Playing With My Hair

With all the difficulties I face trying to squeeze a male body into female form, I have one advantage over you guys.  It's not innate, but I take solace where I can.  It's hair.

I wear wigs.  Wigs dramatically change your appearance.  They're easy to wear.  You pop one on and pull it off.  No complex application, like with makeup.

After trying dozens of wigs, I finally found three whose styles appeal to me.  The first one is short in length; the second and third are long.  All have slight waves.  Lately, you've been seeing my third wig which was a gift from a friend.  My second (worn for a year before the third) is about the same length but straighter with blond highlights.  It's been a while since I wore my first wig.  Recently I thought, why not bring it out of retirement and back into active duty?

I've always loved the first wig because the hair-style is attractive and easy.  It suits me.

Since wigs are simple to use, I'm going to start mixing 'em up.  Some outfits will have one; others another.  I hope that doesn't confuse you.  You're still seeing me and not my sister. 

(BTW, I don't have a sister.  I'm not as lucky as Megan & Nora who share the blog Two Birds.  It took me a while to be able to tell them apart; they're both so damn cute.)

In the pictures below, I'm aiming for a vision of femininity.  It's taken me a long time to be able to learn how to pose and stand gracefully.  While I may not be fully there yet, I'm moving toward my goal, don't you think?

 

 

Analog v. Digital

 

Two decades ago, I read a smart book by a visionary who saw the future of modern society.  He was a technologist who understood where computers were going to lead us.  In retrospect, he was right.

The visionary was Nicholas Negroponte, a MIT professor.  He was the first investor in "Wired" magazine, and founder of MIT's Media Lab.  The book was called "Being Digital."

Nicholas predicted the replacement of analog objects with digital replicas.  Analog items like newspapers (which are words printed on paper that needed to be distributed physically at high costs for publication and transportation) died a painful death when cheaper means of accomplishing the same thing became available (through Internet distribution of the news).  Nicholas also predicted that instead of mass communication of a broad range of news, we'd be able in the future to narrow-cast our news-feed to just what we want to read. 

In the past two decades, we've all seen examples of this.  We used to get thick telephone books dropped on our doorsteps.  Now they don't even make telephone books any more: you look numbers up online.  The phone companies lobbied legislatures to eliminate the costly requirement of producing those books, arguing that nobody used them any more.

I'm surprised to see analog items that haven't been replaced yet.  Like postage stamps.  In the future, we'll look back  nostalgically at postage stamps.  Kids will wonder what they were.  We'll explain their purpose and beauty.  When they disappear and are replaced by bar-codes (the technology for which already exists), we'll mourn them.

This is why I cling to analog technology.  That and because analog products often work even better than their digital replacement.  Vinyl records provide a deeper, warmer sound than digital files which are deliberately degraded to reduce their storage size.

Not all "progress" is progress.  Replacing analog with digital is often done for commercial reasons: e.g., decreasing the cost of production or distribution.  The new product itself is inferior.  But its inferiority is acceptable enough to justify replacing the earlier, more expensive product.  That replacement benefits some (e.g., sellers) but not others (e.g., consumers).

Do you have any reflections on changes you've seen in recent history?

P.S., I bought the rotary phone pictured above in an antique store two years ago.  It's just like the one we used growing up.  The antique store seller laughed when he told me how amused he is to see kids come in and play with the phone, trying to figure out how to use it.  Practically none of them realize you need to stick your finger into a hole and twist the dial around in a circle.

Solitaire

Our perception is subjective. Science repeatedly confirms that fact.  We are animals, limited by our biological ability to perceive objective reality.

I want to mention two examples of this phenomenon because they surprise me.  Maybe you can relate to them.

My work is cerebral.  To perform it, my brain needs to be working.  My mind will do what's necessary for a period of time; then it will stop.  It gets overheated.  I rest my brain when it's exhausted.  The way I do that is to play solitaire on my office computer.

Solitaire is an old card game that comes loaded on most computers.  I can play it without thought and that relaxes me.  After a few hands, my mind is operating again and I can return to work.

I've had my office computer for about a decade.  During that time, I've played 27,405 games of solitaire on it.  27,405!  Holy cow!  I know this because my computer keeps track of my games and I'm the only person who's ever used this computer.  I find it hard to believe that I've spent so much time and effort playing this game.  If I guessed at the number of games I've played, I probably would have erred by a sizeable degree.  Like 90% wrong.  My subjective perception is way off-base.

The second illustration is my frequency of winning.  My mind says I win some, lose some, and there's no set percentage to that.  But I'm wrong.  After a year of playing, I noticed that my computer said I was winning 13% of the games.  I thought that was an odd coincidence.  The next year it said the percentage was still 13%.  And every year since then, I've won 13% of games.  Over 27,405 times.  But my mind does not recognize any pattern in my winning.  I still don't perceive any set percentage of success.  It seems random to me.

My computer is right; my brain is wrong.  That happens more often to us than we realize.

Do you play solitaire?  Do you ever experience what I'm talking about?

The Bloggy Awards Are Back!

For the past several years, I've given annual Bloggy Awards to the Best Blogs Of The Year.  This year will be no exception.  Trophies have been ordered and awards will be announced next week.

The point of the Bloggy Award is to reward exceptional effort and draw attention to our best blogs.  I consider that a noble cause.

There are two winners this year.  The winning bloggers wear great clothes, post with amazing frequency, share about their lives, write entertainingly, visit everyone else's blogs, leave wonderful comments and elevate the atmosphere in our blogosphere.  That's effort worth celebrating. 

Stay tuned!

Personal Integrity

I believe everyone should be kind and honest. Yet I'm often confronted by people acting mean, dishonest and even cruel. I'm sure you see the same.

Why is this? What causes people to act badly? Is it our culture? Their upbringing? Sure, there will always be some who are psychologically damaged, but what about the others? Why do they choose to be dishonest or mean?

When I was a child, I learned that while deceit may sometimes get you a short-term advantage, it almost always backfires. People distrust you. You may even gain the reputation of being dishonorable. There doesn't seem to be any real advantage to acting wrong.

When faced with moral choices, I do the right thing, operating on the belief that doing good is the best choice. In situations when I can be kind, such as giving an old person a seat or letting another car into traffic, I'm courteous. That's my default.

Friends remark that I have exceptional character. I disagree. I have ordinary character. I do what everyone should do. I don't understand why it is extraordinary to act decently.

Why is it unusual these days to be a good person?

Cool Stuff

I've met some of my closest friends through blogging. Ashley is one of them. Her palpable charm and fierce sense of humor draw me like a biker to a motorcycle rally.

Ashley lives in rustic Minnesota. I visited her last month for a Halloween Party. It takes hardy stock to withstand the cold Winter in Northern Minnesota. 

I writing about Ashley because she just started a new business -- and it's terrific! She sells beautiful holiday cards, stationery, mugs and candles. Their designs are striking and humorous. They reflect Ashley who exercised her artistry and photography.

Perusing the site, I couldn't help but buy lots of pretty stuff. Because I like the products. I'm sure you will too. Go visit!  Click here.

"Come Back To The 5 & Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean"

Let's continue talking about Obscure Art, this time an art-film. For a reason that will become clear, the film under discussion is one of my favorites.

In 1982, famous film-director Robert Altman was at a low point in his maverick career. He had just flopped with a big-budget musical starring Robin Williams as the cartoon character "Popeye." That film is awful; the rumor that everyone in the production was high on drugs when making it was obviously true.

Soon after, Altman had to sell his film company. He had practically no money to make new pictures. Out of desperation, he decided to turn stage-plays into films. With a ridiculously low budget (under $1 Million), he shot this movie on 16mm film-stock. (Feature films usually used more expensive 35mm.)  The movie is "Come Back To The 5 And Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean."

Amazingly, despite Alman's lack of funds, he was able to attract several of the best female actors of the time. Cher (a pop musician who hadn't yet acquired a reputation for good acting); Karen Black (an odd-looking beauty who died last year); Sandy Dennis (one of our finest actresses who never got the recognition she deserved because of her ordinary looks); and an incredibly young Kathy Bates (in one of her first films).

A major difference between good art and bad is its capacity for nourishment.  You can see an art-film several times, enjoyably, and derive more with each viewing.  That's what "Jimmy Dean" does.  I've seen it multiple times and each time opens a new door.  I get deeper understanding with every viewing.

"Jimmy Dean" weaves its points like a well-designed tapestry.  Its subject is identity -- who we are and who we pretend to be.  It explores this subject several ways: first, visually by using a long mirror to reflect the characters; second, temporally by jumping back and forth between the past and present; and third, culturally by contrasting normal people with celebrities.

The entire movie takes place in one room -- a Woolworths store in rural Texas.  The present action is set in 1975 but the film frequently jumps back to 1955.  The occasion is the 20th year reunion (in 1975) of a bevy of gals who, in 1955, belonged to a small social club that called itself "The Disciples of James Dean."  (Dean was a popular actor in the 1950's who died tragically young in a car-crash.)

As the women reunite, surprises emerge.  Truths about lies they tell are revealed; deep secrets are uncovered.  Who the women actually are surfaces and contradicts the misleading identities they present to each other.

I'll mention one of the surprises.  Halfway through the movie, a mysterious beautiful woman arrives in town in a fancy yellow sports car.  The others wonder who she is.  They can't identify her.  The woman says things that prove she was there in 1955; she knows who did what back then.  This perplexes the others even more.

The woman is portrayed by Karen Black.  Eventually it is revealed that Black's character is Joe, the only boy who belonged to the group.  Twenty years earlier, after being cruelly beaten up, Joe left town.  Seven years after that, he had a sex-change operation.  Although the women finally recognize him, none of them can believe his radical transformation.  Joe has changed his identity -- an illustration of the movie's theme.

Thirty years ago, movies about transsexualism were not common, so this one appeals to me for obvious reason.  But the film goes beyond Joe's change in identity and examines the identities of the other women as well.

This film is truly obscure and, until recently, was not even available on DVD.  When finally released on DVD, I snapped it up and re-watched it twice.  The film stands up to the test of time.  It is good art.