If you see me barefoot on the streets or in a yellow pair of overalls in the next little while, blame it on a Japanese lady whose ideas about homekeeping are taking over the first world.
The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up has sold more than two million copies even though it's still in hardcover. It's been on the New York Times bestseller list for about two years now.
The theory Marie Kondo posits in her slim book is not about how to make the stuff you have fit more nicely into well-arranged boxes and bags. It's about owning only things that make you happy.
I have taken to heart some of the more practical advice, but I'm having a lot of trouble with the big gesture she recommends. What she says about how best to fold and store clothing in armoires and dressers is indeed life-altering. (why did I never think of this? It's SO perfect!), but I have so far only slightly embraced her ethos of, "gather everything up and throw it all out - except the things that 'spark joy' in you".
That's what she saying: throw out EVERYTHING except those things which make you happy. And: don't buy new stuff unless it thrills you. Kondo suggests gathering up each and every item of clothing from every single closet and cranny, and then choosing what to keep. There's no limit on what to keep except whether the item sparks joy when you touch it. Items to go receive audible thanks for what they brought to your life, and then are shoved into bags and ushered out of your world.
Earlier this year, I did get rid of bags and bags of my 'fat clothes'. More recently, I started getting rid of clothes I no longer like, or which don't make me feel happy. However, as I purge I'm keeping clothes that don't make me unhappy.
The white jeans I loved but which fit well for about five minutes before stretching out to give me what my sweetie calls 'satchel ass': gone. A pink linen suit my mother so lovingly made at my request but which looks exactly like the year it was sewed: 1998: gone. Ill-fitting but expensive suits given by a former friend's mother when I had a 'corporate' job: gone, gone, gone.
The problem is this: my closets are tidier now but they're nearly empty. Seriously, there's just about nothing left. I am keeping three pairs of jeans, three skirts from FIG, two blouses, (also from FIG) one shirt and four dresses (two from FIG - sensing a theme here?) along with my running gear because I know for sure those items make me happy. Nearly everything else I own is on probation. If I continue along this vein, I will have to put my wedding dress into regular rotation, worn with an aging pair of Blundstones, because they are among the very few items which 'spark joy' in me.
The wedding dress and boots are a pretty good look. Just not very practical for mowing the lawn.
Friday, June 26, 2015
Friday, June 12, 2015
Well, That didn't take long
There's a bit of tempest in feminist and social justice circles these days following the introduction to the world of one Caitlyn Jenner, formerly Bruce. There has been a flurry of opinion pieces including one in last weekend's New York Times that has garnered a lot of response. Elinor Burkett's piece about Jenner mused about the implications for feminism of Jenner's coming out, wondering about how one defines womanhood, and whether the new Jenner's arrival on the scene should have been done with scanty clothes and less-scanty makeup and what that says about the state of women's equality or lack thereof.
I note with interest there were very few comments about the lushness of Chaz Bono's beard when the former Chastity Bono came out as a man. There was also little comment on the cut of the suit worn in Bono's official photos.
Now, shortly after the Jenner reveal, a woman in Spokane, Washington is revealed to have been pretending to be black as she led the local chapter of the NAACP. Both of her parents are white, of Czech and Polish descent.
Jenner has been universally applauded for courage and valour in the face of adversity, but Rachel Doelzal? Well, not so much.
The argument being put forward in the Jenner case is that we should call Caitlin a woman and use the pronouns, 'she' or 'her' because she believes herself to be a woman. If you agree with calling Jenner a woman because Jenner feels like a woman, it would follow that you'd have to back Doelzal being black because perhaps she believes herself to be black.
Really, can't everyone just be who they want to be, and it be no skin off anyone else's nose? (pun intended)
Contrary to the view held by Elinor Burkett in the New York Times, I think there IS room for people born male who wish to be known as women, to be known as women. Having more women around doesn't diminish anyone else's womanhood. That said, it saddens me to see Jenner's rather narrow take on femininity: all fluffy hair and fake eyelashes and honestly, was it really necessary to strip down to skivvies for the very first photo?
Taking the he/she argument to the next step, if we're all to present to the world who we really are on the inside, regardless of the circumstances of our birth, what are the implications for race? Be honest with yourself and think it through. Check to see where you land - it might reveal to you some uncomfortable truths about your own prejudices when it comes to race, gender, power and politics.
I note with interest there were very few comments about the lushness of Chaz Bono's beard when the former Chastity Bono came out as a man. There was also little comment on the cut of the suit worn in Bono's official photos.
Now, shortly after the Jenner reveal, a woman in Spokane, Washington is revealed to have been pretending to be black as she led the local chapter of the NAACP. Both of her parents are white, of Czech and Polish descent.
Jenner has been universally applauded for courage and valour in the face of adversity, but Rachel Doelzal? Well, not so much.
The argument being put forward in the Jenner case is that we should call Caitlin a woman and use the pronouns, 'she' or 'her' because she believes herself to be a woman. If you agree with calling Jenner a woman because Jenner feels like a woman, it would follow that you'd have to back Doelzal being black because perhaps she believes herself to be black.
Really, can't everyone just be who they want to be, and it be no skin off anyone else's nose? (pun intended)
Contrary to the view held by Elinor Burkett in the New York Times, I think there IS room for people born male who wish to be known as women, to be known as women. Having more women around doesn't diminish anyone else's womanhood. That said, it saddens me to see Jenner's rather narrow take on femininity: all fluffy hair and fake eyelashes and honestly, was it really necessary to strip down to skivvies for the very first photo?
Taking the he/she argument to the next step, if we're all to present to the world who we really are on the inside, regardless of the circumstances of our birth, what are the implications for race? Be honest with yourself and think it through. Check to see where you land - it might reveal to you some uncomfortable truths about your own prejudices when it comes to race, gender, power and politics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)