Monday ramble

Last weekend I rambled to you about how there's a type of person that I've learned not to engage if I can help it, and I avoid engaging those people by withholding certain information about myself (particularly national origin, but we may as well add dietary persuasion). Two characteristics--or maybe it's really just one--make(s) these people poor conversationalists: they carry assumptions about certain things (such as your national origin or dietary persuasion) and no information from you can counteract those assumptions. It's like they're talking to themselves, which they may as well be, because they're not listening.


That kind of thing gets really old, not just because it's merely annoying, but it's because it's disrespectful to you. It's like someone can't take your word for it. RM--yes, I know I said I've definitively let go, but he remains such a useful example of how not to engage other people that I insist on keeping the idea of him around merely for that purpose--not only constantly hounded me about my eating habits, but regularly failed to believe me when I corrected  him (no, I don't have an "eating plan.") 

This kind of thing struck RM in every area of life: his worldview was so entrenched that new information didn't get through, ever. I was reminded of this yesterday when a friend asked me how I was getting to work these days--was I still taking the metro and not driving? Fair question on her part (she doesn't, after all, live with me), i.e., conversational but not annoying, but also intriguing. I've only ever metroed to work (I've biked, but that's not what she was asking about). It would not cross my mind to drive to work. Why on earth would I drive to work--in downtown DC?? Again, fair question from this friend--it was more of a remark--but nonetheless reflective of a different worldview, and she said as much. It's a different lifestyle, metroing to work.

I had another conversation yesterday that was not annoying, but could have been under different circumstances. I mentioned in the above-linked post that I don't generally declare my veganism (because I don't want to deal with it) until it comes up, but I'm thinking maybe I should start, because it's a good --dammit, what's the word for that thing that you stick in a liquid to determine whether it's an acid or a base--litmus test.

Anyway, date asked me, as we passed the Chart House, whether I'd ever eaten there, and I replied that I had once, but the only thing there for me (as I didn't eat animal products) was hummus, and their hummus wasn't great. And so it begins.

Date: You don't eat animal products at all?
A.: No.
Date: Can you eat ice cream?
A.: I don't eat dairy, so not if it has dairy in it.
Date: Are you gluten-free?
A.: Not at all.
Date: Are you lactose intolerant?
A.: No. I can eat dairy products; I just don't...
Date: Fish or seafood?
A.: Not if I can help it.

And so on. In this day and age, it's unusual to come across someone who needs the concept of vegetarianism or veganism by choice explained to them. And yet, I've come across two such people through speed-dating. Of course, if everything else had been going well, I probably would have let it go, but--as I told you yesterday--having had to lead the way and act as a drill sargeant really killed the mood.

But I digress: this wasn't one of those brutally infuriating conversations, where someone argues with you (like the other speed-dating guy managed to do during the two minutes of speed dating). Just like yesterday's friendly conversation about how I get to work wasn't annoying, even though the content was similar to the annoying RM conversations we know and hate.

***
When I rambled to you about letting go (of RM, of BE, of F.), I rambled about how I didn't need to keep them to keep the lessons. That if I acted through my self, I'd be fine without the memory of them. What I meant by that was, should I come across someone else who infringes on my boundaries or otherwise disrespects me, I'll know not to take it because I respect myself, and so I won't be disrespected. I don't need to retrieve the memory of any of those people to say to myself, "remember the last time someone behaved this way, and it ended badly?" I can just say, "this is bullshit and I won't stand for it."

I exercised that today at Bang, where I had a hair appointment. When I discovered a certain stylist at Bang, I kept going back to her. She got my crazy hair and did it right. Then she relocated to another branch, and they suggested I try someone like her. I did, a few months ago, and it was fine. After much hassle--Bang redesigned their online system and it became a pain in the ass to schedule an appointment--I made an appointment for this afternoon. I scheduled a meeting around this appointment--I'd grown accustomed of getting in and out of Bang within half an hour, so surely I thought an hour would be plenty--and showed up on time. And waited. And waited. Fifteen minutes in--keep in mind that these are 30-minute appointments--my stylist came out, but instead of acknowledging me, turned to another woman in the waiting area and apologized that she was taken at the time and that another stylist would do her highlights. She then took that woman back with her. Had she acknowledged me first and told me she needed a couple of more minutes to introduce her other client to another stylist, I might have stayed. Instead, I told the receptionist that I would need to reschedule--that I'd already been waiting fifteen minutes, and that if I wasn't going to get my haircut, I had to leave.

Part of me felt bad--these stylists do work on commission--but this stylist had done this to herself. Whether she'd meant to or not, and maybe she did, she essentially communicated to me that she didn't want me as a client. So I left. I thought about tweeting about it (mentioning Bang Salon) but I thought that vindictive. If this woman has clients she doesn't disrespect, let them go to her. I'm going elsewhere.