Tell Me What You Want to Hear

Validation is something I spend a ridiculous amount of my life striving to feel. It's what I want from my parents, from my friends, my teachers - you name it. Validation is defined by the Princeton dictionary as "...the act of validating; finding or testing the truth of something". I wonder what that means for me.

When I got my final ACT score back, and was still shy of my goal, I had a mini-breakdown to Katy about it. However, honest Katy asked me why I wanted that number so badly when my score was pretty good anyway; did I only want it because other people had it? It's been about ten months since that conversation, and of course, everything's different now. At this point, high school grades and ACT scores mean nothing - it's only about what I do and who I choose to be from this point forward. But it's taken me this long - now that it doesn't matter anymore - to come up with an answer to Katy's question:

I used to think that I wanted a higher score because I wanted to prove that I was as good as the people who had done better than I had. Which is mostly true, but I think it's a little deeper than that. I heard somewhere that Evan Lysacek's father told him once that if someone is better than him, it just means he has to work twice as hard. That quote has stuck in my head for months. For the longest time, I held that I didn't believe in letting other people set the standards for "ideal" or "good" - which was my reason for not doing IB - there was just so much extra work required, and I liked the freedom that AP awarded me. But lately I think I've been a lot more subject to society and its rules than I would have liked to think.

A couple of weeks ago, a couple of things happened: I had an honest conversation with my dad about my major, and we went to Family Fun Day at the University. First was Family Fun Day, which we've gone to almost every year from as far back as I can remember. And at the picnic, we saw a woman that we vaguely know but hadn't seen in a while - she's maybe in her fifties, with slightly graying hair and a friendly demeanor, and she's always alone. I commented that watching her makes me sad sometimes because of how lonely she looks, to which my dad somewhat sarcastically replied "That's what happens when you wait too long to get married."

And Katy, this is where I'll pull in my response to your SATC blog entry. With a throw to Carrie Bradshaw's "should" theory: do we fall in love and get married because it's what society and our peers expect of us? Relationships are definitely not my area of expertise, so I can't really comment on love or how it comes about. And I'm aware that most scientists or traditionalists (like my dad) will say that humans form relationships in order to procreate and continue the human race. But what if that's not what you want? Marriage may be expected, or even convenient, but it's definitely not for everyone. I have an older cousin, Christina, who's in her forties, lives with her mother who she loves immensely, has a good job, and has no intention of getting married any time soon. I think she's happy, and therefore: she's done. And while I wonder if that's enough for me - it seems to be enough for her, and I think that's okay.

But then came the honest conversation. My dad had been bugging me about thinking about choosing a major. Notre Dame offers a major called "pre-professional sciences" that basically builds a general base of the sciences in preparation for medical school, but he didn't like that idea. Instead, I should major in biology or chemistry, something specific. To me, the choice had its own pros and cons: would I rather be a Jack of all trades, or a master of one? I related this to him, and he said that med schools don't care about exactly what you majored in as long as you have the required credits. And this got me to thinking: I can do anything. I might have a shot at being creative or introspective or even artistic.

I'll probably major in something in the sciences just because that's what I do, but I'm not giving up on the idea of minoring in something I love but have never gotten to look into, like sociology or anthropology (something I blame on the high school curriculum).

But wait, why do I want this again? Honestly, I really can't explain it. But this career path is something that I do genuinely want. With that said, I'm going to take a risk and lay down my theory - something people are generally aware of, but I've never heard addressed. People who are raised by minority ethnicity families will generally fall into a predictable pattern: they'll generally do well in school, appear slightly more mature than others, hold high aspirations, and end up either in med school, grad school, etc. If you ask me, I'd say I fit pretty well into that pattern, which was what was expected of me. Let's put it this way: a few weeks ago, we went to Sharon's wedding. At the reception, we talked to all of the people we hadn't seen in a while whose children have grown and prospered according to plan. I was the lucky one, being young enough that my future looks bright and promising, but I don't have to actually deliver much more than a smile and a "Thank you". But I can't help but think about what would have been thought of a family who raised a kid that quit school and ran off to join a band or something radical like that.

Also, I finished A Clockwork Orange a while ago. But I was waiting until I had generated enough material to comment on it. ACO was, as I've said, about a teenager named Alex who had a passion for violence and destruction. Anyone with basic knowledge of the story would know that the book is about how the government performed an experimental procedure on Alex that would make him hate violence - "curing" him and making him fit perfectly into society (which is very ironic, if you read the book, but I won't say much more). Basically, they forced him into a cookie-cutter and, as a character protests, took away his sense of humanity by taking away his ability to choose. Alex was choosing to be violent, but that choice was revoked by the government, so the question stands - is it better to have a perfect citizen with no free will, or to have an imperfect human being that is exercising his rights?

Arm Yourself, Because No One Else Here Will Save You

One of my longest-running obsessions is lifestyle experiments - where you adopt a lifestyle completely different from your own in order to learn about how other people live. I think my interest started with Morgan Spurlock when he did Super Size Me and ate nothing but McDonald's for a month to see what would happen (answer: bad things). And then Spurlock launched the series 30 Days, where he did various things like give everything up and live on minimum wage, incarcerate himself in jail, or otherwise take another person and put them in a situation opposite to how they live their own lives (i.e., a pro-choice activist lives with a pro-life family; a homophobic lives in a gay community, etc.).

Anyway, 30 Days was cancelled about two years ago, and my interest gradually died down (I actually never noticed that it ran a third season before it was cancelled). But two weeks ago, I got my wisdom teeth out and - in a Lortab-induced sloth like state - exhausted the On Demand function on my cable box and watched everything that caught my eye, namely other lifestyle experiment shows. Mostly BBC, Planet Green, and Discovery Health, to name a few channels - I could go on for pages about the different shows, but I'll spare you that. Anyway, the BBC is rather innovative and audacious with their experiments - they'll go all out on ridiculous things, like doing various crash diets in hopes of achieving a size 0, or smoking lots of marijuana to see what it does to you (see Super High Me).

But there were also more realistic ones that were more inclined to seeking a moral from the experience. Blood, Sweat, and Takeaways (and Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts) took six people and made them work in sweatshops (slaughtering animals and producing textiles, respectively), also requiring that they live under the same conditions as the people who spend their lives there. They have to do dirty, back-breaking, degrading work for very little pay and still have to find a way to make enough to provide for their families. I've always heard the phrase "cheap labor", but I never really thought about how everything works - basically, fast food and chain-store clothes are sold so cheap because the distributors are saving a heck of a lot of money on labor. While I don't see how that's ethical in any way, I'm sure many people will tell me things like "life isn't fair", or "free market capitalism". To each their own opinion.

Speaking of ethics; here's a touchier subject that's been on my mind today: how much of your body is marketable? Legally, and ethically. For example, you can go to a blood center and donate blood plasma for about $35 or so twice a week, which is the least taboo of everything I've researched. And I've known that guys could go to a sperm bank and sometimes receive a monetary compensation for their donation - something significantly easier, doesn't even involve needles, and will get you about $200, maybe. Unfortunately, women don't have the luxury of that ease. But something that's recently become popular is women selling their eggs to infertile couples. This is substantially more difficult than either of the other procedures - interested parties must pass rigorous physical as well as psychological exams in order to be deemed fit. About 10% of women will pass on to the next step. If a woman is approved and chosen by an interested couple, she must then go on a hormone regime, which involves taking a daily hormone shot in the lower stomach to stimulate the ovaries (normally, one egg is released every month, but with hormones, you'll get maybe 10-25). Then, she'll go in for an outpatient procedure to have the eggs extracted by a needle and a suction tube. When she recovers, she'll be rewarded with anywhere from $3,000 to $15,000, depending on a variety of factors.

Sounds slightly terrifying, right? And it has all kinds of downsides, from minor inconveniences to health risks - some of which haven't even been fully investigated - and everything in between. But what reporters are postulating is that in the declining economy, people will do anything to get themselves out of debt. And that is why young, healthy female college students who are suffering from student loans and credit card debt are the prime target.

But where do you draw the line between taboo and just plain wrong? Generally, things like hair, plasma and sperm are socially acceptable to be traded for money, mostly because your body can make more. However, women only have as many eggs as they're born with, yet paid egg donation is completely legal. And while you're born with two kidneys, you really only need one - yet you can't be monetarily compensated for donating the other. And livers will grow back if you donate a part of it, but that's only accepted as a donation as well (disregarding that most donations are between family members who wouldn't dream of charging one another a penny).

I'm not even going to try to address black market organ rings, or anything like that, simply because it's late, and trying to figure that stuff out makes me sad.

A last few things:
1) I finished A Clockwork Orange. Notes to come.
2) I have a reading plan for all the time I have to wait on my dad at the University in between classes: Finished ACO, check. Now to finish The Hunchback of Notre Dame, which I abandoned two months ago for happier books. Then The Picture of Dorian Gray.

I've Seen Diamonds Cut Through Harder Men

When I was four or five, I used to spend a lot of time with my dad at Auburn University. I played Disney games on his computer in his office, or I sat in a desk in his classroom and colored while he lectured. I even cleaned the blackboards when I got bored. My dad works on the third floor of Allison Lab. And I would always take the elevator up and down to his office, even though the building only has three stories. (Fun fact: Dr. Fred Allison, of whom the building was named after, is credited with the discovery of the element astatine in 1931 - back when AU was called the Alabama Polytechnic Institute).

For the past few weeks, I've been observing a physics class taught by Dr. Simon. During my down time, I sit in my dad's office like I used to - only now I read Julius Ceasar and A Clockwork Orange (when Shakespeare gets unbearable), as opposed to coloring. Everything about the buildings is the same - from the thin layer of chalk dust that covers pretty much every surface, to the echoey lecture halls in Parker Hall. And one thing in particular that bugs me a little:

Allison Lab has only one women's bathroom in the entire building that's located on the second floor. I vaguely remember always having to go downstairs to get to the bathroom when I was little. But now that I actually stop to think about it - I only know of one female member of the faculty in the physics department. Her name is Yu Lin - I don't remember much about her other than that my dad used to drive her to the airport and that she wears leather skirts, and that she had some medical problem with her neck a while ago. Something about fish. A lack of eating fish.

Anyway. Yu Lin's office is located, of course, on the second floor of Allison. Along with the secretaries and other female employees. So, I wonder: is there really that much of a male prevalence at the university - or the science community in general? And has it been that way for so long that the people who built Allison didn't have reason to build more than one women's bathroom?

Maybe things will be different in ten years - when our generation replaces theirs. But off the record: does anyone know of a girl in our class (or at all) that's majoring in physics? Because I can really only think of Joanna Lucero, that girl from Lindy Focus. And that's not enough.

In other news, I made it through a good part of A Clockwork Orange in my dad's office today. A few points:
1) It's addictive.
2) When I read the first page, I was thrown and confused. I wanted to text Sara and sarcastically ask if any of the words on that first page were real. Anthony Burgess came up with a diction of "teenage slang" that, at first, seems nonsensical. However, after reading more, it's actually pretty amazing how it affects your thinking - you start to piece together what some of the words mean (for example, "sharp" means woman, and "podooshka" is pillow). It's like learning to use context clues all over again. Anyway, chalk it up to one of the random things I get excited over that no one else cares for if you must.
3) Alex DeLarge reminds me of Patrick Bateman from American Psycho - they both have an intense passion for music and equate ultra-violence with their excitement.
4) Why is the Harry Potter series on the Notre Dame reading list under 'fantasy/futuristic novels' and A Clockwork Orange isn't?