me of the intensity of the feelings in that clip. It’s a stupid video. I can’t believe that there was no way of getting him out and on an intellectual level, I know that the woman should have left.

Yet, she would have been so brave to stay, so giving. Surely she would have lessened his terror and loneliness of dying. I would have admired her. No one would know what she had sacrificed.

Anyway. It makes me think.

How to keep a boyfriend — slow version

Now that you have got a boyfriend, you need to figure out how to keep him (and whether or not you should keep him).

The start of a relationship is a special time. You bound towards the door when the doorbell rings. His text messages make you sigh happily. He does crazy hedonistic things like take you to the airport.

Harry: You take someone to the airport, it’s clearly the beginning of a relationship. That’s why I have never taken anyone to the airport at the beginning of a relationship.

Sally: Why?

Harry: Because eventually things move on and you don’t take someone to the airport, and I never wanted anyone to say to me, how come you never take me to the airport anymore?

Sally: It’s amazing, you look like a normal person but actually you’re the angel of death.

— When Harry Met Sally

Well, I have some advice that is at least as useful as Mr Harry Burns’s.

Firstly, if he hasn’t made it clear already, ask, “Will you do me the honour of being my boyfriend?” That way, you have a definite date for future anniversaries.

Talk about your previous relationships. Come on, we all know we’re interested. You can either leave him hanging in curiosity or you can both act like adults and agree to spill all.

Tell each other the one thing that you need for this relationship to work. Good ones include:

  • “I want us to be a social couple. I don’t like those couples who shut themselves off from friends. At dance socials, I’ll dance with lots of people. At a party, I want us to be able to talk to other people.”

or

  • “I think it’s important for us to communicate. I’d like to know what you are thinking and when you feel unhappy — and when you are happy too. No topic should be off limits.”

Promise to honour these commitments.

Do not be performing monkeys for each other. Don’t force yourself to entertain him, be witty, be talented, pretend you’re interested in his boring hobbies. Don’t smile when you feel like crying. It will wear you out eventually. Being a performing monkey will wear you out.

Take it easy on the physical side of things. Let each step happen naturally. Be surprised and delighted as you go from hug, to hand-holding to kissing. Have twenty bases.

Don’t be scared of his parents.

Finally, don’t judge your relationship against society’s expectations of a “normal” relationship. Don’t worry if you don’t see him as often as other couples see each other. Don’t let your friends convince you to be angry that he doesn’t drive you everywhere. If he comes back from overseas/interstate/camp and doesn’t call you straight away, don’t let your family wear you down into a suspicious second-guessing mess.

The only yardstick by which you should measure your relationship is your own. If you are content, then you don’t need to listen to anyone else.

The next instalment will discuss how you can grow your relationship past the romance stage. See you then!

How to get a boyfriend — slow version

  1. Meet people through an extracurricular or extraworkular activity. Choose something you enjoy or are inspired by.
  2. Join the committee.
  3. Find the target boy.
  4. Work on a project with him. Is he still interesting? Is he friend material too? If yes…
  5. Slip in a social comment into official business emails or phone calls. If he responds in like, then the odds are looking better.
  6. Make ambiguous comments that can be interpreted either way (ie. I’m flirting / I’m a friendly person).
  7. Go on a group social outing. Maybe go out to celebrate the success of a committee project.
  8. Find an excuse to invite him on a one-on-one outing. Maybe establish that you are a fan of (some cuisine / an obscure artist or film director / rock climbing / macrame) and pretend you happen to have voucher for a meal at (a restaurant that serves said cuisine / the Melbourne International Film Festival / a rock-climb-a-thon / a macrame short course). Whatever the excuse, make your sentiments ambiguous. It’s still too early to risk anything too much.
  9. Go on “date”. Be yourself but at your best.
  10. If he’s responded receptively but not declared his like for you, then repeat “dates”. Don’t try to define anything yet.
  11. I’m not sure what happens now. Maybe up the ante by leaning into him or initiating casual physical closeness. If he doesn’t step back…
  12. Ask him out on a Date. If he agrees, you are now going out.

Hooray! Now that you have obtained your boyfriend, you need to do some work to keep him. Keep an eye out for Joan’s tips on how to lay the foundations of a good relationship.

See you next time!

The Trouble with Trooble

Damjan and I made up a word about a year ago.

trooble n. pl. troobles: a word having the same sequence of numbers as another word when typed on a telephone keypad. eg. Good is a trooble of home. Joan is a trooble of loan.

Why trooble? Because a carelessly used trooble can result in trouble.

It’s a handy word. I’ve decided to immortalise it on my blog because if ‘trooble’ starts appearing in the English language, the etymologists can unequivocally assert its origins.

That’s right, folks. You heard it here first.

Her Royal Majesty, Joanium

I’m reading The Divine Right of Capital by Majorie Kelly, which is essentially a critique of the prevalent unquestioned self-evident truth that companies exist to profit shareholders. That is, for the majority of companies, the measure of success is how much wealth they generate for stockholders. And sometimes, it is necessary to trade in the welfare of employees, communities and the environment to achieve this aim.

I began reading this book with a certain level of hostility. In fact, I am still wary. I am wary because:

  1. Bloody hippies, kill them all.
  2. I am a shareholder and I’m not evil.
  3. I couldn’t imagine a different world, where society was arranged so that companies naturally delight in increasing community wealth, instead of being pressured to do it by regulators. (Okay, so now I’ve revealed myself for the right wing economic rationalist that I am. Yeah, that’s right. I’ve only been pretending to care about the environment and people and all that other crap.)

I haven’t converted or anything as wholesale as that but there was a turning point in my thinking in my early readings of the book. Ms Kelly seems to have anticipated my lack of imagination. She says approximately, “Once upon a time, the aristocratic class lived off the productivity of peasants, while contributing nothing themselves. It seems ludicrous now but in those times, it was simply the natural order of things. Some people were closer to God than others. How could it be any different? In much the same way, we accept that the only way companies can work [innovate, be productive, compete] is when they’re driven to generate profits for shareholders, who really contribute nothing to the productivity of companies.”

This was a useful analogy for me, not because I was convinced that shareholders are modern day aristocrats (read: societal deadweight) but I was suddenly able to conceive that truths and foundations that seem self-evident now may not be self-evident and essential in some future.

Boing!

As I read further, I started thinking about these rich young (or old) things, canny investors, people who caught the wave and are so invested up that they can live off their passive income (dividends, rent, interest etc.). They drive around in their Porches, hop between holiday homes, may choose to work or choose to play golf depending on the weather. In all the investment books that I’ve read, this is the ultimate goal, right? “Make your money work for you!” they cry. It’s what the smart people do. It’s what I’ve been trying to do ‘coz I’m a smart person.

Now I’m thinking, “Is this fair? Is this desirable? How can there be people who live so comfortably off other people’s labour without having to contribute to the community? Are these the new aristocrats?”

And that makes me uneasy because maybe I am evil after all.

What should I do? Do I stop investing? Stop buying shares that produce dividends? Stop putting my money in the bank? Should I live on my salary alone? Isn’t that really stupid? If the system’s there, why not educate myself and use it to my advantage? If I think it is unethical, can I protest the system with the left corner of my mouth while telling my stockbroker to ‘buy buy buy’ with the right corner of my mouth?

I don’t know. I don’t know.

Initiators and Reactors

I have been introduced to two new terms that I like very much.

Conversation Initiators are people who feel comfortable in propelling conversations by asking questions and introducing new topics.

Conversation Reactors enjoy providing thoughtful replies to questions and extending existing topics.

An ideal situation occurs when an Initiator and Reactor are conversing while wandering around aimlessly. Amazing conversations abound when you have two Initiators on a driving trip together. However, if you have two Reactors together (especially on the phone), you run the risk of awkward silences unless the two people are close friends.

Interestingly, there is a continuum with Reactor at one end and Initiator on the other. If a Conversation Reactor (let’s call her Magnolia) finds herself with with Jacaranda, who is even more Reactor-like, then Magnolia may feel obligated to take on the Initiator’s role. As this does not come naturally to Magnolia, it may all become extremely stressful. How can you concentrate on meaningful conversation when you are scrambling to think of the next topic before this one dies its natural death?

If Magnolia is a sensitive soul, she will feel even more distressed because she feels that she is overwhelming Jacaranda with meaningless waffle. These feelings are not limited to Reactors. I would classify myself as a Conversation Initiator. I have often suffered anti-Joanness because I feel like I am imposing on more Reactory-type people (other bouts of anti-Joan are triggered by me being stupid).

I have been wondering whether or not Conversation Initiators also have Reactor skills of listening. The verdict is: not necessarily. Don’t we all know people who steamroll through conversations?

I think that most people have a natural tendency towards being Reactors or Initiators (and it varies with company). It is useful and desirable to have both skills and this is largely learned through experience. I hope I have achieved some balance between the two facets.

It would be interesting to find out:

  1. Are Initiators equally attracted to other Initiators and to Reactors?

  2. Can Reactors only attach themselves to Initiators?

  3. Is there an equal number of Initiators and Reactors in a population?

If the answer to these questions is ‘yes’, then it seems wasteful for couples to be made up of two Initiators. Perhaps they should break up for the good of society. 🙂