Sunday, July 23, 2006

Random rants

1) Look, Mr Conran, what's with your peculiar booking policy? I reserved a table for 8pm. I was told you didn't book outside tables, we would just have to take our chances based on what was available when we arrived. Fine.

Due to an unfortunate chain of events, we arrived two hours early. Clearly this sort of undisciplined behaviour cannot be indulged, so you told us no, we could not have one of the outside tables that were standing empty. Because there were reservations. Not that the *tables* were reserved, but they were nonetheless being held for people who had booked for 6.30 or 7pm, not 8pm like us slobs.

So I think I've wrapped my head around your peculiar "tables are neither reserved nor unreserved" policy. I think I understand how it works, if not why. But sir. What I do NOT understand is why nobody explained it to me when I phoned and expressly ASKED if I should book for a particular time in order to improve my chances of getting an outside table. Because dinner by the river was my entire motivation for eating there. (And frankly the "cricket pavilion" interior? You might want to rethink that. Unless a 1970s dining experience is really what you're after.)

I'm just saying.

2) Dear Potters Fields People. £3m to tidy up a bit of grass? Seriously? How much does a new kiosk and a few benches cost? THREE MILLION POUNDS? I guess it's because you're putting in "high quality grass". Not just any old muck. After all, it's not as though it's going to be withered by the drought and trampled to death within a couple of weeks by the millions of tourists thronging the Pool of London...

Oh, wait.

3) Dear Thames Water. That "this is how much water our new pipes will save every 12 hours" ad campaign. You do realise that what you're really telling us is "this is how much water we're presently wasting because we put off replacing the Victorian pipes as long as we possibly could", right? Do you really want to draw our attention to that?

4) Dear lastminute.com. What misogynistic swine is in charge of your advertising? Look, the "hard decision: sell the wife for a camel?" ad is stupid and offensive. But whatever. I'm actually much more worried about the "hard decision: Brazilian or Hollywood?" one. When did those become the only two options?

You sadistic bastards.

Wednesday, July 12, 2006

The exact opposite of PMS

Today was a fabulous day. London has never been so magnificent. My job has never been so entertaining. My hair has never been so well behaved. I ate a salad for lunch — and enjoyed it. That was the giveaway, really. Something was up; but what? Why was I in such an insanely good mood? Better random happiness than random crabbiness, obviously, but why?

And then this afternoon, I got an unexpected email with some rather cool news that opens up exciting new worlds of possibility.

Suddenly it all made sense. I was clearly in a temporal loop that enabled me to feel the buzz before I knew its cause. I like it. Maybe I'll call it PJS: pre-jubilation syndrome.

bouncebouncebounce...

PS And THEN I got home to find Beloved had ironed my shirts. It really doesn't get any better, does it?

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Ooh, zeitgeist!

So the Grauniad is on the fat discrimination case. Clearly the hot button topic of the day.

Let's be clear: I don't think there is any justification for the "fat isn't that unhealthy" argument. I don't believe that truly obese people are genuinely happy with their size. Of course I don't believe that obesity is purely genetic — of course it is primarily a lifestyle problem. I do believe, with the writer, that the fat rights campaign is largely (sorry) a question of transference. But does that make it okay to judge a person based on their size? Or to criticise them in shockingly personal ways "for their own good"?

Speaking as someone with just a little bit of chub, I think it's that kind of attitude — which even the writer doesn't really manage to suppress, despite her noble efforts — that makes it all the harder to deal with a weight problem. Like I said before, it may be childish. But it is still so.

Answers, anyone?

So who can explain the completely pointless spam I get? Spam without attachments or sales pitches. Spam that consists *only* of random text like the following:

They'll never find all your bones. Or maybe the mosquito mange would appearover, flapping, to a vertical dive. Then, every time, his left wing "Just don't forget to give me the order," Tender wheezed. He was allanswer "Woman" is disallowed as too obvious a rejoinder.)

The only thing I can think of is that the original attachments have been automatically cleaned up by some cunning process of Gmail or other servers. But that doesn't sound very convincing.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Hokay.

Meant to post this about a month ago but was strangely blog-deprived at the time. Never mind. It's never too late for:

The End of the World

(Completely pointless without sound. Sorry.)

Tag, I'm it

So Extemporanea wants to know what 7 songs I'm into right now. This is no doubt supposed to be terribly revealing of my musical tastes and what have you, but I'm not sure it is. I don't actually own any CDs by any of these artists, though I see a FOPP trip in my future that may remedy this. I had to look up who actually performs a couple of them. They all seem to have come my way by some random means, such as via iTunes' free download of the week or a Q compilation. In fact two of them are from the latest Q CD — 80s covers — which I heartily recommend. (Don't roll your eyes like that. Yes, I have cheesy taste in music, but the operative word here is covers. The selection does rather rock.)

So. Seven songs.

"Fill my little world", The Feeling. Yes, the one that's on the radio every bloody time you turn it on. Yes, the totally fluffy teenage poppy one. It's perky and catchy and I am greatly enjoying it. So there.

"Life is so easy now", Son of Dave. Just gorgeous. Bluesy harmonica-y mellow gorgeousness.

"Heartbeats", Jose Gonsalez. Yes, the one from the Sony TV ad. I am clearly hopelessly impressionable and boring. Tough. It's a lovely song and I like it. So there, again.

"Personal Jesus", Johnny Cash. A very unexpected version. Touch of the godbothering, but it intrigues and pleases me.

"Burning sands", Silicone Soul. Gorgeous hypnotic electronica. Very enjoyable.

"Faith", The Boy Least Likely To. This, and the next one, are off that Q 80s mix. I never liked the George Michael original, but this has a perky fingersnapping cuteness that is very infectious. And surprising. I really like surprising covers.

"Running up that hill", Placebo. Sheer genius. Measured and just a little bit sinister. I can't leave the room if this is playing. (Apparently you can get hold of it on the special edition of Sleeping With Ghosts.)

There you have it. Three covers and five perky songs. Hm. Representative? Probably not.

I'm supposed to tag another 7, but I can't imagine who would be reading this that hasn't already done it, or doesn't regularly post whatever they're into anyway. (Yes, Patroclus, I'm thinking of you.) So I'll fall back on the traditional "I'm tagging YOU... if you wanna."

Friday, July 07, 2006

In which Anna gets under my skin

May I direct you to the always brilliant little.red.boat for a funny and poignant post on, shall we say, a sizeable issue. One close to my heart. And hips.

Apart from the evil NURRRSE JEAN! — pleased to say I've never experienced such a walking disaster in a healthcare situation — this all sounded painfully familiar. Lifelong natural roundedness? Check. Consistent surprise when actual weight is revealed? Check. Increased girth after falling happily in love? Check. Defiance? Check. Resentment at the very idea of having to stop enjoying food in the way I do? Check. Sense of failure as a feminist for caring too much? Check.

It would be ridiculous to say that not enough has been written on the subject of fat, but I don't think I've ever read anything that I felt came close to unpacking the huge* complexity of the issue. I'm particularly fascinated (and frequently distressed) by the lack of understanding of chubbies by non-chubbies. There is such a gulf between the Fattipuffs and Thinifers; skinnies just don't get it. I know. I live with one. And have spent much of the past nine years trying to bridge the gap, in the interests of not murdering him in his unsuspecting sleep one day.

Here it is. I have always been a curvy wench. I always will be a curvy wench. Having dieted myself into a low-carb, lightheaded frenzy a few years ago, I think I can safely say I know what I look like at my skinniest (bar actual anorexia or famine), and Skinny Scroobious still has soft bits. A teeny tiny little waist, yes, but a gently rounded belly, and well padded thighs. And, of course, my cups still runneth over, and we won't complain about that. I know the shape of my ideal self, and it's a pretty cool shape, but nowhere near the general fashion ideal. And the softness is impossible to budge — seems I will never be one of those people whose skin fits neatly over their muscles.**

Beloved, on the other hand, is naturally wiry. He's a born runner, he has tiny little bones and strong muscles; he is now chubbier than he has ever been in his life (seems even Thinnifers are not entirely immune to the dangers of being in love and well fed) but that little extra padding around his waist is still almost invisible to the untrained eye. So there are certain basic physical differences between us. The lightest I have ever been is about 2kg heavier than he has ever been or is likely to be.***

There are also, as you might expect, certain differences in our eating habits. I love food; I especially love creamy pasta, fresh bread and quantities of cheese, and all variations on chocolate and ice-cream. There's a special place in my heart for junk food. Salads bore me. I believe "yes please!" is always the right answer. You can see how I end up rounded.

Beloved enjoys food. He loves my cooking. But he doesn't fundamentally care. He's less critical, and conversely less appreciative, of meals than I am; when cooking himself, he tends to forget to add seasoning. He doesn't look forward to meals (except, obviously, when hungry). He would never fantasise about a perfect meal when planning a holiday, as I have been known to do. He doesn't ever want to eat something just because it's there (say, someone's birthday cake at the office). He is capable of that utterly alien problem, forgetting to eat; and then when he gets hungry, he will fill up on half a packet of chocolate digestives. When he lived alone in London, he was perfectly happy surviving on biscuits, peanut butter sandwiches and tinned ravioli.

Tinned ravioli.

The man is clearly a freak.

But here's the thing: this is not enough to explain the difference in our respective sizes. No. He starts each day with a huge bowl of sugary muesli; I eat a small bowl of sugarfree, wheatfree cornflakes.**** We eat dinner together, the same food, the same amount. We eat comparable lunches at work; actually his are frequently larger than mine. It's true that when he's home alone, he's more likely to forget lunch, but then I'm more likely to skip breakfast. There are times when I snack a lot, there are times when I don't. I generally get more exercise than he does. Even when I am on strict diet (it happens; not often, but it happens), and he's eating more than me, and exercising less — even then, he is skinny, and I am not.

Which is fine. That is how he is. This is how I am.

The problem is that, like most Thinifers, he doesn't understand what it is to like food maybe a bit more than he does, and to have maybe a slower metabolism, and most of all, he doesn't understand emotional eating, or how it feels to be fat.

Beloved is a very loving, caring, supportive chap. But he is sometimes quite astonishingly short on empathy. He means well; he just Does Not Get It. This applies to various situations, but most especially to the Question of Chub. In his skinny male brain, he thinks: She is fatter than she wants to be. (True.) It is possible to change this by diet and exercise. (True.) Therefore she wants to diet and exercise immediately. (Uh...) I can help by pointing out that she is fatter than she wants to be and that she really shouldn't have that chocolate she's reaching for. (NOW HOLD ON ONE DARN MINUTE!!!)

I know he's not alone in this failure to understand. Reading Anna's post, and the comments on it, it is painfully obvious that the world is full of clueless people. People who somehow believe (as Beloved tends to) that being fat is a sign of a disgusting lack of self-restraint. Now, I guess that attitude is no more unreasonable than my own ingrained (and obviously self-sabotaging and childish) belief that I should be able to eat WHATEVER I WANT SO THERE... but how is it that fat becomes so important in judging a person? How is it that a person's size becomes their defining characteristic? How is it that it becomes okay to judge them — even in Anna's comments, someone suggests that a fat person regularly eating at McDonald's is fair game.

It's enough to drive a person to the dessert trolley.

(Full disclosure: my latest diet started on Wednesday. Which may or may not have anything to do with my crabbiness on that day.)

_____
* No pun intended. Honest.
** This is a bit mystifying to me. Exercise makes my muscles rapidly very strong and hard, but there is always, always a soft layer over them; usually quite a thick fat duvet, as Bridget would say. Dieting reduces that layer, but doesn't erase it. My skin fits me loosely. That's just how it is.
*** And it does bother me, actually, to feel like Jack Spratt's wife. My boyfriends have (almost) all been around 10kg lighter than me. Ladies are supposed to be small and delicate. I do not dig this inversion.
**** Don't imagine this is me trying to be restrained. I just prefer the cornflakes, and can't eat a lot in the morning.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

She writes!

The now infamous Mary Dejevsky, that is. She of the "women are too busy pleasing their menfolk to blog" argument.

I haven't blogged about this, because of being (a) busy and (b) unsure whether you all really needed to read my stroppy letter, when I've already made my thoughts on the subject perfectly clear. (Well. Somewhat muddy, really, but that's my thinking for you.) Plus, Patroclus and others were doing a damn fine job of alerting the blogosphere. But since I have a reply, here goes.

I emailed her the following, under the subject line "Female bloggers. We exist":

I'm sure you must by now have received a deluge of mail about that column on the strange lack of female bloggers. Perhaps that makes my addition to said deluge redundant, but then, I've never been too bashful to voice my opinion. Sorry.

I realise that an opinion column doesn't labour under the same burden of proof as a news item, but I do think a *little* research would not have gone amiss. Just a little Googling would have quickly turned upthe interesting fact that as far as is recorded, the blogosphere actually seems to be dominated by women. And only a few of them are writing on "feminine" subjects such as childcare, or gynaecology.

I guess it's not entirely fair to blame you for adopting the widely held belief that bloggers are predominantly men. But I do blame you for disseminating it without even attempting to check. You might have gotten a far more interesting column out of the question of why this false belief has such a stranglehold. I have even blogged on this subject: see link. Although I may be too bashful for you.

And by the way. On the subject of women being too dutiful to find time for blogging, may I direct you to the wonderful sweatpantsmom, whose Bad Mommy confessions to Postsecret include the admission that "the Tooth Fairy didn't come because she was too busy blogging".

Seriously, if you're going to comment on blogging, it wouldn't hurt to actually read a few blogs first. You might enjoy them. You might even somehow find the time to write one yourself.

The reply:

yes, what seems like milliions and millions of them! (which is great) my point was more to answer the question posed by iain dale - why were there so few - than to reinforce the point, but it now seems the premise was, at least, questionable. my experience was, however, similar to his. maybe we were just looking in the wrong place. the blogosphere is obviously a lot bigger than i (and perhaps he) thought. all the best, mary

I have to say, at this point I feel quite sorry for her. I can only imagine what's happened to her inbox. No wonder the poor dear doesn't have time for capital letters. (Or actual reasoning.) I am pleased she's at least reconsidering her premise.

Moving on.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Your suggestions welcome

You know some days, you just want to throw a king-size strop and sulk all week, for no apparent reason, cos it just sounds like fun?

No?

Well. Bully for you. I'm having one of those days. Cos, you know, it's not FAIR. (Don't ask what. Doesn't matter. Everything. Nothing. Not fair, any of it.)

Also, I don't have a dog.

I have two cats, and cats are my thing, and I love 'em dearly, but I have been overcome with sudden puppy broodiness of late. I think it might be because starmadeshadow mentioned something about a well-fed, sleepy puppy in my presence recently. Or it might be because Rachael has a new border collie who is everything a dog should be. I don't know why; I know it is Not The Time and we can't have dogs for years yet, and that's fine really, my cats are fabulous.

But I want a dog.

Also, I want a beach to walk it on, or at the very least a forest with nice little streams. And I want a house of my own. And a real-world shop so I can sell pretty knitting things without hassles from useless bloody web hosts. And a boat and a pony and a magic wand. And a reallyreally fast metabolism. And a catering size tub of Ben & Jerrys. And a holiday.

Some of these things may be more urgent than others.

Monday, July 03, 2006

Truth or Fiction?

Things I learnt or remembered on Friday night:

1) There is such a thing as too many half-naked men.

2a) That ugly night-bus-vs-cab dilemma can be avoided entirely by taking the first train home.

2b) My days of dancing all night are not, as previously thought, entirely behind me.

2c) Months of training for a race* also come in useful for promoting stamina on the dance floor.

3) While women never chat me up, and straight men rarely, when it comes to men who have no interest in sleeping with me, I rate some serious beefcake.**

4) I like hard house music.

Not all of the above statements are true.

_____
* Turns out I can't run 10km, at least not in stonking heat. I can, however, run 8km and walk the rest. I can live with that. For now.
** Even if they're only using me to get to the hot guys I'm with.