Network Analysis

First of all I have to apologise for updating a day late. Extreme circumstances: I was in Wales. Anti-welsh jokes aside, I had a posting mapped out, then got to Cardiff late on Monday night only to discover the next morning that I had no internet access whatsoever, and due to work and random events that will be detailed later, I have only been able to sit down at my internet-accessing laptop at this ridiculous hour. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN AGAIN!

The blog posting I had planned out was a discussion on the prospect of the spending review being announced the next day, and what the conservative/liberal coalition government might mean for my generation of Brits. Only 24 hours later, it doesn’t make any sense due to the budget being announced, and it being quite different to what was expected. So expect reworked political musings next week (on time, no excuses).

Instead, for reasons that will become clear: networking. In principal, I hate networking. As a young person setting out in the world of Theatre, it is an ever present concept that simply makes me shudder. I hate the idea of approaching and using people as ‘contacts’, as someone who can be utilised or even trod on to get yourself ahead in your career. To me, it smacks of a falseness that makes my skin crawl. Now, I know I’m naïve, and idealistic. I’m fully aware that networking does not make you a bad person, and it’s a necessary part of every career path regardless of the industry you choose. I guess it’s just that I would infinitely prefer being hired for a job because of talent or experience or even just ‘good egg-ness’ rather than because I knew the right person. I would also rather hire someone myself based on worth instead of contacts. In bleak moments I have actually cried at the prospect of having to treat ‘friends’ as contacts, viewing myself as a nice person who is NOT out to network. I would shout this from the rooftops!

Yet, looking back over the last six months, and particularly today I can see that I could consider myself a complete hypocrite. For example, my final project for my masters I needed a cast of 16, 13 of which needed to be guys. Male actors in a university drama department are like gold dust, yet I held 1 audition for only two roles. The rest I could fill with actors I had worked with previously – most of them multiple times – or frankly friends who could act. I also contacted people I had seen act in various things, and never had the opportunity to work with before then. I cast people I knew in roles I knew would work well for them and for me. Networking much?

Since moving home, in an attempt to earn some money and keep busy while I look for something other than part time work, I have set up a drama group for children which is due to have its first session next week. The woman I’m running it with I met at a training day, completely unrelated to drama – we got chatting, and on hearing that she was interested in doing something like that (just generally) I seized the opportunity and told her I was looking for a partner. Even in a completely random, non-theatre situation it seems this ‘non-networker’ had an ‘ooh, contact!’ moment. Later, I had mini crisis of conscience when the church hall we’re hiring for the workshops offered us a months free rent, because I had grown up as a church member, and still know a large part of the congregation. Should I feel bad that I’m ‘using’ my faith to gain an advantage for my new business, or view it as the Church simply wanting to support a venture that could raise their profile? Jury’s still out on that one.

Finally, however, today has perhaps changed my view on the whole thing. As I said above, I hate, hate, hate feeling like I’m using friends as contacts – especially as I have many incredibly talented, creative, pro-active friends who I know will go very far in whatever they choose to do. I love to promote whatever people I know are doing, and will always try to attend performances etc – and have always jokingly said that as soon as I get any kind of directing break I have a list of people I will hire on the spot.

I woke up this morning, in Cardiff (visiting a very good friend, and my little brother) to find a couple of missed calls from another friend – someone who’s definitely on my ‘to hire’ list, being not only a very good friend but also one of the most talented and hard working people I’ve ever met. It was slightly odd as he doesn’t normally call, and certainly not repeatedly, unless it’s urgent, however running late and having to drive 2 hours back home to work this afternoon, I didn’t manage to call him back until midday. When I did, he told me that the theatre company he’d worked for last year were urgently looking for female actors in my area for their theatre-in-education tour, and he’d recommended me, and that I should call them. I did, was given an audition this evening (straight after work), at which the manager told me that my friend had told him to hire me on the spot. Which, once I’d auditioned and they’d finished for the evening, they did. So I’m starting rehearsals tomorrow morning for a full time, well paid job in one of the areas I want to work in – almost entirely down to someone I would certainly consider a friend, not a ‘contact’.

It’s interesting how the world works. Maybe I should just stop worrying, and just concentrate on keeping in touch with the people I really value – whether that’s because I think they could be good to work with in the future, or because I care about them immensely – or both. My dad’s always said “it’s who you know, not what you know that really matters” and he wasn’t just talking about work. I think he might be right.

Bonus Post: A Link About Privilege

What, it's still Monday. I can post if I want.

And I want, because I just read this absolutely awesome blog post over at Whatever. (I used to read that blog daily, and then I stopped for awhile, and then one of my friends posted a link to this on Facebook, and now I'll probably start up again.)

This is what people need to remember about privilege.

Read This Not That: YA Novels About Young Women with Disturbingly Excellent Survival Skills

Read THIS:

 

Not THAT:

Both books feature interesting, survival-minded young heroines (with names that are a variation of Kat) who could probably kill you in under a minute if they wanted to. Both young women are put in a position of fighting others against their will, both are deadly with bow and arrow, both get crushes on pretty boys who are also talented fighters, and both end up sparking local rebellions when they get grumpy about having to fight people against their will. Both books also have crack in their pages so you won’t be able to stop reading them once you start.

In Graceling, however, Katsa spends her time honestly confused and conflicted about her role, and actively tries to forge her own place in her world, given her abilities and limitations. Even before the book begins, she’s standing up for her own ideas and making a difference. When Katsa is conflicted, the writing is clear and she remains sympathetic. She doesn’t take out her feelings on others, but does her best to take responsibility for herself.

By contrast, Katniss, the main character of The Hunger Games, is pushed into things against her will, and doesn’t have any goals besides staying alive. All her rebellious actions seem to be by accident, she actively tries to go back to her normal life as quickly and easily as possible, and she isn’t above treating other people badly if it means getting her way. She doesn’t seem to have many principles besides the protection of herself and her family, and while her situations are sympathetic, her character isn’t someone you’d want as a friend. 

When Katniss is mad about something, she complains. When Katsa is mad, she actively tries to fix the problem. Both young women are torn about their potential love interests, but Katsa remains honest with herself and the boy in question, even through her confusion. Katniss is a manipulator, and stays self-centered throughout, growing and changing very little.

The Hunger Games isn’t wholly without merit – its world is darker, and its heroine is sometimes realistically confused about adolescent issues. But Katniss doesn’t have the intelligence and drive that make Katsa so memorable.

Day Off Video! - Hedgehog's got a new flatscreen!

It's my day off, and that makes me a happy fish! A very happy fish indeed.

So Ive decided that I'm going to share a happy-making video!

Here's one that I was like "that voice pitch is really annoying" and then I kept hitting re-play.

also, BABY BUNNIES!

Late post is late.

So. I was reading a random, generic, happy-ever-after book. It was OK, certainly the author is good at what she does, and overall I was pretty happy about having read it. It certainly didn't feel like I was wasting my time.
However, certain aspects displeased me immensely. Disclaimer: I'm a white, straight, cis-gendered woman. So, I am privileged in many ways and am still learning in many ways about politics and levels of privilege. This may very well come across as an ignorant post and if it does, I apologise because I mean no harm.
Anyway, onwards. There is a character in the book called Bella. Who is clearly a transwoman, but for most of the time she is referred to as 'he', and we know her primarily as him because she appears mostly in pre-op mode. I admit, I yelled in my head to the author to call her 'her', rather than 'him', until the end when she appears as a woman and is referred to as such. So, possibly got on my high horse. But throughout the book, language such as 'poof' and 'queer' was used; harmful language, the kind of language that can scar a kid. And, okay, that is realistic. It's used all the time. But I would have liked to have seen the characters pulled up on this implicit homophobia in some sense-for Bella herself to challenge these characters in their viewpoint. Instead, she is a caricature; catty, bitchy gay man pre-op who is possessive over his best mate and unnecessarily shitty to everyone else.
And if this bothers me, generic white-straight gal, I can only imagine what it must do to gay men and women reading this. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it annoyed me. So, a question. Can anyone recommend any books who deal with gender-identity, or sexual-identity, problems in a sympathetic, readable manner? I need to expand my reading material, and would like to start here, I think.

Weekend Free-For-All: California Politics Edition

Well here's the kind of thing that ensures my vote:

Sarah Palin says that Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer live on a "unicorn ranch in fantasy land."

So many questions. Does she know because they bring their unicorns to visit her on her griffin/manticore ranch? Is she aware of the irony here? Is she aware of the concept of irony? Why didn't she name any of the actual Republican candidates she was supposedly stumping for? Who thought it was a good idea to bring her to California in the first place?

What's in a name?

in which Wordwrestler considers waves and fishnets.

Since the name Fishnet Bluestockings was my idea, I felt like I should explain a bit about what it means, and what it doesn't mean.

6 for 6

6 tips to remember when hitting on a lone girl who is waiting on the street corner at 6 in the morning:

1. The intro: approaching with an outstretched hand and an introduction is friendly, though a bit inappropriate for the time of day. It's just a bit too forward. perhaps start off with a gentle concern for lone girl's safety, or break the ice with an obvious-but-true statement "wow, doesn't it suck to be up this early" - whatever you do, don't douche it up by following the intro with "ha ha, you look so confused."

2. Conversation: keeping to general topics (time of day (6am!), what-brings-you-here, etc) is fine, but getting into personal details is, again, a bit inappropriate. This girl is waiting on the street corner, she's not in a bar, she's not necessarily looking for company/conversation/a date and she won't necessarily want to share information about herself.

3. Physicality: be mindful of personal space bubbles, and how they tend to be larger when it's an empty street corner at 6am in the morning. In other words - don't stand so close.

4. Interactions: take cues from the lone girl - if she seems unresponsive or is giving one word answers to your questions, perhaps this is a cue for you to do something else. like not talk to her, or pursue a different course of conversation, or maybe just be less obvious about the fact that you are trying to pick her up.

5. The goodbye: Don't ask for her number. Offer yours if need be, but if she refuses to give it to you and makes no move to get yours, odds are she will not call you even if you do manage to stop her while she's sitting in the cab waiting to leave. Keep context in mind. For instance, if she mentioned she was concerned about her cab getting there on time, making her shuffle about looking for a pen and paper because she feels uncomfortable outright rejecting you even though she JUST refused your number would be a rude thing to do.

6. Don't. It's 6am. I'm going to be late for my opening shift. I don't want to be hit on right now. I understand that random happenstance meetings, especially at odd locations or times are the things quirky indie romance movies are made of, but it's also the stuff of sexual harassment police reports. Your agenda is showing like woah, I'm tired and just want to get to work on time. So don't. Just. Don't.

Step By Step

I totally intended this first 'proper' post of mine to be an amazing intellectual discussion of an important issue - particularly as I had a couple of guilty twinges when reading Arcadian's fantastic post! However, events sort of overtook me, and I think I'm going to have to use this post to tell anyone who hasn't heard yet about an amazing thing currently going on in British culture.

The BBC and The British Museum have joined forces to produce a project called A History of The World (in 100 Objects). It does what it says on the tin: the BBC are producing 100 15 min long radio programmes - also downloadable from itunes FREE as podcasts! - written and narrated by Neil MacGregor, director of the British museum, tracing the history of our world (us humans) through the objects we have made and used over the last 2 million years. Each episode looks at one object from the British museum and details what we can tell from it - who made it, what it was used for etc - and what that says about our development as a species.

Now I appreciate that not everyone is a history nerd or BBC fangirl, but I challenge any one of you to download any one of the episodes available (we're now in the early 80's with an early victorian tea set) FREE (did I say that?) and not be intrigued.

The reason I'm a little bit obsessed at the moment is that somehow, despite being a history nerd and BBC fangirl, I managed to miss this until now. This project has been running since January, so I have quite a bit to catch up on. Despite seeing many posters, and hearing about it, it was only on one of my many ridiculously long commutes to work a couple of weeks ago that I managed to stumble accross an episode on BBC. After 15 mins of hearing why spanish silver pieces of eight represent the first international trading company and one of the first financial bubbles you'd think I'd be asleep at the wheel. Not the case. What MacGregor does skilfully is make even the slightes detail sound interesting - and most importantly, guides the listener through an actual history of the world. This isn't an account of all the stuff the British have looted over the years (though that element of colonialism is certainly acknowledged) - it's a genuine account of the way we as a species have developed. Each five objects is grouped into 'topics' such as 'After the Ice Age: Food and Sex' (9000-3500 BC), or 'Exploration, Exploitation and Enlightenment' (1680-1820 AD) rather than countries of origin, and MacGregor draws on every aspect of the object to build a picture of what was going on globally as well as in the minds of the makers. Because we're looking at objects - from the most richly decorated statues, to a mundane clay bowl - rather than wars or rulers the effect is of accessible fluidity, time moving on regardless of dynastys, countries or calenders.

I've listened to the first 15 episodes, and in those brief snapshots I feel like I've learned more about history in general than any attempt at school to fill my head with dates and names. And I want to learn more. And more. And more. And it sounds trite, but in these little glimpses into the lives of humans living and working and dying thousands of years ago has made me think about how far, and how not far we've come. We're still identified and to a certain extent defined by the objects we choose to make and keep around us. To me, that's what good history - or good anything - does. Makes you think, and then want more.

Have a listen, and let me know what you think. I'm going to go and find out about Mesopotamian writing tablet.

No Judgment

Is it just me, or is “no judgment” kind of like the “no homo” of enlightened liberal feminists?  It’s what we say when we think someone is stupid for liking something, but don’t want to come across as a self-righteous prick because probably our own tastes are not above reproach. “She’s the kind of person who likes Twilight – I mean, no judgment, but it just shows you what I’m talking about.” In the same way that “no homo” comes after a statement that could be interpreted – either by a twelve-year-old or by everyone ever, with no in-between – of suggesting homosexuality, “no judgment” comes when we are feeling quite judge-y, but don't wish to be called on it.

Maybe it is just me, just my world – but I have heard myself say something like that dozens of times. (Dozens of times in the last month.)

And on another note, not unrelated -- there are dozens and dozens of my likes that I feel the need to apologize for or over-explain. Yeah, I ... sometimes read romance novels. In fact, I'd rather read a Jennifer Crusie than a Malcolm Gladwell. (By a long shot.) Every Friday morning, I go on Hulu and catch the latest episode of The Vampire Diaries. I'm totally jonesing to see Easy A. When I'm feeling tired and stressed, I reread the entire Tamora Pierce oeuvre, and when I'm doing dishes, I sing along to Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat. 

And none of that makes me stupid, any more than liking Shakespeare, and Racine, and Plato, and owning Citizen Kane, and browsing around Overthinkingit.com make me smart. 

That's what I'm really trying to get at here. We judge other people based on what they do and don't do, what they say and don't say, and what they like and don't like. None of those are invalid, and I am certainly not saying that we should stop judging others. (I don't think I'd be allowed to talk if I weren't allowed to be judgmental.) But I do think that the way we think that smart people only like smart things and dumb people only like dumb things does a disservice to pretty much everyone in the entire world, including us, the judges.

I once read a quotation that epitomized that idea: "Great minds discuss ideas; mediocre minds discuss events; shallow minds discuss people." I call bullshit. I never met a person in my life who didn't enjoy discussing all three. Especially if they got to be judgmental about it.

The other myth is that some things are just too dumb to have intelligent conversations about, and I call bullshit on that one too. Isn't that why uni is fun?  Didn't anyone else sit around discussing how James Bond uses humorous tropes first introduced by Aristophanes? (Actually, he probably ripped someone else off, if we're being honest.)

Then there's the feminist element in all this: I start feeling guilty if my likes are too girly. Girl stuff is dumb! It's just stupid and pink! Boy stuff all the way!  But if you like boy stuff too much (I should know, I grew up on Star Trek) that's not okay either. That means you're trying to trap some poor boy into being your boyfriend by being a tomboy. You couldn't actually like that stuff, because if you did, you'd be unfeminine. You just want the attention.

Now, I don't think those attitudes are really out in the open anymore, but I do see them swimming around below the surface, ready to eat teenagers in a vicious way. (Yeah, I'm not kidding.) I say screw that. (I know, I'm such a radical.)  

Can we talk about what we think about what we like? Why we like the things we do? What need we might have that those things meet? I know at least two smart, feminist women, who read the whole Twilight saga and enjoyed it, because something about the Bella/Edward/Jacob thing jived with the way they thought about love, or at least entertainment. They also do and think and say a million things to the effect that women are people and not clever monkeys.

My mom likes to say that you just like the things you like, and if you try to give reasons for liking them, someone somewhere will be able to come up with something that has all the same characteristics -- something that you should like -- but it doesn't speak to you in the same way, and you dismiss it out of hand. I definitely can't prove her wrong. But I still think discussing why we like something is a lot more legitimate than discussing what you like. People like a million things. Judge them when they say they like Bella because she has such a great backbone.