I'm having next week off work. I'm actually going to go home for a few days. But, not for too long - I will be back. Like the Terminator.
I've applied for a job. Please pray that I at least get an interview!!
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
Friday, August 27, 2004
Well, I haven't really been doing much in the last couple of days, apart from work and dissertation stuff. I have Monday off, because it's bank holiday. That means I get 2 days off in a row! That hasn't really happened for a while.
Am looking forward to Freshers' Week, because then there will be people around...At the moment, I am even all alone in my house. Until this week, there were at least 3 people there, but at the moment, there's only me...
Am looking forward to Freshers' Week, because then there will be people around...At the moment, I am even all alone in my house. Until this week, there were at least 3 people there, but at the moment, there's only me...
Wednesday, August 25, 2004
Right, here commences my thoughts on the letter about the Collaboration of men and women in the Church. There was quite a lot that I agreed with, but also some that I didn't agree with.
"A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men. Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power."
This was a bit that I didn't really like that much. I think that the "conditions of subordination" should be taken notice of - if not so much in the Western world, then in developing countries where women are made subordinate - for example, think of China where female babies are sometimes left to die because they are not boys (and yes, I know that it's far more complicated than that, but that's more or less what it boils down to). Or, a less extreme example can be found even in Britain and America, where women are still paid significantly less than men for doing the same jobs. To some extent, I also want to question whether women are trying to make themselves the adversaries of men, or whether women are trying to free themselves from patriarchalisation (and not necessarily men). I think it is also important to consider whether it is power, or empowerment that women are generally seeking - there is a subtle, but significant difference.
OK - now a bit that I agree with:
"...the identity and role of one are emphasised to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person..."
While I think that it's important that everyone is entitled to develop their own identity and role in life, I do think that sometimes, this can go to far, and become destructive.
"In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning."
OK, while I agree with this to an extent - there obviously are differences between the sexes - I do think that cultural and historical conditioning has a lot to answer for with regard to perceived differences; for example, for a long time, it was not thought that women had an 'appropriate consitution' for working, or making decisions or judgments.
"...it strengthens the idea that the liberation of women entails criticism of Sacred Scripture, which would be seen as handing on a patriarchal conception of God nourished by an essentially male dominated culture."
This, I do not agree with. For a start, there are women in the Bible who I believe are great symbols of the strength of women. Mary is the most obvious one - she was the mother of God; no man could really claim to be the father of God, not even Joseph. There is also Ruth - a Moabite, and therefore, a woman without status... However, she left everything she had - her family, her home, and her religion, to go with Naomi, when she knew that she would be seen as a foreigner, and would have to change the way that she lived. I think she was an immensely brave woman. Then there's the Samaritan woman at the well. She was obviously fairly knowledgeable, her conversation with Jesus indicates that she was no simpleton. She also seemed to command a certain amount of respect from other villagers, who listened to what she had to say about Jesus. Jesus also first revealed himself to women after the resurrection. I think that it's possible to strive for the liberation of women, and give Scripture its rightful place.
"...this tendency would consider as lacking in importance and relevance the fact that the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form."
To be honest, I was a little puzzled by this. It is undeniable that Jesus was a man. He had to be either man or woman, and couldn't physically be both. I think it is important that Jesus was a man, but I also think that it's important to note that Mary, Jesus' mother was a woman. Like Jesus, she couldn't physically have been male and female. I think that Mary is a woman whom we should celebrate. God didn't have to use a woman to put Jesus on earth, and so I think it has a lot to say for Mary that God chose to use her.
"'God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them' (Gen 1:27)...humanity is described and articulated in the male-female relationship. This is the humanity sexually differentiated, which is explicitly declared 'the image of God'."
This, I liked. To me, this advocates the equal respect due to men and women, and the recognition due to them as being created in the image and form of God.
"...Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper. This is so that Adam's life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship...Only the woman, created from the same "flesh" and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man... God's creation of woman characterises humanity as a relational reality."
This, I also liked. To me, this says that Eve was every bit as important as Adam.
"...woman, in her deepest and original being, exists 'for the other' (cf. 1 Cor 11:9): this is a statement which, far from any sense of alienation, expresses a fundamental aspect of the similarity with the Triune God, whose Persons, with the coming of Christ, are revealed as being in a communion of love, each for the others."
I am a little wary of this. God exists for perfect God, and so cannot be exploited or abused. Humans are not perfect, or in so close a unity as the Trinity. So, in my view, this could be a dangerous view from a human perspective, and raises questions such as whether abuse should be tolerated simply for someone else...
"Original sin changes the way in which the man and the woman receive and live the Word of God as well as their relationship with the Creator...when humanity considers God its enemy, the relationship between man and woman becomes distorted."
To me, this implies that the way things are between men and women now is not what God intended. The relationship between men and women is not "right", and so it needs changing. Liberation of women might be the way to go, but there is a chance that it's not.
"'Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you' (Gen 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other...In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan are lost."
Is this saying, then, that God created sexism?!
"Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."
Oh, good!
"'Sexuality characterises man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions'. It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignifican biological fact..."
To an extent, I agree with this. But, I believe that it's still possible for men and women to have similar characteristics, and that, like the differences, these should not be minimalised.
"...the relationship is good, but wounded and in need of healing."
I am in total agreement with this.
I also like the bit where the importance of Mary is talked about at some length. It's too long to quote all that I like, but it's a lot of it, and maybe especially the bit about Mary's role in the wedding at Cana narrative. The stuff about the role of women in Paul's writings is also pretty cool, but again, too long to quote.
"...women preserve the deep intuition of the goodness in their lives of those actions which elicit life, and contibute to the growth and protection of the other."
My question here, is whether men can have this 'role' too? I think they can, and that to say that they can't is foolish and false.
"Although motherhood is a key element of women's identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation. In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms and are often accompanied by dangerous disprespect for women."
I liked this bit. It very clearly makes the point that women are not just baby machines, and after this bit, the importance of the Christian vocation of virginity is brought up too. This seems to remove attempts to give women a "mere biological destiny", and I think that's great! Later, there is also talk of the importance of the role and presence of women in the world of work, and in the organisation of society, which is good.
"As John Paul II has written, 'it willl redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother - without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination and without penalising her as compared with other women - to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age."
When I first read this, my thought was 'but what about enabling women to work?!', and it wasn't until I read a critique of the letter that I realised that this is far more relevant in developing countries where women work immensely long hours for very little money to try to sustain their family, than for women in the developed world, who generally have life far easier than that.
I liked the way in which it was made clear that the Church is a community, requiring the input of women and men; I also like the recognition that Mary is a fundamental reference in the Church.
"...the way of Christ is neither one of domination (cf. Phil. 2:6) nor of power as understood by the world (cf. Jn 18:36)."
I think that this is very important for the Christian community; if we strive to become more Christ-like - which we should be doing - then we will become closer to achieving a relationship between men and women that is "right" in the eyes of God; an equal relationship between men and women is shown to be the way of Christ.
"...one understands how the reservation of priestly ordination solely to men does not hamper in any way women's access to the heart of Christian life."
Well, I must say that I don't understand this. There has been so much good stuff said about women in the letter, and then this. I don't see why women shouldn't be priests. Perhaps I shouldn't say that, with wanting to be a nun, but it's what I think.
(All of the quotes above - ie. the bits in green - are from the Letter on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Chruch, May 31st, 2004.)
Now, for the criticisms of the letter....
The one which branded the letter as disturbing (James' blog has a link to it somewhere...), I thought was silly. I don't think it was a disturbing letter. I also think the descriptions that this criticism gives of the letter were very over the top, totally blown out of proportion, and taken out of context. Not worth the time and energy it takes to read it, in my opinion.
I agree more with the article from the Tablet, which was much nicer about the letter, though obviously also had some criticism of it.
"Such observations could only be made by men who have no significant relationship with women and no knowledge of the enormous positive changes the women's rights movement has meant for both men and women."
I thought that this was, maybe, a little scathing, but I can see the point here. The letter talked about the importance and value of women in society and in the Church, but was there a woman involved in the writing of the letter? Well, no. Practise what you preach, gentlemen!
"The document was likely spurred on by the Church's desire to prevent the women in the Church and in the world (saying what they have to say) about feminism and gender."
I don't think so!
"... to damn this document as objectionable, chauvinist, and outdated, is crass. A thorough read reveals some surprising, and welcome thoughts."
Yes! I agree with this...
"A pity then, that the document does not give credit to the people who first began interpreting the Creation story in theis way - feminist theologians. A pity, too, that the document does not follow its own them - collaboration... And a pity too, for all the Vatican's increasingly enlightened thinking on the role of women in the world, its more familiar prejudices come shining through in its attitude to women in the Church itself."
I think that this is a very valid point, and is worth consideration.
"...there is no reason why more women cannot be appointed to senior positions in the Church, where priesthood is not a prerequisite."
I think that this is also very valid, and I think that this is something that should happen. Women should be senior in the Church.
(Since my last comment of this kind, the quotes - in green - are from an article in the Tablet by C Pepinster.)
OK, so there you have them, my thoughts on the Letter!
"A first tendency is to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism: women, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men. Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power."
This was a bit that I didn't really like that much. I think that the "conditions of subordination" should be taken notice of - if not so much in the Western world, then in developing countries where women are made subordinate - for example, think of China where female babies are sometimes left to die because they are not boys (and yes, I know that it's far more complicated than that, but that's more or less what it boils down to). Or, a less extreme example can be found even in Britain and America, where women are still paid significantly less than men for doing the same jobs. To some extent, I also want to question whether women are trying to make themselves the adversaries of men, or whether women are trying to free themselves from patriarchalisation (and not necessarily men). I think it is also important to consider whether it is power, or empowerment that women are generally seeking - there is a subtle, but significant difference.
OK - now a bit that I agree with:
"...the identity and role of one are emphasised to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person..."
While I think that it's important that everyone is entitled to develop their own identity and role in life, I do think that sometimes, this can go to far, and become destructive.
"In order to avoid the domination of one sex or the other, their differences tend to be denied, viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning."
OK, while I agree with this to an extent - there obviously are differences between the sexes - I do think that cultural and historical conditioning has a lot to answer for with regard to perceived differences; for example, for a long time, it was not thought that women had an 'appropriate consitution' for working, or making decisions or judgments.
"...it strengthens the idea that the liberation of women entails criticism of Sacred Scripture, which would be seen as handing on a patriarchal conception of God nourished by an essentially male dominated culture."
This, I do not agree with. For a start, there are women in the Bible who I believe are great symbols of the strength of women. Mary is the most obvious one - she was the mother of God; no man could really claim to be the father of God, not even Joseph. There is also Ruth - a Moabite, and therefore, a woman without status... However, she left everything she had - her family, her home, and her religion, to go with Naomi, when she knew that she would be seen as a foreigner, and would have to change the way that she lived. I think she was an immensely brave woman. Then there's the Samaritan woman at the well. She was obviously fairly knowledgeable, her conversation with Jesus indicates that she was no simpleton. She also seemed to command a certain amount of respect from other villagers, who listened to what she had to say about Jesus. Jesus also first revealed himself to women after the resurrection. I think that it's possible to strive for the liberation of women, and give Scripture its rightful place.
"...this tendency would consider as lacking in importance and relevance the fact that the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form."
To be honest, I was a little puzzled by this. It is undeniable that Jesus was a man. He had to be either man or woman, and couldn't physically be both. I think it is important that Jesus was a man, but I also think that it's important to note that Mary, Jesus' mother was a woman. Like Jesus, she couldn't physically have been male and female. I think that Mary is a woman whom we should celebrate. God didn't have to use a woman to put Jesus on earth, and so I think it has a lot to say for Mary that God chose to use her.
"'God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them' (Gen 1:27)...humanity is described and articulated in the male-female relationship. This is the humanity sexually differentiated, which is explicitly declared 'the image of God'."
This, I liked. To me, this advocates the equal respect due to men and women, and the recognition due to them as being created in the image and form of God.
"...Adam, experienced a loneliness which the presence of the animals is not able to overcome. He needs a helpmate who will be his partner. The term here does not refer to an inferior, but to a vital helper. This is so that Adam's life does not sink into a sterile and, in the end, baneful encounter with himself. It is necessary that he enter into relationship...Only the woman, created from the same "flesh" and cloaked in the same mystery, can give a future to the life of the man... God's creation of woman characterises humanity as a relational reality."
This, I also liked. To me, this says that Eve was every bit as important as Adam.
"...woman, in her deepest and original being, exists 'for the other' (cf. 1 Cor 11:9): this is a statement which, far from any sense of alienation, expresses a fundamental aspect of the similarity with the Triune God, whose Persons, with the coming of Christ, are revealed as being in a communion of love, each for the others."
I am a little wary of this. God exists for perfect God, and so cannot be exploited or abused. Humans are not perfect, or in so close a unity as the Trinity. So, in my view, this could be a dangerous view from a human perspective, and raises questions such as whether abuse should be tolerated simply for someone else...
"Original sin changes the way in which the man and the woman receive and live the Word of God as well as their relationship with the Creator...when humanity considers God its enemy, the relationship between man and woman becomes distorted."
To me, this implies that the way things are between men and women now is not what God intended. The relationship between men and women is not "right", and so it needs changing. Liberation of women might be the way to go, but there is a chance that it's not.
"'Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you' (Gen 3:16). It will be a relationship in which love will frequently be debased into pure self-seeking, in a relationship which ignores and kills love and replaces it with the yoke of domination of one sex over the other...In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan are lost."
Is this saying, then, that God created sexism?!
"Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."
Oh, good!
"'Sexuality characterises man and woman not only on the physical level, but also on the psychological and spiritual, making its mark on each of their expressions'. It cannot be reduced to a pure and insignifican biological fact..."
To an extent, I agree with this. But, I believe that it's still possible for men and women to have similar characteristics, and that, like the differences, these should not be minimalised.
"...the relationship is good, but wounded and in need of healing."
I am in total agreement with this.
I also like the bit where the importance of Mary is talked about at some length. It's too long to quote all that I like, but it's a lot of it, and maybe especially the bit about Mary's role in the wedding at Cana narrative. The stuff about the role of women in Paul's writings is also pretty cool, but again, too long to quote.
"...women preserve the deep intuition of the goodness in their lives of those actions which elicit life, and contibute to the growth and protection of the other."
My question here, is whether men can have this 'role' too? I think they can, and that to say that they can't is foolish and false.
"Although motherhood is a key element of women's identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation. In this area, there can be serious distortions, which extol biological fecundity in purely quantitative terms and are often accompanied by dangerous disprespect for women."
I liked this bit. It very clearly makes the point that women are not just baby machines, and after this bit, the importance of the Christian vocation of virginity is brought up too. This seems to remove attempts to give women a "mere biological destiny", and I think that's great! Later, there is also talk of the importance of the role and presence of women in the world of work, and in the organisation of society, which is good.
"As John Paul II has written, 'it willl redound to the credit of society to make it possible for a mother - without inhibiting her freedom, without psychological or practical discrimination and without penalising her as compared with other women - to devote herself to taking care of her children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary with age."
When I first read this, my thought was 'but what about enabling women to work?!', and it wasn't until I read a critique of the letter that I realised that this is far more relevant in developing countries where women work immensely long hours for very little money to try to sustain their family, than for women in the developed world, who generally have life far easier than that.
I liked the way in which it was made clear that the Church is a community, requiring the input of women and men; I also like the recognition that Mary is a fundamental reference in the Church.
"...the way of Christ is neither one of domination (cf. Phil. 2:6) nor of power as understood by the world (cf. Jn 18:36)."
I think that this is very important for the Christian community; if we strive to become more Christ-like - which we should be doing - then we will become closer to achieving a relationship between men and women that is "right" in the eyes of God; an equal relationship between men and women is shown to be the way of Christ.
"...one understands how the reservation of priestly ordination solely to men does not hamper in any way women's access to the heart of Christian life."
Well, I must say that I don't understand this. There has been so much good stuff said about women in the letter, and then this. I don't see why women shouldn't be priests. Perhaps I shouldn't say that, with wanting to be a nun, but it's what I think.
(All of the quotes above - ie. the bits in green - are from the Letter on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Chruch, May 31st, 2004.)
Now, for the criticisms of the letter....
The one which branded the letter as disturbing (James' blog has a link to it somewhere...), I thought was silly. I don't think it was a disturbing letter. I also think the descriptions that this criticism gives of the letter were very over the top, totally blown out of proportion, and taken out of context. Not worth the time and energy it takes to read it, in my opinion.
I agree more with the article from the Tablet, which was much nicer about the letter, though obviously also had some criticism of it.
"Such observations could only be made by men who have no significant relationship with women and no knowledge of the enormous positive changes the women's rights movement has meant for both men and women."
I thought that this was, maybe, a little scathing, but I can see the point here. The letter talked about the importance and value of women in society and in the Church, but was there a woman involved in the writing of the letter? Well, no. Practise what you preach, gentlemen!
"The document was likely spurred on by the Church's desire to prevent the women in the Church and in the world (saying what they have to say) about feminism and gender."
I don't think so!
"... to damn this document as objectionable, chauvinist, and outdated, is crass. A thorough read reveals some surprising, and welcome thoughts."
Yes! I agree with this...
"A pity then, that the document does not give credit to the people who first began interpreting the Creation story in theis way - feminist theologians. A pity, too, that the document does not follow its own them - collaboration... And a pity too, for all the Vatican's increasingly enlightened thinking on the role of women in the world, its more familiar prejudices come shining through in its attitude to women in the Church itself."
I think that this is a very valid point, and is worth consideration.
"...there is no reason why more women cannot be appointed to senior positions in the Church, where priesthood is not a prerequisite."
I think that this is also very valid, and I think that this is something that should happen. Women should be senior in the Church.
(Since my last comment of this kind, the quotes - in green - are from an article in the Tablet by C Pepinster.)
OK, so there you have them, my thoughts on the Letter!
Monday, August 23, 2004
Today, I'm hungry, so yet again, I am not writing about the letter. Slapped wrist for me.
I have an appointment in Oxford (eyes again) in 3 weeks. The usual waiting list is 13 weeks, so 3 is pretty good going. I'm a bit nervous, but hopefully this time won't be a repeat of last time.
I think that at the start of term, I'm going to find it very hard to go back to the Chaplaincy - in some ways, I'm missing it a lot, and there have been times when I've been getting excited because it's only 5 weeks til the 1st Mass of the (academic) year... In other ways, though, I'm really going to miss Sacred Heart...
5 weeks today, & I won't have to get up for work!! How cool is that?!
I have an appointment in Oxford (eyes again) in 3 weeks. The usual waiting list is 13 weeks, so 3 is pretty good going. I'm a bit nervous, but hopefully this time won't be a repeat of last time.
I think that at the start of term, I'm going to find it very hard to go back to the Chaplaincy - in some ways, I'm missing it a lot, and there have been times when I've been getting excited because it's only 5 weeks til the 1st Mass of the (academic) year... In other ways, though, I'm really going to miss Sacred Heart...
5 weeks today, & I won't have to get up for work!! How cool is that?!
Friday, August 20, 2004
I will eventually get around to telling you what I think about the letter on the collaboration of men and women in the Church - I promise! I've just had so little time and energy to do stuff recently...
This week, I've worked quite a lot, which is good, as it means that I get a rather bigger than usual pay cheque next week...
At the moment, I'm missing Maria a lot - she's been in Indonesia for a month now, and has about 6 weeks left until she comes back. Please could you pray for her - that it's going well, & that she's OK...(I haven't heard from her while she's been there, because she's staying somewhere very remote, so I'm just having to trust that God is keeping her safe...)
This week, I've worked quite a lot, which is good, as it means that I get a rather bigger than usual pay cheque next week...
At the moment, I'm missing Maria a lot - she's been in Indonesia for a month now, and has about 6 weeks left until she comes back. Please could you pray for her - that it's going well, & that she's OK...(I haven't heard from her while she's been there, because she's staying somewhere very remote, so I'm just having to trust that God is keeping her safe...)
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Today, I worked. I did lots of cleaning. I guess it's all part of being a cleaner. I think the oven cleaner's making holes in my hands though. I don't think that's a good thing.
Last night, I spoke to Zosh on the phone. I like phones... Most of the people I've been around all summer are blokes, and they don't seem to just chat as much as girls, so it was nice to chat to another girl.
I have to go home and finish reading Night Watch (Terry Pratchett) as I have to take it back to the library tomorrow. I like Terry Pratchett books, though I don't think Night Watch is his best. I prefer The Truth, or Equal Rites, or really any where Granny Weatherwax plays a large role! She rocks.
Last night, I spoke to Zosh on the phone. I like phones... Most of the people I've been around all summer are blokes, and they don't seem to just chat as much as girls, so it was nice to chat to another girl.
I have to go home and finish reading Night Watch (Terry Pratchett) as I have to take it back to the library tomorrow. I like Terry Pratchett books, though I don't think Night Watch is his best. I prefer The Truth, or Equal Rites, or really any where Granny Weatherwax plays a large role! She rocks.
Monday, August 16, 2004
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Today I got my letter from the orthopaedics department at the hospital, saying that I can have an appointment for my knee. Oh good. It went on to say that they will write to me again around 6 weeks before my appointment, and that it may be 17 weeks before I get an appointment. Not so good. That's like in December.
Today, I also had my hair cut. It's all short(ish). I like it. It goes a bit spiky/flicky at the back, which is cool.
Tomorrow, I'm going all the way to Warwick for an appointment with my eye consultant. My train's at 8:23 in the morning. I'm hoping that he'll actually do something, as I'll not be happy if he doesn't.
I had lots of thoughts about the letter about the collaboration of men and women in the Church (James mentioned it on his blog. Go there and follow his link). I didn't like the criticism of it that James didn't like. I thought it was over-critical, and sometimes wrongly critical.
I have things that I don't like much about the letter, but I have things that I like a lot, but I'm kind of tired now, so will write about them when I have more time and energy.
Today, I also had my hair cut. It's all short(ish). I like it. It goes a bit spiky/flicky at the back, which is cool.
Tomorrow, I'm going all the way to Warwick for an appointment with my eye consultant. My train's at 8:23 in the morning. I'm hoping that he'll actually do something, as I'll not be happy if he doesn't.
I had lots of thoughts about the letter about the collaboration of men and women in the Church (James mentioned it on his blog. Go there and follow his link). I didn't like the criticism of it that James didn't like. I thought it was over-critical, and sometimes wrongly critical.
I have things that I don't like much about the letter, but I have things that I like a lot, but I'm kind of tired now, so will write about them when I have more time and energy.
Monday, August 09, 2004
My brother's been here for a week, and goes home tomorrow. It's been good to have him here, though a week was long enough.
On Thursday, I have my appointment with my eye consultant, which I'm sort of looking forward to, as I feel that he has to do something, and will not let him get away with doing nothing.
On Saturday, I went to the zoo. I like the zoo.
Yesterday, we went to the beach. It was a bit rainy, but the beach is good in any weather.
I also introduced my brother to Devon Cream Teas - he was well impressed.
On Thursday, I have my appointment with my eye consultant, which I'm sort of looking forward to, as I feel that he has to do something, and will not let him get away with doing nothing.
On Saturday, I went to the zoo. I like the zoo.
Yesterday, we went to the beach. It was a bit rainy, but the beach is good in any weather.
I also introduced my brother to Devon Cream Teas - he was well impressed.
Wednesday, August 04, 2004
Well, my brother's here, with his girlfriend. They're quite sweet, and not really boyfriend & girlfriend-y - they're more just like friends...
There's been no washing up done in my house for ages. The bathroom hasn't been cleaned for ages either. I was waiting to see whether my housemates would do either of these things, but evidently not, as last time either of the said things were done, I did them.
It's kind of cool having my brother here, but kind of tough too...I'm realising how un-normal my life at home was. I don't see how I could have ever thought it was normal. You see, at the moment, I'm living with 2 13 year olds who are living with v abusive mothers...My brother doesn't seem to get it quite as bad as I did, but he gets it bad enough. He said that he hasn't been hit for a couple of months, but when that last happened, he had his head slammed in a door, and on a kitchen work top...That kind of thing used to happen to me at least a couple of times a week, and I used to just accept it as a normal part of life...
There's been no washing up done in my house for ages. The bathroom hasn't been cleaned for ages either. I was waiting to see whether my housemates would do either of these things, but evidently not, as last time either of the said things were done, I did them.
It's kind of cool having my brother here, but kind of tough too...I'm realising how un-normal my life at home was. I don't see how I could have ever thought it was normal. You see, at the moment, I'm living with 2 13 year olds who are living with v abusive mothers...My brother doesn't seem to get it quite as bad as I did, but he gets it bad enough. He said that he hasn't been hit for a couple of months, but when that last happened, he had his head slammed in a door, and on a kitchen work top...That kind of thing used to happen to me at least a couple of times a week, and I used to just accept it as a normal part of life...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)