Friday, April 27, 2007
Friday Weigh In, 4/27/07
188.5 this morning. That's 1.5 pounds this week and 24 overall. I'll take it.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
I didn't break the law today. Where's my fucking medal?
What is it about giving medals to just about everyone except people who deserve them? First it was the Franks/Tenet/Bremer Congressional Medal of Freedom, and now Reade Seligmann of Duke Lacrosse fame. Having had the rape charges against him dropped, his high school has bestowed upon him the Delbarton Medal, the highest honor from the all-boys Delbarton School.
His headmaster says Seligmann demonstrated "courage, nobility, integrity and charity" during the "ordeal" of the last year. Then he goes on to say the most asinine thing I've heard in awhile:
'Cause let's face it. I don't have the first clue as to whether Reade Seligmann raped Crystal Gail Mangum because a)I wasn't there and b)I didn't examine her afterward. But the same can be said of nearly all of the people defending Seligmann and his co-defendants, leading one to surmise that these people are defending them for other, more sinister reasons. Reasons relating to sexism, racism, classism, and probably several other isms. And with less-than-stellar conviction rates in rape cases, I'm not inclined to think that many women make false accusations. I imagine some do, but not nearly to the extent some people claim. Who would put herself through all the public scrutiny with such little chance of success? This woman's life has been damaged much more than the lives of the defendants in this case; it just doesn't seem like it sometimes because she started from an awfully low rung to begin with.
So quit with all the public displays of blind support for these guys. It's offensive. Because even if they didn't* rape her, they don't deserve a fucking medal for it.
*The case was dropped for lack of evidence. They were not found innocent. There is a difference.
His headmaster says Seligmann demonstrated "courage, nobility, integrity and charity" during the "ordeal" of the last year. Then he goes on to say the most asinine thing I've heard in awhile:
“You gave us a model of how to handle the pressures that we all experience.”Yes, let us all rally around a guy whose experience is justlikeours. Because it is the average person who is the white son of privilege, who gets to attend a pricey university on athletic scholarship, and who attends parties where African-American women are hired to stroke the male, uh, ego. Yes, yes, we all belong to this elite club, and we're all just as likely to get dragged under by nasty hos who are asking for it, not that we would actually do anything wrong, wink wink. I've lost count of how many times my friends and I have been accused of raping people. See? I'm just like this guy!
'Cause let's face it. I don't have the first clue as to whether Reade Seligmann raped Crystal Gail Mangum because a)I wasn't there and b)I didn't examine her afterward. But the same can be said of nearly all of the people defending Seligmann and his co-defendants, leading one to surmise that these people are defending them for other, more sinister reasons. Reasons relating to sexism, racism, classism, and probably several other isms. And with less-than-stellar conviction rates in rape cases, I'm not inclined to think that many women make false accusations. I imagine some do, but not nearly to the extent some people claim. Who would put herself through all the public scrutiny with such little chance of success? This woman's life has been damaged much more than the lives of the defendants in this case; it just doesn't seem like it sometimes because she started from an awfully low rung to begin with.
So quit with all the public displays of blind support for these guys. It's offensive. Because even if they didn't* rape her, they don't deserve a fucking medal for it.
*The case was dropped for lack of evidence. They were not found innocent. There is a difference.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Does this mean I only have to do 69% of my job?
Women continue to earn less than their male counterparts. How much less? According to a study done by the American Association of University Women Educational Foundation, the gap already stands at 20% one year out of college (women making only 80% of what their male peers make). Ten years down the line, the gap widens to a staggering 31% (women making only 69% of what their male peers make).
MRAs* and other douchebags** will argue that this difference either doesn't really exist or can be attributed to education, career choice, maternity issues, space aliens, or a whole host of other factors. Anything, basically, to avoid implicating the vaunted institution of Misogyny(R). But the report is careful to report that
Now, some of the afore-mentioned douchebags have done some quick math on this and determined that one-quarter of 20% is only 5%, which is basically nothing, if you ask them. But at the ten-year mark, one-quarter of the pay gap is 7.75% that can be attributed to sexism. Even 5% is significant. Statistically and practically.
I've done my own math here, and the result is pretty sickening. If we start with a hypothetical man and woman with similar degrees, similar number of hours worked, etc., in a position that earns the man $50,000 per year, over a typical career his sexism-generated income advantage would be $173,260. (If he earns $50k, she earns $40k one through nine years out of college - and that's keeping the gap absolutely steady for the first ten years for the purposes of this exercise. It's probably a steadier increase. Anyway, one quarter of the $10k/year disparity equals $2500, and over ten years that equals $25k. Starting at year ten, keeping the salaries the same - except boosting the man's salary to reflect the increased gap - the woman will earn $40k to the man's $57,971. One quarter of the $17,971/year disparity is $4492. If we assume they were 22 when they got out of college and are 32 at the ten year mark and that they work another 33 years until retirement at age 65, that's an additional $148,260 that the man will earn over the woman simply due to sexism. Add that to the $25k from the first ten years, and you arrive at the $173,260 figure. This is a conservative estimate based on all the assumptions made for the purposes of the exercise. And the actual gap, remember, is four times that much. What this means is that our hypothetical man's penis is worth roughly $173,260 over his lifetime***, and it's all passive income - unless he's a porn star).
But here's the real message that needs to get out: Even one tenth of one percent of a pay gap attributable to sexism is unacceptable. Otherwise, who gets to decide what percentage of misogyny merits outrage? We certainly can't let the MRAs decide because in their world anything that is less than 98% sexist is for pussies.****
This is 2007, folks. It's time for a zero-tolerance policy on this shit.
*MRA - n., Men's Rights Activist. These people live on a planet on which misogyny is the most abundant element in the atmosphere.
**No one gave me an alternative word after the last solicitation, so douchebag it is.
***If he's a doctor or a lawyer, his penis is worth much, much more. A teacher? Not so much.
****That might be their actual motto.
MRAs* and other douchebags** will argue that this difference either doesn't really exist or can be attributed to education, career choice, maternity issues, space aliens, or a whole host of other factors. Anything, basically, to avoid implicating the vaunted institution of Misogyny(R). But the report is careful to report that
Even after controlling for hours, occupation, parenthood, and other factors known to affect earnings, the study found that one-quarter of the pay gap remains unexplained. The group said that portion of the gap is “likely due to sex discrimination.”
Now, some of the afore-mentioned douchebags have done some quick math on this and determined that one-quarter of 20% is only 5%, which is basically nothing, if you ask them. But at the ten-year mark, one-quarter of the pay gap is 7.75% that can be attributed to sexism. Even 5% is significant. Statistically and practically.
I've done my own math here, and the result is pretty sickening. If we start with a hypothetical man and woman with similar degrees, similar number of hours worked, etc., in a position that earns the man $50,000 per year, over a typical career his sexism-generated income advantage would be $173,260. (If he earns $50k, she earns $40k one through nine years out of college - and that's keeping the gap absolutely steady for the first ten years for the purposes of this exercise. It's probably a steadier increase. Anyway, one quarter of the $10k/year disparity equals $2500, and over ten years that equals $25k. Starting at year ten, keeping the salaries the same - except boosting the man's salary to reflect the increased gap - the woman will earn $40k to the man's $57,971. One quarter of the $17,971/year disparity is $4492. If we assume they were 22 when they got out of college and are 32 at the ten year mark and that they work another 33 years until retirement at age 65, that's an additional $148,260 that the man will earn over the woman simply due to sexism. Add that to the $25k from the first ten years, and you arrive at the $173,260 figure. This is a conservative estimate based on all the assumptions made for the purposes of the exercise. And the actual gap, remember, is four times that much. What this means is that our hypothetical man's penis is worth roughly $173,260 over his lifetime***, and it's all passive income - unless he's a porn star).
But here's the real message that needs to get out: Even one tenth of one percent of a pay gap attributable to sexism is unacceptable. Otherwise, who gets to decide what percentage of misogyny merits outrage? We certainly can't let the MRAs decide because in their world anything that is less than 98% sexist is for pussies.****
This is 2007, folks. It's time for a zero-tolerance policy on this shit.
**No one gave me an alternative word after the last solicitation, so douchebag it is.
***If he's a doctor or a lawyer, his penis is worth much, much more. A teacher? Not so much.
****That might be their actual motto.
International assbaggery
Iran arrests 300 women for being 'insufficiently veiled.'
I'd like to kick the Iranian police in the crotch for being insufficiently human.
I'd like to kick the Iranian police in the crotch for being insufficiently human.
Friday, April 20, 2007
A little weekend music, 4/20/07
I'm trying something new this weekend. I've used www.imeem.com to create this week's playlist.
My regular site was having technical difficulties today, and tons of links on the site don't work in the first place, so I decided to seek out something better.
Feedback appreciated.
My regular site was having technical difficulties today, and tons of links on the site don't work in the first place, so I decided to seek out something better.
Feedback appreciated.
Apparently, I am male
Why didn't I think of this? The Gender Genie, some sort of textual analysis algorithm, can analyze someone's writing and then assess (or guess) whether the author is male or female. Did I say algorithm? That would be why I didn't think of this.
Anyway, I plugged in my "Monday morning provocation" piece, and here are the numbers: 2232 female, 2314 male. The Genie then pronounced, "The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!"
Just how did it arrive at this thought? It analyzed my use of "gendered" keywords, each of which has a numerical value attached. The "feminine" keywords include: with, if, not, where, be, when, your, her, we, should, she, and, me, myself, hers, was. The "masculine" keywords include: around, what, more, are, as, who, below, is, these, the, a, at, it, many, said, above, to.
As is made obvious by these lists, all women do is write about themselves (me, myself, we) and other women (she, hers). Also, they're bossy (should). And they talk about things that already happened (was) or might happen (if). Men, on the other hand, live in the present (is, are) and are obsessed with directional cues (around, below, above). Men talk about the who and the what, while women talk about the when and the where - more evidence that men are concerned with the important things, while women just dally in peripheral details. No one, it seems, is concerned with the why or the how.
If this isn't conclusive evidence of gendered (or, in keeping with their own pronouncement of me as male instead of masculine, "sexed") writing, I don't know what is. I've never considered myself to be transgendered (non-gendered, yes, but not trans), but now I'm not so sure. If this test says I'm male, I'm just going to have to reconsider.
Postscript: The Gender Genie also settled a long-burning debate that has been raging on the tubes for years. Ann Coulter is male. Hey, I just asked the question. Got a problem with the answer? Take it up with the Genie.
Post-postscript: 2232 vs. 2314. I think that's startlingly close to gender blank.
Anyway, I plugged in my "Monday morning provocation" piece, and here are the numbers: 2232 female, 2314 male. The Genie then pronounced, "The Gender Genie thinks the author of this passage is: male!"
Just how did it arrive at this thought? It analyzed my use of "gendered" keywords, each of which has a numerical value attached. The "feminine" keywords include: with, if, not, where, be, when, your, her, we, should, she, and, me, myself, hers, was. The "masculine" keywords include: around, what, more, are, as, who, below, is, these, the, a, at, it, many, said, above, to.
As is made obvious by these lists, all women do is write about themselves (me, myself, we) and other women (she, hers). Also, they're bossy (should). And they talk about things that already happened (was) or might happen (if). Men, on the other hand, live in the present (is, are) and are obsessed with directional cues (around, below, above). Men talk about the who and the what, while women talk about the when and the where - more evidence that men are concerned with the important things, while women just dally in peripheral details. No one, it seems, is concerned with the why or the how.
If this isn't conclusive evidence of gendered (or, in keeping with their own pronouncement of me as male instead of masculine, "sexed") writing, I don't know what is. I've never considered myself to be transgendered (non-gendered, yes, but not trans), but now I'm not so sure. If this test says I'm male, I'm just going to have to reconsider.
Postscript: The Gender Genie also settled a long-burning debate that has been raging on the tubes for years. Ann Coulter is male. Hey, I just asked the question. Got a problem with the answer? Take it up with the Genie.
Post-postscript: 2232 vs. 2314. I think that's startlingly close to gender blank.
Where are the atheists?
This is the question Dinesh D'Souza, Dartmouth alum and right-wing darling, has asked.
Now, I know that it's hard for wanky narcissists to imagine caring for other people more than caring for oneself or one's own agenda. It's just not in their genetic code, I guess. But, I (and lots of other atheists, I imagine) have the capacity to empathize with all sorts of people, even when neither they nor their experience bears any resemblance to me and my own.
This is because I am not a douchebag*.
You see, it is because of this capacity for empathy that I don't go around spouting hurtful things to people who are in pain. If I were to show up at a gathering of grieving people who find great comfort in believing in and talking about their god(s) and started telling them that their god doesn't exist, I would be an asshole. To use such an occasion to advance my own agenda instead of using it to comfort and support grieving fellow human beings would make me, well, it would make me Fred Phelps (only slightly better because I wouldn't be attacking an already-persecuted minority group). And it would make me Dinesh D'Souza, who assumes that there were no atheists grieving, no atheists among the dead, and uses the occasion to advance his own pro-God agenda instead of offering support to the whole of the grieving community.
Atheists are everywhere, Mr. D'Souza. Look around. We're usually the ones being considerate**.
*I don't like how this word gets its derogatory power through misogyny, but I haven't discovered a suitable replacement that packs the same punch. Any suggestions?
**Unless we're provoked, that is.
"Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found. Every time there is a public gathering there is talk of God and divine mercy and spiritual healing."
Now, I know that it's hard for wanky narcissists to imagine caring for other people more than caring for oneself or one's own agenda. It's just not in their genetic code, I guess. But, I (and lots of other atheists, I imagine) have the capacity to empathize with all sorts of people, even when neither they nor their experience bears any resemblance to me and my own.
This is because I am not a douchebag*.
You see, it is because of this capacity for empathy that I don't go around spouting hurtful things to people who are in pain. If I were to show up at a gathering of grieving people who find great comfort in believing in and talking about their god(s) and started telling them that their god doesn't exist, I would be an asshole. To use such an occasion to advance my own agenda instead of using it to comfort and support grieving fellow human beings would make me, well, it would make me Fred Phelps (only slightly better because I wouldn't be attacking an already-persecuted minority group). And it would make me Dinesh D'Souza, who assumes that there were no atheists grieving, no atheists among the dead, and uses the occasion to advance his own pro-God agenda instead of offering support to the whole of the grieving community.
Atheists are everywhere, Mr. D'Souza. Look around. We're usually the ones being considerate**.
*I don't like how this word gets its derogatory power through misogyny, but I haven't discovered a suitable replacement that packs the same punch. Any suggestions?
**Unless we're provoked, that is.
Friday Weigh In, 4/20/07
Remember in my story from Monday where I said that the scale was reporting bad news? Well, it didn't seem to get much better throughout the week, despite my rigid adherence to the plan. I weighed in at 190.0 again this morning, marking no loss at all this week. But, frankly, that's a victory after spending the entire week heavier than last Friday's weight.
I shouldn't be too surprised, I guess, as the Chinese food we ate on Friday seems to have had the same effect it always has, which is to derail the progress. Or at least slow it down. Also, we ate out on Tuesday before attending a concert, so that probably didn't help. I had a turkey burger and a baked potato, which at home would not have been a bad choice. At a restaurant, though, you're not guaranteed the Weight Watchers-friendliest preparation.
So it goes.
On a positive note, we finally got the sun to show up around here, so score on that front.
Happy weekend, all!
I shouldn't be too surprised, I guess, as the Chinese food we ate on Friday seems to have had the same effect it always has, which is to derail the progress. Or at least slow it down. Also, we ate out on Tuesday before attending a concert, so that probably didn't help. I had a turkey burger and a baked potato, which at home would not have been a bad choice. At a restaurant, though, you're not guaranteed the Weight Watchers-friendliest preparation.
So it goes.
On a positive note, we finally got the sun to show up around here, so score on that front.
Happy weekend, all!
Monday, April 16, 2007
Monday morning provocation
Boy, do I have a funny story to tell. It probably isn't really that funny - or it shouldn't be anyway - but I'm sure I will tell it in a funny way. I always do.
So, the day started out on a not very good foot. The scale was not kind to me in a "But-I'm-Following-The-Plan!" kind of way. I know there are several likely factors that converged to bring me this result, and I know - rationally, at least - that it will all even out. But that didn't stop me from being grouchy in spite of myself. I wouldn't say that I was necessarily looking for a fight, but a fight is what I found. People should know better than to fuck with me when I'm grouchy about my weight.
Anyway, a friggin' Nor'easter is upon us here in New Hampshire right now, but instead of blizzarding us into staying home from work (also a contributer to the grouch factor), we're getting rained on from several directions. It's the type of storm that sucks umbrellas inside out and goes to great lengths to figure out how to spit in your face, umbrella or no. Yes, the weather is the fifth character in this drama - the one without which the whole show would have collapsed.
Here's the story.
The bus usually stops at my bus hut fifteen minutes before and after the hour. So at 8:43 this morning, I got out of the car and made my way through puddles to take shelter with three other people in the bus hut. One of these people I call Bible Man because he often reads the Bible on the bus. It's not a clever nickname, but it's fitting. Another guy I call Scientologist Guy, as he is often reading and/or discussing Scientology on the bus. The other guy is a quiet Asian man who I have yet to nickname, and because I don't want to give him a stereotypical moniker, I will call him Paul. No, Stephen with a 'ph'.
Anyway, the bus was late this morning. And the bus hut was providing only slightly more shelter than nothing at all on accounta the storm's determination to spit in our faces. Scientology Guy said he'd seen "this type of thing happen before" with the late bus and predicted that we'd have to wait for the 9:15 bus. Bible Guy finally got so fed up when the bus was ten minutes late that he said, "Time to drive. I have room for one to Hanover. Anyone going to Hanover?" As it turns out, all three of us were going to Hanover, but he looked right at me and said, "If you're still here when I drive by, I'll give you a ride." I gave him an uneasy "thank you," as I would have preferred to wait in the rain than take a ride from Bible Man. Which is saying something, since I accepted a ride to work from a strange man not more than two weeks ago (Mom, I hope you're not reading this, and if you are, I've already promised Chris I would never do it again).
So, Bible Man pulled up, and I walked toward the car, feeling bad that I was about to get a ride while SG and Stephen would be left in the rain. I opened the door and was about to get in when I noticed that Stephen was approaching the car, too. I asked Bible Man if there was room for anyone else (which, honestly, would have taken about ten seconds' worth of rearranging stuff in the back seat), but he said, "Nope. Only one." So I, being a polite, Midwestern female who doesn't like to have people entertaining even slightly negative thoughts about her, said to Stephen, "You go. You've been here longer." But Stephen was trying to be polite, too, and was trying to negotiate a ride for all of us. In his attempt to do so, and probably because his English isn't perfect, he kind of stood in the open door of the car frozen for a few seconds. SG told him to get in the car, but he clearly felt conflicted about taking the only seat. Bible Man said, "Hurry up!" But Stephen turned away from the car, perhaps to get his bag from the bench in the bus hut, and in that second, Bible Man said, "Bye!" and pulled away with the door still open. I thought he would stop, but the door closed, and he drove away. I was thinking, "What just happened? That's not what Jesus would do!" (hat tip to Chris for adding that embellishment)
But then the story gets even more bizarre. Stephen returned to the bus hut, and SG said, "That was fucking stupid. Why didn't you get in the damned car?" Stephen clearly didn't know what to think of this comment, as he smiled uneasily and didn't say anything. Then SG said, "I know you speak English. Why didn't you get in? Now nobody gets a ride!" I was very uncomfortable by this point. I was pissed at SG for being a jerk, and I was trying to figure out if I should say something or if I should do what I normally do in these situations, which is duck for cover. I was hoping it would just fizzle out, but SG kept at it and made another reference to Stephen's stupidity and the fact that now no one would get a ride. I decided that I'd heard enough and said, "What do you care? You weren't going to take the ride, so what difference does it make to you?" And he replied, "I was trying to be polite!" Then he said to Stephen, "Were you just trying to be polite?" And when Stephen didn't answer, SG said, "I know you speak English. I've heard you! Were you just trying to be polite? Why won't you answer the question?"
At this point, I was beyond being polite. I looked at SG and said, "There's no reason to be an asshole. The bus is coming now, so it doesn't matter." To which he said, "But it was stupid!" He said some other stuff has he was climbing the stairs to the bus, so I said, "You don't need to be such a prick about it." We all got on the bus and sat down, and SG, either trying keep the fight going or to get in the last word said, "So now I'm the prick?" That was the last that was said, although I wanted to turn around and tell SG that I would be shocked if he'd never been called a prick before. But I didn't, because I'm a polite, Midwestern female who had already called a virtual stranger an asshole and a prick. To his face. That was enough for one bus ride.
Stephen and I both got off at the same stop, and SG was still on the bus. And the next thing that happened made me sad. Stephen apologized to me. For what, I'm not completely sure. He told me that he was trying to get Bible Man* to give us all a ride and that he thought there was room for us all. I told him I was surprised Bible Man was such a jerk about it and was shocked at what an asshole SG turned out to be. Then I told him that's why I don't talk to people at the bus hut - 'cause they're jerks! We laughed and wished each other a good day.
But now I have a couple of problems. First, I see these people at the bus hut often. Which means I have to now steel myself against possible verbal retribution or take a different bus. And that means either getting to work half an hour later or leaving my house half an hour earlier, neither of which seem like attractive options. Second, now that Stephen and I have shared a moment, I imagine we will share more of them. And I won't be able to call him anything other than Stephen. Maybe I will just tell him that I blogged about the altercation and that I needed a name for him. Probably, though, I will just not refer to him at all. Or I will take a different bus because I hate to be uncomfortable. Knowing me, that's the route I will take. Although before this morning I would have said it would be very unlikely for me to call a stranger an asshole or a prick, let alone both, to his face.
And yet I did just that, so anything is possible. Perhaps I uncovered a new facet of my personality when I turned 30. A facet that makes me stand up for myself and other people when jerks are picking on us for no good reason. A facet that encourages congruity between my rhetoric and my actions. A facet that allows me to give as much consideration to my own wants and needs as I give to the wants and needs of perfect strangers. That facet will come in handy for the next 60 years, I'm sure.
So, what's the moral of this story? I have no idea. It could be that you shouldn't be a prick to people you perceive as being weaker than you are, cause sometimes they will call you names, and your ego is too fragile to handle it. It could be that opportunities for growth can be found in strange places. It could be that people with short fuses ought to be avoided in extreme weather. What I will take away from this most, though, is that even when you think you have yourself all figured out, there's still room for surprises. That, and never trust the religious freaks on the bus.
*Stephen did not actually call him Bible Man.
So, the day started out on a not very good foot. The scale was not kind to me in a "But-I'm-Following-The-Plan!" kind of way. I know there are several likely factors that converged to bring me this result, and I know - rationally, at least - that it will all even out. But that didn't stop me from being grouchy in spite of myself. I wouldn't say that I was necessarily looking for a fight, but a fight is what I found. People should know better than to fuck with me when I'm grouchy about my weight.
Anyway, a friggin' Nor'easter is upon us here in New Hampshire right now, but instead of blizzarding us into staying home from work (also a contributer to the grouch factor), we're getting rained on from several directions. It's the type of storm that sucks umbrellas inside out and goes to great lengths to figure out how to spit in your face, umbrella or no. Yes, the weather is the fifth character in this drama - the one without which the whole show would have collapsed.
Here's the story.
The bus usually stops at my bus hut fifteen minutes before and after the hour. So at 8:43 this morning, I got out of the car and made my way through puddles to take shelter with three other people in the bus hut. One of these people I call Bible Man because he often reads the Bible on the bus. It's not a clever nickname, but it's fitting. Another guy I call Scientologist Guy, as he is often reading and/or discussing Scientology on the bus. The other guy is a quiet Asian man who I have yet to nickname, and because I don't want to give him a stereotypical moniker, I will call him Paul. No, Stephen with a 'ph'.
Anyway, the bus was late this morning. And the bus hut was providing only slightly more shelter than nothing at all on accounta the storm's determination to spit in our faces. Scientology Guy said he'd seen "this type of thing happen before" with the late bus and predicted that we'd have to wait for the 9:15 bus. Bible Guy finally got so fed up when the bus was ten minutes late that he said, "Time to drive. I have room for one to Hanover. Anyone going to Hanover?" As it turns out, all three of us were going to Hanover, but he looked right at me and said, "If you're still here when I drive by, I'll give you a ride." I gave him an uneasy "thank you," as I would have preferred to wait in the rain than take a ride from Bible Man. Which is saying something, since I accepted a ride to work from a strange man not more than two weeks ago (Mom, I hope you're not reading this, and if you are, I've already promised Chris I would never do it again).
So, Bible Man pulled up, and I walked toward the car, feeling bad that I was about to get a ride while SG and Stephen would be left in the rain. I opened the door and was about to get in when I noticed that Stephen was approaching the car, too. I asked Bible Man if there was room for anyone else (which, honestly, would have taken about ten seconds' worth of rearranging stuff in the back seat), but he said, "Nope. Only one." So I, being a polite, Midwestern female who doesn't like to have people entertaining even slightly negative thoughts about her, said to Stephen, "You go. You've been here longer." But Stephen was trying to be polite, too, and was trying to negotiate a ride for all of us. In his attempt to do so, and probably because his English isn't perfect, he kind of stood in the open door of the car frozen for a few seconds. SG told him to get in the car, but he clearly felt conflicted about taking the only seat. Bible Man said, "Hurry up!" But Stephen turned away from the car, perhaps to get his bag from the bench in the bus hut, and in that second, Bible Man said, "Bye!" and pulled away with the door still open. I thought he would stop, but the door closed, and he drove away. I was thinking, "What just happened? That's not what Jesus would do!" (hat tip to Chris for adding that embellishment)
But then the story gets even more bizarre. Stephen returned to the bus hut, and SG said, "That was fucking stupid. Why didn't you get in the damned car?" Stephen clearly didn't know what to think of this comment, as he smiled uneasily and didn't say anything. Then SG said, "I know you speak English. Why didn't you get in? Now nobody gets a ride!" I was very uncomfortable by this point. I was pissed at SG for being a jerk, and I was trying to figure out if I should say something or if I should do what I normally do in these situations, which is duck for cover. I was hoping it would just fizzle out, but SG kept at it and made another reference to Stephen's stupidity and the fact that now no one would get a ride. I decided that I'd heard enough and said, "What do you care? You weren't going to take the ride, so what difference does it make to you?" And he replied, "I was trying to be polite!" Then he said to Stephen, "Were you just trying to be polite?" And when Stephen didn't answer, SG said, "I know you speak English. I've heard you! Were you just trying to be polite? Why won't you answer the question?"
At this point, I was beyond being polite. I looked at SG and said, "There's no reason to be an asshole. The bus is coming now, so it doesn't matter." To which he said, "But it was stupid!" He said some other stuff has he was climbing the stairs to the bus, so I said, "You don't need to be such a prick about it." We all got on the bus and sat down, and SG, either trying keep the fight going or to get in the last word said, "So now I'm the prick?" That was the last that was said, although I wanted to turn around and tell SG that I would be shocked if he'd never been called a prick before. But I didn't, because I'm a polite, Midwestern female who had already called a virtual stranger an asshole and a prick. To his face. That was enough for one bus ride.
Stephen and I both got off at the same stop, and SG was still on the bus. And the next thing that happened made me sad. Stephen apologized to me. For what, I'm not completely sure. He told me that he was trying to get Bible Man* to give us all a ride and that he thought there was room for us all. I told him I was surprised Bible Man was such a jerk about it and was shocked at what an asshole SG turned out to be. Then I told him that's why I don't talk to people at the bus hut - 'cause they're jerks! We laughed and wished each other a good day.
But now I have a couple of problems. First, I see these people at the bus hut often. Which means I have to now steel myself against possible verbal retribution or take a different bus. And that means either getting to work half an hour later or leaving my house half an hour earlier, neither of which seem like attractive options. Second, now that Stephen and I have shared a moment, I imagine we will share more of them. And I won't be able to call him anything other than Stephen. Maybe I will just tell him that I blogged about the altercation and that I needed a name for him. Probably, though, I will just not refer to him at all. Or I will take a different bus because I hate to be uncomfortable. Knowing me, that's the route I will take. Although before this morning I would have said it would be very unlikely for me to call a stranger an asshole or a prick, let alone both, to his face.
And yet I did just that, so anything is possible. Perhaps I uncovered a new facet of my personality when I turned 30. A facet that makes me stand up for myself and other people when jerks are picking on us for no good reason. A facet that encourages congruity between my rhetoric and my actions. A facet that allows me to give as much consideration to my own wants and needs as I give to the wants and needs of perfect strangers. That facet will come in handy for the next 60 years, I'm sure.
So, what's the moral of this story? I have no idea. It could be that you shouldn't be a prick to people you perceive as being weaker than you are, cause sometimes they will call you names, and your ego is too fragile to handle it. It could be that opportunities for growth can be found in strange places. It could be that people with short fuses ought to be avoided in extreme weather. What I will take away from this most, though, is that even when you think you have yourself all figured out, there's still room for surprises. That, and never trust the religious freaks on the bus.
*Stephen did not actually call him Bible Man.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
April in New Hampshire
So, it's April, but you can't really tell. These photos were from a couple of weeks ago. And just as the snow was almost all melted, we got hit again. We're pretty sleety in this part of the state right now, and it's projected to get worse overnight.
I am so over New Hampshire!
Friday, April 13, 2007
Friday Weigh In, 4/13/07
It's Friday the 13th, but it hasn't been unlucky for me so far. I weighed in at 190.0 this morning, which is 2 pounds this week and 22.5 overall. I wouldn't call it luck, though. Not exactly hard work, either, but not luck. Luck would be if I had eaten pizza at every meal and still lost 2 pounds. No, this was no stroke of luck. Commitment to a sensible, doable plan is all. And being in the right place mentally. And moving my body more. Basically what I'm saying is that I'm steering this ship (with some navigation assistance from a dedicated, supportive partner), and I'd like to own the accomplishment. No sharing any glory with the universe or other mystical forces.
My favorite thing about weight loss this week is that I can finally wear my wedding rings again. It's been awhile.
Tonight we're going to order Chinese food and watch a movie with our downstairs neighbor. We don't know what we'll be watching yet, but the food and the company will be sublime.
Happy weekend, all!
My favorite thing about weight loss this week is that I can finally wear my wedding rings again. It's been awhile.
Tonight we're going to order Chinese food and watch a movie with our downstairs neighbor. We don't know what we'll be watching yet, but the food and the company will be sublime.
Happy weekend, all!
"Thank you for degrading me."
Photo by Peter Lazar-AP"Young men from the folk ensemble Carnica throw a bucket of cold water at a young woman during Easter Monday celebrations in Kosice, Slovakia, on April 9. The ancient habit of whipping women with plaited willow stems and dousing them with cold water is said to provide them with good health and freshness. The soaked girls give colored or painted eggs to the boys as a sign of their thanks and forgiveness." - MSNBC.com
This appeared on MSNBC's Week in Pictures and also on US News & World Report's Day in Photos, among several other places. No commentary follows. Just a drive-by (click-by?) reporting of misogyny masked as tradition. Notice how the two men in the photo have to hold the woman from squirming away. But she will thank them for this later. Because that's the appropriate response upon being whipped and "freshened" by a cold-water dousing in public.
Puke.
Harvey Fierstein on Don Imus
Actor Harvey Fierstein wrote a really great piece on the whole Don Imus thing in the New York Times today. He notes that intolerant language has so coarsened American discourse that he's surprised anyone noticed Imus' comments (and those of other hate-spewing celebrities of late) at all. He takes people to task not for asking for Imus to be punished, but for doing so while harboring intolerant thoughts and using intolerant language in their (our) own lives. Hurtful language and actions are hurtful language and actions, no matter the target, and we have to be more vigilant and responsive when we hear it and see it. Our outrage at intolerance oughtn't stop at our own doorstep.
"The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently."
Thank you, Mr. Fierstein.
"The real point is that you cannot harbor malice toward others and then cry foul when someone displays intolerance against you. Prejudice tolerated is intolerance encouraged. Rise up in righteousness when you witness the words and deeds of hate, but only if you are willing to rise up against them all, including your own. Otherwise suffer the slings and arrows of disrespect silently."
Thank you, Mr. Fierstein.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Imus gets the boot
It's about time. Unfortunately, it looks like CBS is going to start airing Opie & Anthony, which isn't any better. It's like what they say about plucking a gray hair.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Roker gets it right
Al Roker is calling for Don Imus to be fired over his "nappy-headed hos" comment. I'm no huge Al Roker fan (I don't dislike him, but I don't normally find him all that entertaining), but he's right on about Imus. As usual, I'm disappointed in the public reaction, as evidenced in many of the comments following Roker's commentary.
One comment that stands out was actually authored with good intentions (I think). The (white, female) author says Imus' comment was sexist, not racist, and that she's outraged that no one is focusing on the sexist part. While I agree that there is a huge, equally offensive misogynist element to his comment, one simply cannot dismiss the "nappy-headed" part as anything other than racist. And here's the nifty* thing: the comment, like most oppressive acts, doesn't have to be (and, in fact, isn't) only one or the other. The lines of power at play here are inextricably linked such that we can only really understand one thread by considering all of them together. These comments aren't racist or sexist. They're racist and sexist.
People experience multiple forms of oppression (unless, of course, they have the privilege of having been born white and male and monied), and the overall effect is not simply additive. Women of color don't just tack on the sexism they experience to the racism they experience. Lesbians don't compartmentalize the sexism they experience as women from the homophobia they experience on account of their queerness. Why? Because the effects of each brand of oppression are multiplicative, and the addition of multiple minority identities changes the equation exponentially. The experience of inhabiting a female body with brown skin is qualitatively different from the experience of inhabiting a male body with brown skin, and when you add being disabled (for example) to the mix, the overall experience doesn't simply absorb a stand-alone quantity of oppression resulting from disability. When interacting with this person, people don't see a disabled person. They see a brown, female, disabled person, and she is seen differently from a brown, queer, able-bodied male. Both experience racism, but their other identities intersect with and change that experience in important and multiple ways.
All of this is to say that you don't have to discount one form of oppression to legitimate another. In fact, if we are to have any understanding of the experiences of any form of oppression, we must consider the myriad ways that intersecting power lines complicate these issues. We can't free people from only one line of oppression, as the tangle of the others will pull them (us) down just as fast. We must understand all of the lines and how they work together and then liberate all people from all of them.
I don't know if this is exactly what Al Roker was going for, but kudos to him for starting the conversation.
*denotes sarcasm
One comment that stands out was actually authored with good intentions (I think). The (white, female) author says Imus' comment was sexist, not racist, and that she's outraged that no one is focusing on the sexist part. While I agree that there is a huge, equally offensive misogynist element to his comment, one simply cannot dismiss the "nappy-headed" part as anything other than racist. And here's the nifty* thing: the comment, like most oppressive acts, doesn't have to be (and, in fact, isn't) only one or the other. The lines of power at play here are inextricably linked such that we can only really understand one thread by considering all of them together. These comments aren't racist or sexist. They're racist and sexist.
People experience multiple forms of oppression (unless, of course, they have the privilege of having been born white and male and monied), and the overall effect is not simply additive. Women of color don't just tack on the sexism they experience to the racism they experience. Lesbians don't compartmentalize the sexism they experience as women from the homophobia they experience on account of their queerness. Why? Because the effects of each brand of oppression are multiplicative, and the addition of multiple minority identities changes the equation exponentially. The experience of inhabiting a female body with brown skin is qualitatively different from the experience of inhabiting a male body with brown skin, and when you add being disabled (for example) to the mix, the overall experience doesn't simply absorb a stand-alone quantity of oppression resulting from disability. When interacting with this person, people don't see a disabled person. They see a brown, female, disabled person, and she is seen differently from a brown, queer, able-bodied male. Both experience racism, but their other identities intersect with and change that experience in important and multiple ways.
All of this is to say that you don't have to discount one form of oppression to legitimate another. In fact, if we are to have any understanding of the experiences of any form of oppression, we must consider the myriad ways that intersecting power lines complicate these issues. We can't free people from only one line of oppression, as the tangle of the others will pull them (us) down just as fast. We must understand all of the lines and how they work together and then liberate all people from all of them.
I don't know if this is exactly what Al Roker was going for, but kudos to him for starting the conversation.
*denotes sarcasm
Monday, April 9, 2007
Need some new shirts?
I don't want to encourage consumerism, but on the off chance you were going to be buying a new t-shirt anyway, check out Radical Rags. They've got some good war stuff, some radical feminist stuff, and some shirts with pictures of some pretty righteous people (sadly, they're all dudes). Here is a sampling.
Happy shopping!
Happy shopping!
Friday, April 6, 2007
Friday Weigh In, 4/6/07
This week I only officially lost half a pound. I weighed in this morning at 192.0. Which is a little confusing since yesterday and Wednesday I was at 191.0. I know I didn't gain an actual pound in a day, as I came in well under my point limit every day. But it could be all the water I drank yesterday. And the salt. And possibly other factors. I'm not too worked up over it.
Shit happens. And at least it's still a loss. That's a total of 20.5 pounds overall. I still rock.
Happy weekend, all!
Shit happens. And at least it's still a loss. That's a total of 20.5 pounds overall. I still rock.
Happy weekend, all!
A little weekend music, 4/6/07
This week's music playlist is all about songs and artists that have been featured on Grey's Anatomy. Insufferable Music Snobs will pooh-pooh the list for that reason, but they actually pick some good music for the show. Enjoy!
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Today Show and CNET.com think women are frivolous
Full disclosure: MSNBC.com is a joint venture of MSN, NBC, and unadulterated sexism.
Jeebus, I hate it when companies/shows/things I generally like make it impossible for me to ignore their sexism. Not that I'm trying to ignore sexism when I encounter it. Just the opposite, really. I encounter it everywhere and almost always bring it to someone's attention - even if that someone is the already-sympathetic partner. But sometimes a blamer needs a break from all the misogyny and so is willing to put on mini-blinders just long enough to enjoy herself for fifteen minutes. So it's pretty frustrating when things jar me back to the depressing reality that is this: people don't think very highly of women.
The latest installment in the Women Are So Cute When They Want to Play With Men's Toys series comes to us from some knob at CNET.com, who so very kindly graced The Today Show with his presence to point out some tech gadgets women might find shiny and pretty. Seriously, what would we do without guys like this to point out girlie versions of what are mostly non-gendered toys to begin with? Can we not even shop correctly? That's the one thing you guys will give us!
The first item on the list isn't so bad. It's a digital camera, and aside from it being "stylish" and slim, I can't tell why it would be specifically marketed to women. They do make sure to mention that it's small enough to fit in a small purse, though, so maybe that's it.
The second item is a laptop. A pink laptop. "Designed to express personality." What personality that might be is anyone's guess, and my guess is plastic.
Item number three is an XM radio. You guessed it. A pink XM radio. Buying this, it is claimed, will help support the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation's fight against breast cancer. I would bet all $200 dollars of this pink nonsense that not a single dollar goes toward actually fighting breast cancer. But that argument is for another post.
Next on the list is a "fashion phone." Fashionable, it seems, because it is "accentuated with leather, cloth, metal, and ceramic-inspired finishes." It has a glass mirror display for, I presume, checking your lipstick.
Then there is something called a designer computer mouse. You can get a ladybug (how cute!), a bunny rabbit (how soft!), or a leopard print (how sexy!) mouse. If you're willing to shell out $25,000, you can even get a diamond-laced mouse. Are they effing serious with this shit? Since when do grown women want ladybugs and bunny rabbits on their computer accessories? And even if some do, it is not behavior we should be encouraging. Talk about giving men permission to think of you as a prepubescent girl! Eeew. Here's a picture of the only mouse on their site that is sold out right now. Big surprise.
Up next is an MP3 watch, which actually has some good features. I can imagine fully-evolved people thinking this is kind of cool. Not me, but someone. But just to make sure we ladies know this product is for us, the folks at Origim pinked it up for us. Silver dial with pink bank. Whatever that means.
And finally, by Rakku, a designer shoe wheel. Because it wouldn't be a list of stuff women want if it didn't have something to do with shoes. "Rakku," by the way, means "rack." Coincidence?
Ugh. Another day in a world where misogyny runs amok. Sorry to burden you with all of this. I just thougt you might want to update your boycott list. Or girlcott list.
It's lunchtime. Where are my fucking blinders?
Jeebus, I hate it when companies/shows/things I generally like make it impossible for me to ignore their sexism. Not that I'm trying to ignore sexism when I encounter it. Just the opposite, really. I encounter it everywhere and almost always bring it to someone's attention - even if that someone is the already-sympathetic partner. But sometimes a blamer needs a break from all the misogyny and so is willing to put on mini-blinders just long enough to enjoy herself for fifteen minutes. So it's pretty frustrating when things jar me back to the depressing reality that is this: people don't think very highly of women.
The latest installment in the Women Are So Cute When They Want to Play With Men's Toys series comes to us from some knob at CNET.com, who so very kindly graced The Today Show with his presence to point out some tech gadgets women might find shiny and pretty. Seriously, what would we do without guys like this to point out girlie versions of what are mostly non-gendered toys to begin with? Can we not even shop correctly? That's the one thing you guys will give us!
The first item on the list isn't so bad. It's a digital camera, and aside from it being "stylish" and slim, I can't tell why it would be specifically marketed to women. They do make sure to mention that it's small enough to fit in a small purse, though, so maybe that's it.
The second item is a laptop. A pink laptop. "Designed to express personality." What personality that might be is anyone's guess, and my guess is plastic.
Item number three is an XM radio. You guessed it. A pink XM radio. Buying this, it is claimed, will help support the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation's fight against breast cancer. I would bet all $200 dollars of this pink nonsense that not a single dollar goes toward actually fighting breast cancer. But that argument is for another post.
Next on the list is a "fashion phone." Fashionable, it seems, because it is "accentuated with leather, cloth, metal, and ceramic-inspired finishes." It has a glass mirror display for, I presume, checking your lipstick.
Then there is something called a designer computer mouse. You can get a ladybug (how cute!), a bunny rabbit (how soft!), or a leopard print (how sexy!) mouse. If you're willing to shell out $25,000, you can even get a diamond-laced mouse. Are they effing serious with this shit? Since when do grown women want ladybugs and bunny rabbits on their computer accessories? And even if some do, it is not behavior we should be encouraging. Talk about giving men permission to think of you as a prepubescent girl! Eeew. Here's a picture of the only mouse on their site that is sold out right now. Big surprise.
Up next is an MP3 watch, which actually has some good features. I can imagine fully-evolved people thinking this is kind of cool. Not me, but someone. But just to make sure we ladies know this product is for us, the folks at Origim pinked it up for us. Silver dial with pink bank. Whatever that means.
And finally, by Rakku, a designer shoe wheel. Because it wouldn't be a list of stuff women want if it didn't have something to do with shoes. "Rakku," by the way, means "rack." Coincidence?
Ugh. Another day in a world where misogyny runs amok. Sorry to burden you with all of this. I just thougt you might want to update your boycott list. Or girlcott list.
It's lunchtime. Where are my fucking blinders?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
