8 months after giving birth, I'm now within about 5lbs of my pre-pregnancy weight. Losing the weight (50lbs!) felt rather slow at times, especially because I was hoping breastfeeding would make the pounds "just fall off" as so many women attest...but that didn't really happen for me. I lost a good bit of it in the past two months, which I think is due to working more, which involves more physical activity.
Anyway, I'm now satisfied with the number on the scale, but not so much with what I see in the mirror. Back before I got pregnant, I had a fair amount of muscle from work and exercise, and people often guessed I weighed about 15lbs less than I actually did, probably due to that "muscle weighs more than fat" thing. Well, now I'd like some of that muscle back!
I try not to get too caught up in body image stuff, because I don't want to be vain or shallow. But there are just so many things I prefer about having a lean, strong body. One major thing I've noticed is how different everything feels when you have weak abdominal muscles. I feel that my posture suffers and my lower back hurts more. I'd also prefer not to have my thighs touch each other.
I'd like to get back into Spinning, but I must admit I'm afraid of no longer being good at it. For years, I felt like a Spinning class star. I know, it's rather silly. But I don't want to go back to the red-faced, winded person I was at my first Spinning class seven years ago!
So I've begun doing more cardio workouts on the elliptical machine, with the goal of working myself back into some semblance of shape before I attempt a Spinning class. I'm also enjoying yoga and, of course, walking outside in this all-too-brief spring weather.
At the moment, however, I'm eagerly anticipating Anton's next nap, and I plan to join him.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
On SAHMs, Ann Romney, and all this silliness
There's some good discussion going on over at Feministe about what's really going on when politicians talk about motherhood being "the most important job there is." If you're a wealthy woman, at least.
As I've mentioned here before, I thought I might take a year off from work after Anton was born, but I took a wait-and-see approach, and didn't make a definite decision because I didn't know how I'd feel in this very new situation. And I was very lucky to be in a financial position to have options. And, as it turned out, I got rather bored with the whole SAHM thing and started to ease back into work when Anton was 3 months old, by commuting to NOLA every couple of weeks to see old clients. I continue to do that, and have now added another part-time massage job closer to home.
The thing is, I love spending time with my baby. But not every second. Some of it is lots of fun. Some of it is quite tedious. And although, overall, I put a lot of work and thought into The Job of Motherhood, it's not as if I'm the only person on this planet who possesses the necessary skills to change his diapers or feed him applesauce, tiny spoonful by tiny spoonful. Sometimes it's great to get a break from all that for a few hours, and use some of the skills I've spent years refining, like my massage skills, or my writing skills.
It is patronizing when Important Men talk about the hard work involved in staying home with the kids (unless you're a poor woman, in which case...get your lazy ass off the couch and work, right?), not because it isn't hard work, but because it is also tedious work, which they are unwilling to do.
It reminds me of when I had an admin job, and one of my tasks was to take a pile of rumpled receipts and create an expense report for one of the executives. It was a frustrating task, because he never sorted anything out, so it was hard for me to tell if a particular restaurant receipt was from taking clients out for a dinner meeting, or taking his family out for dinner (and if it was the latter, I didn't really want to help him get reimbursed for it, when I was surviving on boxed mac and cheese). When I expressed my frustration, which I often did, as subservience has never come naturally to me, he would try to placate me by telling me just how good I was at making these expense reports. Because he was just so naturally disorganized, you see. He needed someone like me to sort things out for him.
Thing is, if he'd seen the state of my apartment at the time, he would have seen that I was naturally disorganized as well. I only forced myself to be organized at work because, well, it was my job, and I needed to pay rent and buy a bus pass and that aforementioned boxed mac and cheese (I wasn't vegan yet at that time, obviously).
Child care, like most jobs, is a mix of fun stuff and important stuff and hard stuff and tedious stuff. But when ambitious men claim it's the Most Important Job In The World, they're just blowing smoke up our asses. I'll believe it when they quit their less important jobs to be Stay At Home Dads.
As I've mentioned here before, I thought I might take a year off from work after Anton was born, but I took a wait-and-see approach, and didn't make a definite decision because I didn't know how I'd feel in this very new situation. And I was very lucky to be in a financial position to have options. And, as it turned out, I got rather bored with the whole SAHM thing and started to ease back into work when Anton was 3 months old, by commuting to NOLA every couple of weeks to see old clients. I continue to do that, and have now added another part-time massage job closer to home.
The thing is, I love spending time with my baby. But not every second. Some of it is lots of fun. Some of it is quite tedious. And although, overall, I put a lot of work and thought into The Job of Motherhood, it's not as if I'm the only person on this planet who possesses the necessary skills to change his diapers or feed him applesauce, tiny spoonful by tiny spoonful. Sometimes it's great to get a break from all that for a few hours, and use some of the skills I've spent years refining, like my massage skills, or my writing skills.
It is patronizing when Important Men talk about the hard work involved in staying home with the kids (unless you're a poor woman, in which case...get your lazy ass off the couch and work, right?), not because it isn't hard work, but because it is also tedious work, which they are unwilling to do.
It reminds me of when I had an admin job, and one of my tasks was to take a pile of rumpled receipts and create an expense report for one of the executives. It was a frustrating task, because he never sorted anything out, so it was hard for me to tell if a particular restaurant receipt was from taking clients out for a dinner meeting, or taking his family out for dinner (and if it was the latter, I didn't really want to help him get reimbursed for it, when I was surviving on boxed mac and cheese). When I expressed my frustration, which I often did, as subservience has never come naturally to me, he would try to placate me by telling me just how good I was at making these expense reports. Because he was just so naturally disorganized, you see. He needed someone like me to sort things out for him.
Thing is, if he'd seen the state of my apartment at the time, he would have seen that I was naturally disorganized as well. I only forced myself to be organized at work because, well, it was my job, and I needed to pay rent and buy a bus pass and that aforementioned boxed mac and cheese (I wasn't vegan yet at that time, obviously).
Child care, like most jobs, is a mix of fun stuff and important stuff and hard stuff and tedious stuff. But when ambitious men claim it's the Most Important Job In The World, they're just blowing smoke up our asses. I'll believe it when they quit their less important jobs to be Stay At Home Dads.
Friday, April 13, 2012
Vegan French Quarter Fest
My mom is obsessed with French Quarter Fest (and all the other festivals that take place every 5 minutes in NOLA). Her sister, my dear Aunt Judy, is in town visiting, and they asked me if I wanted to meet them for breakfast. The catch? It had to be within walking distance of my mom's parking spot in the Quarter. There are growing options for vegan breakfast/brunch in NOLA, but I wasn't aware of any actually within the Quarter. I love 13 on Frenchmen, but Anton was with me, and it's a bar, so...no. After some Googling, I told them to meet me at Meals From The Heart in the French Market. I'd had food from Meals From The Heart a few years back, when they used to sell food at...some festival...the Creole Tomato Thing, perhaps? Anyway, it's good, healthy food, and they offer both vegan and gluten free options.
I was thrilled to be able to order vegan pancakes! They put bananas in the batter and blueberries and strawberries on top. They tasted like classic diner-style pancakes, which I haven't had in forever (I make my own at home but they are more crepe-like). I shared with Anton and we both enjoyed them. My mom got eggs and grits and my Aunt got a lovely salad. The ladies working there were super-nice, too. Fellow NOLA vegans or visitors should definitely check this place out...I hear their black bean burgers are delicious, too.
At the Festival itself, there are a couple of food options. A place in by the Mint has veg red beans. Last year there was a Jamaican place there with some great vegan stuff, but I couldn't find them this year :( Mona's has a booth in Woldenburg Park, and that's always a good bet, too.
I'm going back tomorrow (must see Debauche!) so I'll see what else I find.
I was thrilled to be able to order vegan pancakes! They put bananas in the batter and blueberries and strawberries on top. They tasted like classic diner-style pancakes, which I haven't had in forever (I make my own at home but they are more crepe-like). I shared with Anton and we both enjoyed them. My mom got eggs and grits and my Aunt got a lovely salad. The ladies working there were super-nice, too. Fellow NOLA vegans or visitors should definitely check this place out...I hear their black bean burgers are delicious, too.
At the Festival itself, there are a couple of food options. A place in by the Mint has veg red beans. Last year there was a Jamaican place there with some great vegan stuff, but I couldn't find them this year :( Mona's has a booth in Woldenburg Park, and that's always a good bet, too.
I'm going back tomorrow (must see Debauche!) so I'll see what else I find.
Sunday, April 1, 2012
Jambalaya Writer's Conference
I spent yesterday down in the lovely swamps of Houma, Louisiana at a one-day little gem of a writer's conference. I've attended parts of the Tennessee Williams and Faulkner Literary Festivals in the past, on an a la carte sort of basis - sitting in on a couple of readings and panels, but this was the first literary conference that I've attended from start to finish (well, not quite...I skipped the wine social at the end of the day because I had a long drive ahead). This conference is very reasonably priced, I think it was $35 for the entire day, meals included. It was quite the bargain!
I decided to branch out from my usual genre(s) and check out some sessions on poetry, picture books, and writing children's books in verse. These turned out to be fascinating, especially the verse books one, which was led by a woman named Caroline Starr Rose. I was mostly unaware of the re-emergence of verse novels for kids and teens, but now I'm re-imagining one of my (many) works-in-progress in this format. I'd heard of Rose's book, May B., and now it's on my must-read list. I wish I'd brought more cash or a checkbook for the book fair, so I could have purchased it there. I'm so accustomed to using my credit card that I didn't anticipate not being able to buy books with it at the conference. I only had enough cash on hand to buy one book, and I chose a book of poetry by Louisiana's poet laureate Julie Kane, who was charming in person, to give to my Aunt when she visits us later this month.
The conference took place in the breathtaking beautiful Terrebonne Parish Library. Seriously, this may have been one of the best libraries I've ever seen. I probably could have spent a day there even with no literary conference! Other highlights of the day included the hilarious keynote speaker, Rick Bragg, and "The American Idol of first pages" panel, where agents, editors, and successful authors gave helpful feedback on the first pages of attendees' manuscripts. I didn't submit a page for this event, but it was still helpful to hear their feedback on others' work. I had submitted an excerpt from my novel to the conference's fiction contest, and won Honorable Mention. So that was cool.
Fellow Louisiana writers, check this event out next year! It's got a friendly, helpful vibe and you get a lot of bang for your buck.
I decided to branch out from my usual genre(s) and check out some sessions on poetry, picture books, and writing children's books in verse. These turned out to be fascinating, especially the verse books one, which was led by a woman named Caroline Starr Rose. I was mostly unaware of the re-emergence of verse novels for kids and teens, but now I'm re-imagining one of my (many) works-in-progress in this format. I'd heard of Rose's book, May B., and now it's on my must-read list. I wish I'd brought more cash or a checkbook for the book fair, so I could have purchased it there. I'm so accustomed to using my credit card that I didn't anticipate not being able to buy books with it at the conference. I only had enough cash on hand to buy one book, and I chose a book of poetry by Louisiana's poet laureate Julie Kane, who was charming in person, to give to my Aunt when she visits us later this month.
The conference took place in the breathtaking beautiful Terrebonne Parish Library. Seriously, this may have been one of the best libraries I've ever seen. I probably could have spent a day there even with no literary conference! Other highlights of the day included the hilarious keynote speaker, Rick Bragg, and "The American Idol of first pages" panel, where agents, editors, and successful authors gave helpful feedback on the first pages of attendees' manuscripts. I didn't submit a page for this event, but it was still helpful to hear their feedback on others' work. I had submitted an excerpt from my novel to the conference's fiction contest, and won Honorable Mention. So that was cool.
Fellow Louisiana writers, check this event out next year! It's got a friendly, helpful vibe and you get a lot of bang for your buck.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Working and books
I've begun to work more, which has turned out to be a good thing for both the bank account and my sanity, but as a result I haven't written here much lately. I'll have to work on that! After March is over I will have a bit more time, as I took a temporary chair massage job just through March. My other job is at a gym, with child care (!!!) so Anton comes with me. That's been fun so far. And I'm still commuting to see clients in New Orleans twice a month.
I read two books recently that had some wonderful elements, but that ultimately I found disappointing. One was by my favorite author, Joyce Carol Oates. I've read several of her novels, and liked them all, but some more than others. This one, I'll Take You There, had an interesting premise, great characters, and was, of course, written in her wonderfully perceptive and evocative prose...but the plot? Meh. I kept waiting for something really big to happen, and it just didn't. Or actually, there were some events that could be considered "big," yet something about the way they happened lacked the impact I anticipated. It's hard to describe. I have another of her books "on deck," so we'll see how that one is.
The next book I read was Eleanor Brown's The Weird Sisters. I picked this one up at a book store because it looked awesome. And lots of things about it were awesome: a quirky family with a Shakespearean scholar dad, an ailing mom, and three adult sisters who all happened to be at crisis/turning points in their lives - all back together under one roof. The exploration of birth order dynamics was quite interesting. There were some beautiful scenes. And yet, all three sisters' problems, which seemed at the outset to be very complex, were basically neatly solved by Perfect Men. Ugh. All of the elements that were NOT about romance in this book were so great, but the romance plots seemed really stale (one of the sisters literally runs into a man she likes...gah, will people please retire the accidental physical collision device???) and predictable. Having said that, I would read more by Brown in the future, because, as I said, there was a lot I liked.
I read two books recently that had some wonderful elements, but that ultimately I found disappointing. One was by my favorite author, Joyce Carol Oates. I've read several of her novels, and liked them all, but some more than others. This one, I'll Take You There, had an interesting premise, great characters, and was, of course, written in her wonderfully perceptive and evocative prose...but the plot? Meh. I kept waiting for something really big to happen, and it just didn't. Or actually, there were some events that could be considered "big," yet something about the way they happened lacked the impact I anticipated. It's hard to describe. I have another of her books "on deck," so we'll see how that one is.
The next book I read was Eleanor Brown's The Weird Sisters. I picked this one up at a book store because it looked awesome. And lots of things about it were awesome: a quirky family with a Shakespearean scholar dad, an ailing mom, and three adult sisters who all happened to be at crisis/turning points in their lives - all back together under one roof. The exploration of birth order dynamics was quite interesting. There were some beautiful scenes. And yet, all three sisters' problems, which seemed at the outset to be very complex, were basically neatly solved by Perfect Men. Ugh. All of the elements that were NOT about romance in this book were so great, but the romance plots seemed really stale (one of the sisters literally runs into a man she likes...gah, will people please retire the accidental physical collision device???) and predictable. Having said that, I would read more by Brown in the future, because, as I said, there was a lot I liked.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
In praise of college theater
I saw three plays this past week, which might be a record for me. First was Pride and Prejudice at LSU, then Eiffel Tower Revisited, also at LSU, then Anton in Show Business at Loyola (which David and I dragged ourselves to NOLA in frigid weather despite having irritating colds to see - and it was totally worth it!).
Since all of these plays were on college campuses, with casts comprised mostly, or totally, of students, I've been thinking about some aspects of college theater that I think are pretty cool - despite the occasional presence of what David calls "studenty acting."
1. Cross-gender and generally non-traditional casting. It's so much more fun (and educational) for an actor to play characters different outside of their own age and gender. In college, you get a chance to do this. Thankfully, new plays are beginning to reflect the reality that there are lots of women and people of color in theater (and, um, in the world), but so many of the "classics" offer few female parts. Solution: let the women play male parts. They can do it - they're actors. Also, give the audience some credit. Their brains are capable of processing, say, a 20 year old playing another 20 year old's mother, or siblings of different races. I promise.
2. Experimentation. Sure, sometimes it goes horribly wrong, but it's still better than recycling the same tired shows over and over. Colleges can afford to experiment, because they're not beholden to certain demographics of season ticket holders like a lot of professional theaters can be. In fact, they can put on just about anything they like, and have an instant audience of students who are required to see the show because they're taking a theater course. Ha.
3. Budget. Okay, I know theater departments never have enough money. They're underfunded, etc. But they still have lots more money than a lot of community theaters and small theater companies. That means you get great sound and light boards to fiddle around with, and good costumes and sets. You also don't have to scramble for backstage crew, because that's yet another thing you can require of students taking a theater course! Ha. Ha.
4. Energy. There's nothing like excited, eager, not-yet-jaded college students to breathe some life into a show. I love working with college students because they love to work! In fact, they're often so happy to be cast in a show that they (gasp!) show up for rehearsal! And sometimes they even (gasp!) learn their lines well before dress rehearsal! And there are moments, from the audience, when you can feel this excitement, this pure joy of discovery, crackling like electricity through the air. It's hard to be a cynical old theater person when that happens.
Since all of these plays were on college campuses, with casts comprised mostly, or totally, of students, I've been thinking about some aspects of college theater that I think are pretty cool - despite the occasional presence of what David calls "studenty acting."
1. Cross-gender and generally non-traditional casting. It's so much more fun (and educational) for an actor to play characters different outside of their own age and gender. In college, you get a chance to do this. Thankfully, new plays are beginning to reflect the reality that there are lots of women and people of color in theater (and, um, in the world), but so many of the "classics" offer few female parts. Solution: let the women play male parts. They can do it - they're actors. Also, give the audience some credit. Their brains are capable of processing, say, a 20 year old playing another 20 year old's mother, or siblings of different races. I promise.
2. Experimentation. Sure, sometimes it goes horribly wrong, but it's still better than recycling the same tired shows over and over. Colleges can afford to experiment, because they're not beholden to certain demographics of season ticket holders like a lot of professional theaters can be. In fact, they can put on just about anything they like, and have an instant audience of students who are required to see the show because they're taking a theater course. Ha.
3. Budget. Okay, I know theater departments never have enough money. They're underfunded, etc. But they still have lots more money than a lot of community theaters and small theater companies. That means you get great sound and light boards to fiddle around with, and good costumes and sets. You also don't have to scramble for backstage crew, because that's yet another thing you can require of students taking a theater course! Ha. Ha.
4. Energy. There's nothing like excited, eager, not-yet-jaded college students to breathe some life into a show. I love working with college students because they love to work! In fact, they're often so happy to be cast in a show that they (gasp!) show up for rehearsal! And sometimes they even (gasp!) learn their lines well before dress rehearsal! And there are moments, from the audience, when you can feel this excitement, this pure joy of discovery, crackling like electricity through the air. It's hard to be a cynical old theater person when that happens.
Sunday, February 5, 2012
Pride & Prejudice and loving my view from the audience
Well, it's Super Bowl Sunday, and you know what that means...a stage version of Jane Austen's Pride And Prejudice! The theater was packed, so I guess there is hope for humanity ;)
I enjoyed the show. At first it seemed rather fast-paced and rushed, because the way it was adapted for the stage called for very quick transitions between scenes. Night became day, weeks passed by in an instant while stagehands dressed as maids whisked chairs on and off without so much as a break to dim the lights. But I soon realized that this was probably necessary to fit all of the important plot points of the novel into the play. It still ran nearly three hours, as my Mom (who attended with me) and I were shocked to discover once it was over. Mom was sad that her favorite line "I cannot abide a mountain" was not included in the adaptation.
Overall, I think this was a wonderful achievement for Swine Palace over at LSU. The casting was so well done that I instantly knew which actor was playing the principal roles before any of them spoke.
I recognized several actors from the play David and I saw at Swine Palace last spring, The Metal Children. I was also very excited to recognize two actors from shows I'd seen in New Orleans, at Southern Rep and Tulane Shakespeare. One of these actors was playing Mr. Darcy, and I'd seen him in King Lear (as Edgar) and Macbeth (in the title role). I'm annoyed with myself for leaving my program behind in my mom's car, because now for the life of me I can't remember the man's name. He has blown me away in everything I've seen him do. I will even say that he gave Colin Firth a run for his money as Mr. Darcy, and I love me some Colin Firth. Anyone reading this who can identify this brilliant actor, please comment.
The only negative aspect of this show for me was the large physical reactions and expressions that the actors often displayed. I think one of the joys of Jane Austen's work is that the characters must restrain their emotions and behave in a manner appropriate for society, but their true feelings come through in their witty words. Their was some scoffing and shrugging and eye-rolling going on that I thought was not necessary, and took away from the power of Austen's dialogue. Since this was happening across the board, I think it must have been a directorial choice. Sadly, one of the major offenders here was the actress playing Lizzy Bennett. I could tell she was a talented actor, but I didn't get Lizzy's sharp yet subtle wit from her performance. Her Lizzy seemed less confident than I imagine the character to be. Again, she was clearly talented, but I was disappointed in the choices taken.
I was thinking today about how much theater I've seen in the past couple of years. My pregnancy, and now baby care, prevented me from participating as much as I'd done before, and as a result I'm more often an audience member. I was surprised to discover that I love it. When I was younger, I couldn't see a show without wishing I was in it (unless I hated it). My desire to be involved eclipsed my enjoyment as an observer. That is no longer the case. Now I find myself loving the chance to get lost in the story as only an audience member can.
This is not to say that I don't miss participating - I do. But in the meantime, I enjoy this phase of my life, where I can sit back and watch and soak it all in.
I enjoyed the show. At first it seemed rather fast-paced and rushed, because the way it was adapted for the stage called for very quick transitions between scenes. Night became day, weeks passed by in an instant while stagehands dressed as maids whisked chairs on and off without so much as a break to dim the lights. But I soon realized that this was probably necessary to fit all of the important plot points of the novel into the play. It still ran nearly three hours, as my Mom (who attended with me) and I were shocked to discover once it was over. Mom was sad that her favorite line "I cannot abide a mountain" was not included in the adaptation.
Overall, I think this was a wonderful achievement for Swine Palace over at LSU. The casting was so well done that I instantly knew which actor was playing the principal roles before any of them spoke.
I recognized several actors from the play David and I saw at Swine Palace last spring, The Metal Children. I was also very excited to recognize two actors from shows I'd seen in New Orleans, at Southern Rep and Tulane Shakespeare. One of these actors was playing Mr. Darcy, and I'd seen him in King Lear (as Edgar) and Macbeth (in the title role). I'm annoyed with myself for leaving my program behind in my mom's car, because now for the life of me I can't remember the man's name. He has blown me away in everything I've seen him do. I will even say that he gave Colin Firth a run for his money as Mr. Darcy, and I love me some Colin Firth. Anyone reading this who can identify this brilliant actor, please comment.
The only negative aspect of this show for me was the large physical reactions and expressions that the actors often displayed. I think one of the joys of Jane Austen's work is that the characters must restrain their emotions and behave in a manner appropriate for society, but their true feelings come through in their witty words. Their was some scoffing and shrugging and eye-rolling going on that I thought was not necessary, and took away from the power of Austen's dialogue. Since this was happening across the board, I think it must have been a directorial choice. Sadly, one of the major offenders here was the actress playing Lizzy Bennett. I could tell she was a talented actor, but I didn't get Lizzy's sharp yet subtle wit from her performance. Her Lizzy seemed less confident than I imagine the character to be. Again, she was clearly talented, but I was disappointed in the choices taken.
I was thinking today about how much theater I've seen in the past couple of years. My pregnancy, and now baby care, prevented me from participating as much as I'd done before, and as a result I'm more often an audience member. I was surprised to discover that I love it. When I was younger, I couldn't see a show without wishing I was in it (unless I hated it). My desire to be involved eclipsed my enjoyment as an observer. That is no longer the case. Now I find myself loving the chance to get lost in the story as only an audience member can.
This is not to say that I don't miss participating - I do. But in the meantime, I enjoy this phase of my life, where I can sit back and watch and soak it all in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)