Woes of a Saturday shopper

I've decided today that I would rather have a pin shoved into my eye than shop on Saturday afternoon.

Daisy will tell you that she often hears about my grocery shopping misadventures when she gets home from work on Saturdays, but in all honesty, I don't so much mind going to the grocery store on Saturday morning or the occasional Sunday morning. As long as I'm not getting donuts, and that's a pretty rare occurrence.

There is something about donuts on Saturday and Sunday morning that inspires people to unusual heights of selfishness. I can't tell you how many times I've been elbowed out of the way by seemingly kind senior citizens, when all I want is one apricot danish.

Pastry purchases aside, I've come to the decision that Saturday afternoon grocery shopping just shouldn't be part of my weekend anymore. I'd already written off Sunday afternoon or evening shopping several weeks ago as an exercise in seeing how much frustration you want to put yourself through. Saturday afternoon has officially been labeled as the same.

Today, I was cut off in the parking lot twice. Still, I remained hopeful of a good shopping trip as I walked from my end-of-the-lot parking space to the entrance, enjoying the rare combination of sun and warmth, without the crushing Pittsburgh humidity. (Pittsburgh is famous for its heat and mood-melting humidity in the summer, but since the record heatwaves of July ended, we've been strangely spared those pains.)

My hopefulness was gradully chipped away by the crowds of patrons all-too-happy to run me over with their carts in an effort to get through their shopping ASAP and move on to the next task, and the hordes of whiney, screaming adolescents and teenagers.

I like kids. Mostly, I blame their parents for the way they behave in the grocery store and other public venues these days. Why else would they (boys and girls alike) think it's ok to flat-out run up and down the aisles? Or, as I witnessed one boy doing, shout to his mother from where he was, in one aisle, to where she was, two aisles away?

Since none of this behavior elicited a reprimand from the parents of these kids, one must come to the conclusion that the parents think this behavior is fine. And so, I repeat my assertion that the parents must be to blame for the behavior of their offspring.

After all of the above, and 30 minutes of waiting in the checkout line, I firmly decided that Saturday at the grocery store was not for me. Being cut off twice more on my way out of the parking lot only sealed the deal further.

-Penn

Bright spot: More women get their chance

A bright spot addendum to yesterday's post about women needing to "man-up a little" - it looks like women will start getting more opportunities to do just that in the near future, at least in the military.

First of all, the first female commander was tapped to take over command of the Marine Corps.'s Parris Island. Brigadier General Loretta E. Reynolds, 46, is a veteran of both the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and is now the head Marine in charge at Parris Island. Here's a link to the profile of Brig. General Reynolds in yesterday's The Washington Post.

On top of that, consider these facts, also from the profile article:

• The Navy now allows women to serve on submarines (which I somehow missed hearing about previously, while also I wonder why they would want such a cramped assignment).
• Last month, the head of the Special Operations Command said he approves of the idea of allowing women to join the Navy SEALs program (enter Demi Moore with her shaved head).
• And, in March, a congressional commission recommended that the ban be lifted on women serving in direct combat units, which would include artillery, infantry, and tank companies (and paired with the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," butch female soldiers and soldiers-to-be everywhere swoon with anticipation).

On the last point, it onlys seems logical to repeal the ban on women in combat units, since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced female soldiers in support postings to face combat from time-to-time, just to execute their support duties. They've come under fire and returned fire for several years now, so why not open that door all the way?

I remember when I was younger and the country had just entered the first Iraq war, my mother and I discussing the fact that women weren't allowed to be in the infantry (much to my disappointment). I expressed the opinion that the restriction was silly, and that if a female soldier could complete basic training the same as a male soldier, she should be allowed to fight at the front lines like her male counterpart. My mother said it wasn't as simple as being able to complete basic training like a man, it was also that men might have trouble accepting a woman who was missing a limb from an injury attained while serving in combat.

I said then that that was the problem of the man who felt the female soldier was less of a woman just because she was missing an arm. And, I stand by that sentiment today.

--Penn

Ladies, Time to Man-up a Little

After reading/hearing a series of stories in the news this month, on both NPR and in The Washington Post, I find myself in a state of frustration toward our "fairer sex". Here are three examples:

"Female Veterans Breaking the Silence, Beating Trauma" from NPR: Tell Me More guest host Allison Keyes interviewed U.S. Air Force veteran Lisa Boiling, whose post-traumatic stress disorder developed after she was sexually assaulted by a male service member . She was forced out of the service after the assault, because she didn't want to go back on base and face her attacker, and she didn't feel she could tell anyone about it. Dr. Sonja Batten, psychologist with the Dept. of Veterans Affairs, said 22 percent of female veterans who seek treatment from the VA reported experiencing sexual trauma during their military career, in contrast to 1 percent of male veterans.

"D.C. man charged with hate crime against lesbian" from The Washington Post: After a group of five lesbians rebuffed the advances of several men who approached them outside a 7-Eleven, the men followed, shouting homophobic slurs at them. One man struck one of the women, Yazzmen Morse, knocking her down. Morse said she saw another man "punching her friends in the face one after another". (Sorry, did they line up for him, waiting their turn?) When police arrived, Morse said, "[she] was crying hysterically" and "asking the officers, ‘Can you please make a report?'" The officers refused and told the women to calm down or risk being arrested.

"'Holla Back DC!' Calls Out Street Harassment" from NPR: This story was a follow-up to the article "D.C.'s fight against street harassment" by Theresa Vargas in The Washington Post. Tell Me More guest host Tony Cox interviewed Ms. Vargas about her article, as well as Marty Langelan, the activist profiled in the article. Ms. Vargas and Ms. Langelan discussed what street harassment is - everything from "cat calls" and sexually-explicit comments to outright groping - and how to deal with it.

My frustration? Men don't worry about a lot of the things that many women feel they have to worry about. They walk down the street or through a dark parking lot without fear of being attacked. Statistically, the men have an overall confidence in their personal safety that too few women can claim.

Marriage - not that scary

Recently, a friend of ours told us that he was afraid of the idea of marriage, not because he's afraid of the commitment, but that the only married people he knew (present company excluded) were so unhappily married that it scared him away from the idea. Several of his married female clients had come on to him at one time or another, sometimes on multiple occasions and sometimes in front of their husbands.

We found our friend's fear to be profoundly sad, but Daisy and I don't blame him for feeling the way he does about the concept of marriage. There are A LOT of unhappily married people out there. We see at least a half dozen of them each time we go out, and it doesn't matter to where. The gym, the grocery store, work, wherever. Clearly, there is something wrong here.

So, for people like our friend, people who may be questioning if it's possible to have a good marriage, and those already married looking for some ways to better their marriage, Daisy and I decided that it would be worth our time to put out some tips on how to find a good match and make a partnership that works.

What makes for a good match between two people?

Penn: This is largely subjective, but...

Daisy: I wrote a list of what I was looking for. Seriously, I did. Penn just happened to tick all my boxes.

Penn: That's one way to do it. If you want to be more general, from my perspective, your ideal match is someone who you can honestly say is your best friend first and your lover second, someone with whom you share some common interests but not all of the same interests, someone you can have fun with and accepts you for who you are (not who you could be), someone you want to be in the same room with more often than not, amd above all, someone you trust with all parts of you.

Daisy: You should also be able to be in a car with them for 8 hours, through 2-hour, stand-still rush hour traffic, and still like them when you get out of the car. Having similar tastes in music helps with that one, though. Sometimes, you really do know when you've met the right person. You have to trust your instincts.

Penn: Well, "instincts" in love can be overrated. But, you know you want to marry a person if you can't imagine your life without them there in all phases of it. If the sex is great, but you can't imagine what you'd talk about during a four-hour dinner, then it's not a good match.

Daisy: Because "instincts" and "you light my pants on fire" are two different things. After the "honeymoon phase", you have to be able to relate socially and intellectually.

Penn: Absolutely, relating to the other person's perspective is key. Moving on...

What makes for a good marriage?

Penn: Again, this can be subjective, but for our marriage, as well as those we've observed that last more than a few years, and (as far as we know) neither party has "strayed" or threatened to walk out, here are the things that work:

• Communication - This is always key point number 1. And probably number 2 and 3 as well. Without communication between spouses, the marriage is doomed to fail before the happy couple even gets down the aisle. If something is bothering you, talk to your spouse. If there is an error in the bank account, talk to your spouse. If you don't know what to make for dinner, talk to your spouse. The minute you and your spouse stop communicating with each other, trouble will arise.
• Laughter - What you laugh about doesn't always have to be something you can share with the rest of the class, but if you can't laugh together, even about each other, life together will be much more boring. Laughter and fun are important for any successful union.
• Sharing - This is not a reiteration of point number 1. When we say sharing, we mean the closet space, money, etc. If you never learned how to play well with others, you may not be suited to marriage at this time. Marriage requires compromise and giving up part of the closet, or half of your paycheck, just as much as giving up part of your emotional self to the other person.
• Leave selfishness at the door - Marriage is not a competition. You don't get points for bullying your spouse or getting more for yourself than they get.
• Take turns - Only one person can be in charge at any given time. And, one person does need to be more in charge than the other, although there's no saying that the person in charge can't switch from time-to-time. The myth of the completely egalitarian marriage is exactly that - a myth. While both parties should agree on a given decision, someone needs to take the lead. It is possible for two control freaks to have a marriage that works, as long as they take turns being the one ultimately in charge.

And, while I don't think it requires a bullet point, I also recommend you discuss the concept of children - whether to have them or abstain, and if the decision is to have kids, how many - and have this discussion early on. As in, pre-wedding ceremony. There is no more awkward conversation than telling your new spouse you "like your life the way it is" and then have your new husband tell you that he was hoping for four kids or more.

Basically, it comes down to this: you know the person is right for you if you like looking at them a lot (even during their crustiest moments), they make you laugh and also laugh at your jokes, and they can hold their own when a debate on politics or other favorite subject comes up. You know that your marriage will work if they are the first person you want to see when you wake up and the last person when you go to sleep, you know without a doubt that you would give your life in defense of theirs, and you would give up all of your material possessions and money for them if they needed you to.

Injustice, complete and without excuse

Although I often try to avoid the truly serious topics when I think about posts to put on this blog (the moderators over at The Ranter's Row have allowed me to have an outlet for serious frustration on their blog), but I read an article in Wednesday's The Washington Post that I knew I both needed to post something about and the post needed to go on this forum first.

I feel I must warn readers that this post is quite long. I've added a break below to minimize the space it occupies on the blog home page. Just click the link at the break to expand the rest of the post.

The article in question, by Keith L. Alexander, was titled "Washington lawyer's widow: 'Not a day goes by when I don't think about him'". It's an interview with Kathy Wone, whose husband was brutally murdered in August of 2006, in the Dupont Circle townhouse owned by three men who were considered to be friends of Robert and Kathy Wone. The three men were charged, two years after the murder, with obstruction of justice, because it was believed that they knew the identity of the individual who drugged Robert Wone into a "paralytic-like state" and then proceeded to sexually assault him and stab him to death.

These three men, who are named in the article linked above and will not be named here, denied the allegations, but then proceeded to invoke their Fifth Amendment right not to testify any time a question about the night of the murder was posed to them throughout the trial. They refused to look at Kathy Wone and Robert Wone's family as they came and went during the trial. Ms. Wone said in the interview, "I sensed they had a lot of disdain for us." And, in the end, the men were acquitted due to a lack of evidence against them.

For my part, their refusal to answer any questions about the murder to keep from incriminating themselves is evidence enough. If they didn't kill Robert Wone themselves, they know who did, and they helped to cover up that person's heinous act. That thought sickens me.