: : : minette moderne : : :

For anyone who periodically checks in for updates...

2005-07-11T12:33:00.000-05:00

I've started blogging at Typepad at the following URL:

http://caryatid.typepad.com/

I like Typepad infinitely more as a blogging tool, and I wanted a fresh start to use all of what I've learned on my "training ground" here. Enjoy!

More Information Than You'd Ever Want to Know About Me

2005-06-05T14:20:00.000-05:00

I read this list on a blog that I am a *huge* fan of and was sucked in by its incredible time-wasting potential. I've never linked to someone else's blog before and, because I am new to this whole blogging thing, I'm not entirely sure what the etiquette is. But here goes anyway (I've added a few of my own comments with "*"s):

Copy this whole list into your blog. Bold the things that are true about you. Add something that is true about you.

01. I miss somebody right now.
02. I don’t watch much TV these days.
03. I love olives
04. I own lots of books.
06. I wear glasses or contact lenses.
07. I love to play video games.
08. I’ve tried marijuana.
09. I’ve watched porn movies.
10. I have been in a threesome.
11. I have been the psycho-ex in a past relationship.
12. I believe honesty is usually the best policy.
15. I curse sometimes.
16. I have changed a lot mentally over the last year.
17. I have a hobby.
19. I carry my knife/razor everywhere with me.
20. I’m TOTALLY smart.
21. I’ve never broken someone’s bones.
22. I have a secret that I am ashamed to reveal.
23. I hate the rain.
24. I’m paranoid at times.
25. I would get plastic surgery if it were 100% safe, free of cost, and scar-free.
26. I need money right now.
27. I love sushi.
28. I talk really, really fast.
29. I have fresh breath in the morning.
30. I have long hair.
31. I have lost money in Las Vegas.
32. I have at least one brother and/or one sister.
33. I was born in a country outside of the U.S.
34. I shave my legs (females) or face (males) on a regular basis.
35. I have a twin (or a triplet, or somesuch).
36. I have worn fake hair/fingernails/eyelashes in the past.
37. I couldn’t survive without Caller I.D.
38. I like the way that I look.
39. I have lied to a good friend in the last 6 months.
40. I know how to cornrow.
41. I am usually pessimistic.
42. I have a lot of mood swings.
43. I think prostitution should be legalized.
44. I think Britney Spears is pretty.
45. Slept with a Suitemate.
46. I have a hidden talent.
47. I’m always hyper no matter how much sugar I have.
48. I have a lot of friends.
49. I am currently single.
50. I have pecked someone of the same sex. (given that pecked means kissed…)
51. I enjoy talking on the phone.
52. I practically live in sweatpants or PJ pants.
53. I love to shop.
54. I would rather shop than eat.
55. I would classify myself as ghetto.
56. I’m bourgie and have worn a sweater tied around my shoulders.
57. I’m obsessed with my Xanga or Livejournal.
58. I don’t hate anyone. I dislike them.
59. I’m a pretty good dancer
60. I don’t think Mike Tyson raped Desiree Washington.
61. I’m completely embarrassed to be seen with my mother.
62. I have a cell phone.
63. I believe in God.
64. I watch MTV on a daily basis.
65. I have passed out drunk in the past 6 months.
66. I love drama. (Somebody else’s, not my own)
67. I have never been in a real relationship before.
68. I’ve rejected someone before.
69. I currently have a crush/like someone.
70. I have no idea what I want to do for the rest of my life.
71. I want to have children in the future.
72. I have changed a diaper before.
73. I’ve called the cops on a friend before.
74. I bite my nails.
75. I am a member of the Tom Green fan club.
76. I’m not allergic to anything.
77. I have a lot to learn.
78. I have been with someone at least 10 years older or younger.
79. I plan on seeing Ice Cube’s newest “Friday” movie.
80. I am shy around the opposite sex.
81. I’m online 24/7, even as an away message.
82. I have at least 5 away messages saved.
83. I have tried alcohol or drugs before.
84. I have made a move on a friend’s significant other or crush in the past.
85. I own the “South Park” movie.
86. I have avoided assignments at work school to be on Xanga or Livejournal.
87. When I was a kid I played “the birds and the bees” with a neighbor or chum.
88. I enjoy some country music.
89. I would die for my best friends.
90. I think that Pizza Hut has the best pizza.
91. I watch soap operas whenever I can
92. I’m obsessive, anal retentive, and often a perfectionist.
93. I have used my sexuality to advance my career.
94. I love Michael Jackson, scandals and all.
95. I know all the words to Slick Rick’s “Children’s Story”.
96. Halloween is awesome because you get free candy.
97. I watch Spongebob Squarepants and I like it.
98. I have dated a close friend’s ex.
99. I like surveys/memes.
100. I am happy at this moment.
101. I’m obsessed with guys.
102. I am bisexual.*If a 2 on the Kinsey scale counts as 'bisexual', then I suppose so*
103. Democrat.
104. Conservative Republican.
105. I am punk rockish.
106. I am preppy.
107. I go for older guys/girls, not younger
108. I study for tests most of the time.
109. I tie my shoelaces differently from anyone I’ve ever met.
110. I can work on a car.
111. I love my job.
112. I am comfortable with who I am right now.
113. I have more than just my ears pierced.
114. I walk barefoot wherever I can.
115. I have jumped off a bridge.
116. I love sea turtles.
117. I spend ridiculous amounts of money on makeup.
118. I believe in prophetic dreams.
119. I plan on achieving a major goal/dream.
120. I am proficient on a musical instrument.
121. I worked at McDonald’s restaurant. (How about Burger King?)
122. I hate office jobs.
123. I love sci-fi movies.
124. I’ve never been in love.
125. I think water rules.
126. I am going to college out of state.
127. I am adopted.
128. I like sausage.
129. I am a pyro.
130. I love the Red Sox.
131. I have thrown up from crying too much.
132. I have been intentionally hurt by people that I loved.
133. I love kisses.
134. I fall for the worst people and have been hurt every time.
135. I adore bright colors.
136. I love Dear Abby.
137. I can’t live without black eyeliner.
138. I think school is awesome.
139. I think pigtails serve a purpose. *If that purpose is to hold my short hair back...*
140. I don’t know why the hell I just did this stupid thing.
141. I usually like covers better than originals.
142. I don’t like multi-textured ice cream
143. I think John Cusack is adorable.
144. I f**king hate chain theme restaurants like Applebees and TGIFridays.
145. I watch Food Network way too much.I
146. I love coaching youth sports.
147. I can pick up things with my toes.
148. I can’t whistle.
149. I can move my tounge in waves, much like a snakes’ slither.
150. I have ridden/owned a horse.
151. I still have every journal I’ve ever written in.
152. I can't for the life of me keep my room clean for more than a day.

I just can't.

Via Feministe.

Take that, Krugman, you lazy bum!

2005-06-03T14:40:00.000-05:00

Tom Friedman's piece today is about how people in India and China are willing to work much harder than people in western Europe, working longer hours for less wages and less benefits (lisez: "French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck."). Then, at the end of the article, it says in italics:

Paul Krugman is on vacation.

I know this actually means that Friedman is taking over his op-ed spot or something while he is on vacation, but it still struck me as pretty amusing.

Have another post about Star Wars

2005-06-02T16:26:00.000-05:00

I realize Star Wars is not the type of flick you go to if you want to learn something about yourself or the way the world works, but when I saw SWE3: RoTS this past Friday, my hang-ups with the movie prevented me from enjoying from what I'm sure were some truly cutting-edge lightsaber fight scenes. Or something.

First of all, as with the first two movies, the dialogue and acting were horrendous to the point where they distracted me from the plot; I think I snickered through about 70% of the scenes I wasn't supposed to snicker through. The one exception was the following exchange, which takes place shortly after Yoda enters the room where Darth Sidious is lounging and hurls two guards against the wall (with the Force, no less):

DARTH SlDIOUS: I have waited a long time for this moment, my little green friend. At last, the Jedi are no more.

YODA: Not if anything to say about it, I have!

How badass is that??

My real bone to pick with the movie was not with the dialogue, but with the character who was once Queen Amidala, then Senator Amidala, and now might as well be referred to as Mrs. Anakin Skywalker since she apparently left her identity by the lake on Naboo. Seriously, George, what did you do to Padme?

In the first two films, Padme Naberrie Amidala (I just had to fight the urge to be lame and add 'Jingleheimer Schmidt') had the air of regality and authority. She was confident. She made difficult decisions quickly and with sound judgment. She even got to go shoot the bad guys right alongside everyone else. But then, BAM!, she gets pregnant and all of a sudden she's all weepy and frightened and appears in all of about two scenes outside of the apartment she and Anakin share. I think she might even be barefoot. Here are some real gems from her :

PADME: You don't need more power, Anakin. I believe you can protect me against anything, just as you are.

PADME: Oh, Anakin, I'm afraid.

PADME: Anakin, all I want is your love.

Now, I understand that it must be difficult to be secretly married to someone who is slowly turning evil and losing his soul, and I appreciate the artistic attempt to illustrate how deeply this troubles Padme, but come on. Does she really need people telling her to rest all the time? Does she really need C3P0, the droid who is scared of the dark, to "watch over" her when she leaves the house? And what's up with her hardly working at all while she's pregnant? Did the Senate fire her when they found out she was knocked up? Is it possible that this galaxy far, far away contains beings of all different sizes, colors, and, erm, textures that interact without any kind of interspecies discrimination yet the basic principles of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act are completely foreign to them??

The line that really blows my mind is one she delivers when she is lying in a medical clinic half-unconscious because Anakin lost his temper and tried to kill her. Girlfriend opens her eyes, looks hazily around the room and says:

PADME: Obi-Wan, is Anakin all right?

Are you kidding me?? Shouldn't the first line out of her mouth be something like, "Excuse me, Mr. Medical Droid, can I please have a cold glass of water and a baseball bat? I have some Revenge business of my own that I need to attend to." And as if that wasn't enough, she later dies because she loses the will to live. That's right. Her hubby goes nuts, and she has nothing left to live for. Not the fact that she is a former monarch and has a powerful position in the Senate (from which she could possibly lead some sort of internal resistance against the rising Empire). Not even those two kids she just gave birth to. She just, you know, doesn't want to live anymore.

It's really too bad that this Star Wars movie had to veer so horribly off track with its female lead. In Episodes 4-6, Leia was just as much of a 'hero' as Luke and Han Solo were (to me, one of the most memorable scenes of the Trilogy was in the beginning of Return of the Jedi when Leia goes undercover to rescue Han), and those films were made nearly thirty years ago. I hope in this galaxy we see a little more social progress.

Speaking of love...

2005-06-02T09:05:00.000-05:00

I saw this gorgeous specimen in bright orange in a shop window near Dupont the other day and was instantly smitten. I am seriously. Jonesing. For this bike.

What is love? (Baby, don't hurt me or I'll stalk you)

2005-06-01T16:36:00.000-05:00

Apparently it's something akin to severe, Ophelia-style psychosis. So how long do you suppose it will take for Merck to crank out a treatment drug and the FDA to approve it?

No, seriously. Now that it is believed that a person can actually die from a broken heart, and there is mounting evidence that a chemical explaination exists for a drive similar to "craving for drugs" that "can be stronger than the will to live," I wouldn't be surprised if a Methadone for Heartbreak would soon be in the works. It would sure beat the traditional cure: drinking heavily and listening to a lot of Jeff Buckley.

SUPER INCONSEQUENTIAL BUT RELATED ADDENDUM:

Just had this IM conversation, which very aptly illustrates some of the points in the article:

Friend Person: What gives with this [love business] being so hard?
Me [sounding uncharacteristically wise]: If it were easy, most of the Western canon wouldn't have been written.
Friend Person: fuck the canon
Friend Person: get me the chick

Star Wars as the chronology of my post-adolescence

2005-05-27T14:37:00.000-05:00

You're always at least to some degree cognizant of how drastically your life is changing in your late teens/early 20's, but I was reflecting earlier today on how conveniently the release of Episodes I, II, and III of Star Wars serve as markers for that change (this is about as sci-fi geeky as I'll ever get, so don't blink or you'll miss it).

Episode I:
I was a junior in high school. My drama geek friends and I spent three days taking turns standing in line to get tickets to see on opening day. I was personally too nerdy to miss school, but I was badass enough to ditch Fiddler on the Roof rehearsal to catch the 3pm showing. I sat in the front row with my significantly less nerdy significant other who would later go on to become prom king and, I hear, nearly fail out of college on several occasions (he would also later go on to break up with me for being, euphamistically, a 'shiksah goddess'). Life goals: become a neurosurgeon, a philanthropist, and a New Yorker.

Episode II:
I was halfway finished with college. I saw the film in the same theater in Denver where I had seen Episode I. I was scarred enough by the presence of Jar Jar Binks in the first one that I didn't bother waiting in line for days (or even hours) this time, but George Lucas still had enough of a place in my heart that I the film two days after it was released. My moviegoing companion was my father, who quipped at least four times before the show, "It's Star Wars... even if it's terrible, it's just one of those things you have to see." I was starting to prepare (mentally, at least) to leave for New York for the summer and for Europe for the following year. I managed to pick a better significant other this go-round; he would go on to be an attorney and remain one of the most kind-hearted people I'm sure I'll ever cross paths with. Life goals: become a human rights advocate and a regular at the ECHR (or, alternatively, get the US involved in the int'l human rights system), a humanitarian, and, eventually, a New Yorker.

Episode III:
I'm a year out of college and into whatever cheesetastic sociological catch phrase you want to use to describe the post-college years. It has been over a week since Episode III was released, and I have yet to see it (I was "saving myself" to see it with, euphamistically, a 'good friend of mine' but he, erm, made other plans). Life goals? Good question. Become something awesome, I'm sure. Oh, and, eventually, become a New Yorker.

I think we can all issue a collective "phew!" that Lucas isn't serving up another round of these, but here's hoping that in May of '08 something Star Wars-themed reminds me to take a minute crack a smile at how drastically my life will have changed yet again.

Interpret THIS!!!

2005-05-26T16:31:00.000-05:00

I finally got around to seeing The Interpreter last night -- I say 'finally' because they don't they don't make movies that are tailor-made for Katherine that often (seriously; a suspense movie about the UN, African politics, and the importance of diplomacy?) It did everything I want my suspense movies to do: it gripped me, it intrigued me, it had a clever but predictable twist at the end. Overall, I'd give it high marks for entertainment.

BUT (yes, here comes the but), as with all movies that involve Africa, I had a hard time getting past the fact that people in this country have a view of Africa so narrow that you have to step sideways to get through it. I think people must know a combined total of about three things about the whole damn continent (yes, contrary to what you learned from watching Mean Girls, Africa is actually a collection of countries, not just one). Hollywood has apparently dictated that movies about Africa must contain some combination of the following:
- Genocide
- Cheetahs
- Tribal masks (I can't really explain this one, but they always seem to be there)
- AIDS
- Music heavy on the drums underlying at least 50% of all scenes, and 100% of the canned shots of the Serengeti at dusk (of which there must be at least three)

This movie had 'em all. What I don't get, though, is this: African history, culture, and politics is so much richer than this, and the producers of this film clearly had *some* interest in bringing to light some of the political conflict in a set of countries about which we are ignorant. So why not use a major motion picture as a vehicle to educate people about some more nuanced aspects of Africa instead of reenforcing the same five pre-conceived notions about Africa that we currently hold? For God's sake, will someone please make a movie about some other part of Africa than nebulous 'sub-Sahara' or at least make the point that the countries IN Central Africa have distinct histories, languages, cultures, etc.?

2005-05-26T09:10:00.000-05:00

On the one hand, I'm glad that people (well, male people) are finally starting to concede that most companies as they currently operate are not ideal (to say the least) for women who want to work and have a family. But I'll admit that I'm irked that both Tierney and Miller write about this as though a) it's some novel idea that they are among the first to trumpet, and b) they are doing some noble deed by speaking on behalf of women (just look at the titles: "What Women Want" and "Listen to my Wife", respectively). Women have been saying this stuff for decades, guys. I'm glad you're now starting to tune in, but do you really need to be so patronizing about it?

you know... stuff...

2005-05-18T17:35:00.000-05:00

I have nothing remotely profound to say at the moment (then again, do I ever?) so I'm going to vomitwrite some things about my life recently:

-I have recently developed a mild obsession with the band The Decemberists. I picked up Picaresque no more than two weeks before I saw them at the 930 Club and was instantly sold. I've since picked up Her Majesty the Decemberists and Castaways and Cutouts (incidentally, how cool is the illustration on the cover of the latter album?). I haven't been so instantly drawn in by a band since my slightly less mild obsession with the Smashing Pumpkins roughly a decade ago. I realized fairly quickly that what hooked me in both cases was exactly the same: both write lyrics with a striking literary quality that are steeped with imagery. Observe:

From "Porcelina of the Vast Oceans" (Smashing Pumpkins):

In the slipstream of thoughtless thoughts
The light of all that's good
The light of all that's true
To the fringes gladly, I walk unadored
With gods and their creations
With filth and disease
Porcelina, she waits for me there
With seashells hissing lullabyes
And wispers fathomes deep inside my own
Hidden thoughts and alibies
My secret thoughts come alive

From "Los Angeles, I'm Yours" (Decemberists):

There is a city by the sea
A gentle company
I don’t suppose you want to
And as it tells its sorry tale
In harrowing detail
Its hollowness will haunt you
Its streets and boulevards
Orphans and oligarchs it hears
A plaintive melody
Truncated symphony
An ocean’s garbled vomit on the shore,
Los Angeles, I’m yours

I guess ten dollar words are what really does it for me music-wise.

-Pops is visiting the bro and me in DC, so I took the afternoon off of work to play tour guide. We saw a sizeable part of the city, from Penn Quarter all the way up through Adams Morgan. I suppose this could be because he is one of the few out-of-town guests I've had here, but for the first time in the eleven months I've lived here, I actually felt like this is *my* town. Worse yet (and don't tell New York I said this), I realized that I'm kind of smitten with it. This place has some serious character once you know where to look.

-On a completely different note, I've been wearing this t-shirt:

around town lately and I gotta say, I am sorely disappointed in my generation. I thought this shirt was the funniest damn thing in the world when I saw it, but NO ONE GETS IT. The cashier lady at Whole Foods, who couldn't have been more than 24, even told me that that my shirt was "kind of mean." Was I really only one of very few kidlets in the late 80's/early 90's who was obsessed with Oregon Trail (there -- now if you were feeling like a nitwit because you didn't catch the reference the first time, you know what I'm talking about)?? Come on, crowd!

2005-05-18T10:25:00.000-05:00

The NPR spring fund drive (or, as my mom used to call it, the Begathon) is in full swing this week, so my mornings are presently filled half with news and half with people informing me in a variety of creative ways that I am a free-riding loser if I don't fork over some cash pronto. This morning, though, the fine folks at public radio reached new levels of, erm, creativity. Immediately following a story on how China has the Chinese press by the balls and throws reporters in the slammer practically on a whim, one of the fund drive staff had the gall to say something along the lines of "Well, we won't detain you long, but right now we'd like to ask you to take the time to donate...". Rim shot!!

Towanda! in Rwanda

2005-05-03T10:19:00.000-05:00

It was recently announced that Rwanda suprassed all of the Scandanavian countries as the country whose parliament has the highest percentage of women. The cause for this is some combination of government quotas, a UNDP initiative to get more women into leadership positions in the country, the 7-to-1 gender ratio of women to men after the genocide and armed conflicts of the 90's, and an apparent widespread desire get involved after the country was wrecked by the genocide. Government quotas would explain why a certain number of women were elected, but it in this situation the quotas were exceeded, and there are UNDP initiatives like this in plenty of countries that don't yield results like this. The 7-to-1 gender ratio can't totally explain it either; more women in parliament meant that more women had to actively step forward and sheer numbers wouldn't necessarily cause them to do that. There are plenty of post-war societies throughout history where women far outnumbered men yet men still controlled the government. The cause I find most likely and the most interesting is the last one: an unprecedented number of women were driven to run for parliament because they were desparate to do something to change a dire situation. I find this hopeful because it serves as an example of how women in developing countries will, if given a slight push by quotas or int'l aid, powerfully sieze control to get their country the hell out of trouble. But if the true motivating factor behind large numbers of women running for parliament in a traditionally patriarchal society like Rwanda is a desire to change an undesireable situation, then could this also be used to support the idea that part of the reason women don't run for parliament in more developed and less patriarchical countries like the U.S. is because they don't see their situation as undesireable (or at least not undesireable enough to storm Congress the way the ladies of Rwanda did)?

ads that are worth zero words

2005-05-02T14:31:00.001-05:00

Looks like Ms. Magazine has added an online version of its collection of advertisements that are degrading to women, entitled No Comment. Not only are these ads not at all witty, they don't make any sense. I understand what "opportunity" the Brickell Vista ad is suggesting you can "view" if you move there, but unless they're advertising that there's escort service available at the concierge, this ad has no point but to insult a lot of women.

2005-02-25T13:42:00.000-05:00

Anna Quindlen wrote a semi-recent article encouraging overzealous parents to ease off if they want to have a child who is, you know, sane. Her article was a part of a series in Newsweek about the myth of "the perfect parent" is just that: a myth. I noticed, however, that all the articles in the series (which all espouse the same theory about parenting Quindlen does) feature mothers who either work part time or not at all. I would think, though, that the benefits of laissez-faire parenting would apply equally to a different set of kids: older children (I'm going to say 11 and up) whose parents who work full-time. I would think these kids would not only benefit from *not* having their parents try and run every detail of their lives, but they would also benefit from the resourcefulness, independence, self-reliance, and responsibility that comes with taking care of onesself for large parts of the day. It seems like working parents who have the luxury of choosing whether or not to work full time (I'm not talking about parents who HAVE to work full time to support their family; that is a different case entirely) often guiltily try to justify their decision in terms of their career choice and their own ambitions, but perhaps they should put more emphasis how it could actually be a better choice for the kids as well. This may not immediately seem palatable to parents and children's advocates, but Quindlen clearly demonstrates that there are some sound arguments in favor of the hands-off approach in general; the connection between this approach and working parents simply has to be drawn.

2005-02-11T08:49:00.000-05:00

Now, usually I cringe when I receive those 50+ question email surveys that friends email eachother with personal questions like "What was your first car?" and "Where you were born?" and "If you could be a kitchen utensil, what would you be and why?" But H-Roz sent around an email with the following questions, and I couldn't resist. I'm posting my responses here because I think it's a fun way to waste 15 minutes of your life. Cut, paste, play.

Choose a band/musician: Billy Joel
Now answer only using song titles by that band/musician

Are you male or female? Always a Woman
Describe yourself: Modern Woman
How do some people feel about you? I Go to Extremes
How do you feel about yourself? Shameless
Describe your ex-boyfriend/girlfriend: An Innocent Man
Describe your current boyfriend/girlfriend: erm, Got to Begin Again?
Describe what you want to be: Sleeping with the Television On
Describe your current mood: New York State of Mind
Describe your friends: We Didn't Start the Fire
Share a few words of wisdom: You're Only Human

Disinformation in DC

2005-02-10T10:18:00.000-05:00

I've recently taken note of two public awareness campaigns on the DC Metro that unapologetically spread misinformation to the masses:

The first includes these two posters from The Second Look Project, both of which claim that because of Roe v. Wade, a woman can have an abortion any ol' day she pleases up until the second her water breaks. On their website, however, the group acknowledges that Roe actually ruled: "during the third trimester, the state may regulate or prohibit abortion to promote its interest in the potential life of the fetus, except where abortion is necessary to preserve the woman's life or health." Although a woman's access to a third trimester abortion was later extended by Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Stenberg v. Carhart (something the site also acknowledges), the blame is placed squarely and incorrectly on Roe in these ads. Would it really be too complicated to clarify this?

The second, a project sponsored by Campaign for Our Children called Marriage Works, has dispersed a series of posters that advertise the benefits of being married in an attempt to get more teens to marry. The ad in my Metro station boldly claims, "Married people earn more money." I'm not entirely sure what truth CFOC is referring to in these ads, if any. Is it the tax breaks for married people? Is it the plain and obvious fact that two incomes amounts to more than one? If either of those is the case, why don't they come out and say what they mean instead of unabashedly advertising this "fact" that's not even partly true? My hunch is that if married people today actually earn more, it's because they wait to finish their education before getting married; a fact that, if true, would undermine the whole point of the project: to get teens to marry. Other ads in the campaign include similarly dubious claims, including "Married people are happier", "Married people live longer", and "Married people make better parents."

I disagree with the ends of both of these projects, but I have a much larger problem with the tactic of trying to force the less affluant half of a city to adopt those views based on blatant lies.

2005-02-02T21:54:00.000-05:00

THAT was the Democratic Party's response to SOTU? We're SCREWED.

Amidst the groaning and the heckling, though, I did have one moment of appreciation for our Prez: when he gave a shout-out to the work of groups like the The Innocence Project (although he did not mention it by name) who work to exonerate people sentenced to death with postconviction DNA testing of evidence. I'm not sure why the former governer of the state that executes by far the highest number of prisoners in the country would suddenly support a system that would strip Texas of that badge of honor, but I'm glad someone on his staff realized that arbitrary execution is generally a bad thing. Now if only someone would realize that torture isn't so hot, either...

ADDENDUM: A friend informed me this weekend that the Bush administration actually vehemently opposed the passage of the The Innocence Protection Act (IPA) of 2003 and the Justice for All Act of 2004, two pieces of legislation which, among other things, grant inmates convicted of a federal crime the right to petition a federal court for DNA testing to support a claim of innocence. That Bush could then tout these ideas in his SOTU address is abhorrent.

2005-01-28T11:51:00.000-05:00

I was glad to hear that les petits enfants de France can now take the last name of either parent, but I had to do a double-take after reading this quote from a man whose daughter's last name will be a combination of his and his wife's:

"There was a certain tradition with the old law. Now women are having babies without us. They really don't need men anymore."

This fear is obviously not unique; many (note: many, not all) other men who oppose measures that contribute to women's reproductive independence are also terrified that someday their precious sperm will be obsolete and women will mercilessly rule over them much in the same way the primates did in a certain Pierre Boulle novel. But instead of rattling off some mealymouthed harangue about how this will unravel the fabric of society, this guy was just, well, honest. To hear someone say this is disconcerting, but it's also oddly refreshing.

Hipsters Untie!

2005-01-24T21:55:00.000-05:00

I realize this Craigslist post is old, but I'd argue that just makes it a classic.

To anon-32594665 of Philadelphia, whoever you are: you are my heroine.

To all of you who are too cool for everything that more than 3 people have heard of: embrace your inner cheesiness, and please don't pigeonhole those of us who wear cable knit sweaters and own several Colin Firth movies.

OR: For a more updated, creative version of the same thing, read my bro's post.

2005-01-21T21:19:00.000-05:00

First I'm a Gen Y-er, and now I'm a 'twixter'?! Get your filthy sociology labels off of me and let me have my quarter-life crisis in peace!!!

Also: MFJ pointed out to me that I am also a Millennial. So... now I'm a member of a generation that is both completely dependent and fiercely independent. Sounds like the sociologists need to duke it out a bit more.

Biology Schmiology

2005-01-21T17:24:00.000-05:00

Looks like NOW continues to have trouble choosing its battles, as evidenced by its recent call for Lawrence Summers to resign. There are quite a few obvious problems with this. First of all, after reading half a dozen articles on Summers' comments, I still don't know exactly what he said and, because there wasn't a transcript, it seems that no one else really does, either. It's hard to make an credible call for resignation when you can't even get an exact quote. But additionally, what Summers allegedly said isn't even extreme enough to warrent being offended; if he was actually trying to be provocative, he wouldn't have simply suggested that biology could perhaps account for some of the difference between women's and men's level of success in math and science (and that he hopes he's proven wrong). From that kind of comment, it's not even entirely clear that Summers himself espouses that belief, yet everyone jumped to the conclusion that he was actively trying to axe all women from math and science programs.

Instead of calling for Summers to resign, there are two much more effective and appropriate repsonses. The first would be to try and prove him wrong through research. After all, isn't the point of academia to propose radical hypotheses and scrutinize the hypotheses of others?

The second response, and the one I am inclined to agree with, is to call the discussion of innate biological differences between men and women what it is: fruitless. The findings of many of the studies that "prove" that men are more apt at math are exhibited using two highly overlapping distribution curves (the ones I'm thinking of in particular were done by Janet Hyde). What difference they do exhibit is almost negligible. More importantly, though, using this common model, there will always be some women who are better at math than some men. As long as this is true, you have to consider the mathematical abilities of women on an individual basis. The consequences of these studies are thus the same as if it were proven that men and women have identical cognitive abilities. At that point, I don't see why people pay attention to this debate as much as they do.

Good Riddance

2005-01-13T17:12:00.000-05:00

To all the oedipal men who just want to marry mommy (creepy!), I bid you a very kind 'adieu.' And this is coming from someone who has been asked out by higher-up while in a support staff position (creepy!!!).

Leave the eggs at home on Inauguration Day

2005-01-13T10:26:00.000-05:00

As a fairly vocal liberal-ish person, most people around me are aware of my views on the policies of the current administration. It follows, I guess, that when some large, public event like the Inaguration of the Leader of the Free World comes around, people would think of me (more accurately, me as a member of the groups I associate with) as someone who would want to publicly demonstrate my opposition to those policies. At least, that's how I've explained to myself the onslaught of emails I've received about protests on Inauguration Day.

I like civil disobedience as much as the next guy, but I just can't seem to justify protesting the inaguration. If the Prez was actually elected in an election which, as much as David Cobb would like to deny it, was fair, then why object to the event that is nothing more than the routine part of the democratic process that confirms that election? A friend of mine tells me she's protesting to demonstrate that there is still a large portion of the country who disagrees with Bush's policies, but I think the 48% number would do that much more accurately and effectively than I could standing on Pennsylvania Avenue holding a sign with a clever slogan.

My desire to make my discontentment heard is also curbed by the omnicause effect, which is largely why I don't protest anything anyway. 9 times out of 10, the protests that occur at large events like this are advertised as a single, tangled ball of liberal issues. Consider this email I received the other day for "The Rally for Women's Issues and Funeral March" that will be held next Thursday:

"Specifically, the March will mourn losses in the areas of:
· women's rights
· civil rights
· civil liberties
· workers' rights
· GLBT rights
· the democratic process
· environmental conditions
· peace and justice
· principles of inclusion
· economic equality
· freedom from arbitrary imprisonment
· a path to a more enlightened future for America"

Woah there! First of all, when you are advocating more than three unrelated issues at once, I think you lose the right to use the word "specifically" when advertising your cause. Also, if I attended this event, I wouldn't even know what some of the issues I was protesting were. What are "losses in the principles of inclusion"? Are we talking about affirmative action? Sharing your toys with the dorky kid at recess? Perhaps people should clarify these things before trying to increase their numbers at a rally.

Protesting "general badness" undermines the point of protesting: to get your message across to an entity who is hesitant to listen you otherwise. When you muddle the message, people are more likely to simply dismiss you. I think I'll hold on to my posterboard and sharpies until there's actually something worth objecting to.

Why I'm just not that into "He's Just Not That Into You"

2005-01-11T22:19:00.000-05:00

I have been accused recently of being too "mainstream", and this post will only confirm that, but I can't help myself; I have to throw in my two cents about a phenomenon that puts the "O, Man" into "Woman".

I thought the line "he's just not that into you" was mildly insightful when I first heard it on Sex and the City, oh, two years ago, but ever since the book He's Just Not That Into You: The No-Excuses Truth to Understanding Guys was written, I can't seem to hide from it. Women have apparently started referring to the book, by Greg Behrendt and Liz Tuccillo, as "The Bible," and many have reported how this one, tiny phrase has revolutionized the way they view relationships.

My initial reaction? "Toot toot! Sounds like the bullshit train is pulling into selfhelpville!"

But seriously guys, how does this concept change anything? The book (which I admit I have not read, but really, how many pages do you need to explain a concept that is a complete thought at six words?) reportedly encourages women to take virutally every sign that a man may be ignoring them as hard evidence that "he's just not that into me." These magic words evidently have the miraculous effect of preventing women from obsessing about relationships because, according ot this theory, if a man really likes you, ain't no mountain high enough to keep him from you (or something like that). So let me get this straight. If a guy doesn't call within about a few hours of when he says he will, he's just not that into me. If his email is only 2 lines long instead of a novella about his trip to CVS, he's just not that into me. So then what if he DOES call on time, and invites me out once a week, but doesn't want to introduce me to his friends within the first two weeks of knowing me? Then what?! What if he writes and calls regularly, but doesn't come to my door in the rain with (cliche alert!) a dozen roses to profess his undying love for me? Is he that into me then!?! Yep, sounds like a whole lot of obsessing about relationships, only with one more precious element of confusion thrown into the mix.

For once, I'm glad to be on Team Estrogen for the duration of an unfortunate pop culture phenomenon, as it must really suck to be a male victim of the "He's Just Not That Into You" hex. Guys, now if you really like a girl, and your timing isn't just right, you risk her completely dismissing you. Good luck figuring THAT one out!

I guess on some level it's good that some women are finally figuring out that it's not worth their time to be too mopey about whether or not the person you're interested in is also interested in you, but before this book, this concept was just called, "girl, don't be a dumbass." If you are in a stable relationship with someone and you offer to come over some evening with his favorite dessert in his favorite neglige and he claims he's "erm, too busy" for the next five weeks, he's probably not that into you (or gay, but I guess the latter compels the former). If you are dating someone and he cancels one time in ten because of an early meeting/deadline/kidney transplant, I wouldn't give up quite yet. Think a little.

I should start actively trying to figure out how I can make a fortune selling common sense, but in the meantime, I have Ian Kerner's backlash book Be Honest - You're Not That Into Him Either! to look forward to.

Ladies and gentlemen, get out your dictionaries

2005-01-11T11:36:00.000-05:00

A recent Slate article on feminism and body image and a slew of responses from bloggers left my head spinning from people’s gross mischaracterizations of both feminism and femininity.

In the article, Kipnis explains that the “hard truth” for women is “there’s simply an irreconcilable contradiction between feminism and femininity.” But her problem (and everyone else’s problem) lies in her rigid definition of two concepts that are by no means narrowly defined. Femininity, she claims, is about "helplessness", "deference", and "female inadequacy", and, apparently, can never be attained because it requires absolute physical perfection. Feminism, she believes, has at the core of its agenda "the eradication of the heterosexual beauty culture" in order to abolish the myth of female inadequacy.

In reality, femininity is defined as nothing more than behavior that is typically ascribed to females, and feminism is at its core the notion that women should be equal to men before the state. Because these concepts are so broad, they can be interpreted as Kipnis interprets them, but people don’t seem to realize that these definitions aren’t set it stone. And when they don’t, you get comments like this one (from the blog of a fellow I've only met once and then only very briefly):

“…I have every intention of maintaining my preferences for women who are beautiful, feminine, and who desire to be mothers, and I am not about to be sorry for it. And I do not believe I am alone. And so, yes, if feminism as an ideology requires that men do not have these preferences and that women do not tend to wish to satisfy them, then feminism is in trouble.”

No wonder people run screaming in the opposite direction from the f-word; I wouldn’t want my personal choices limited like that, either. An ideology that would be both more palatable to people like the person who made the above comment as well as a more accurate representation of what feminism is actually about would be one where constraints weren’t placed on either women’s or men’s choices. I would especially hope we can figure out a way to to develop an ideology that supports women, but where they're not constrained by something as superficial as wearing pearls. Feminists can think a little more profoundly than that, can’t we?

As an aside, I also just find it strange that so many women who label themselves as feminists think they have to be more like men in their personal choices (and appearance, as in Kipnis’ definition) in order to be equal to men. Why should men set the standard for a women’s movement?

I know this much is true

2005-01-03T19:18:00.000-05:00

When Eve gave the apple of knowledge to Adam, God did not punish womankind with childbirth. He punished us with the brazillian bikini wax.

2004-12-16T10:53:00.000-05:00

I’m a bit of a hypochondriac and, as such, I read the health section of CNN.com religiously (I am evidently also a bit of a masochist). But today, instead of an article describing the twelve new ways I can get cancer from blinking too rapidly, I stumbled across an article that explained how I was going to suffer and die if I didn’t grace my left hand with a metallic band and chant a few clichéd phrases in front of my friends and family (and, supposedly, God). Not that I don’t have any faith in non-Western medicine, but I can’t think of any explanations for these statistics that make a lick of sense:

“For most negative health indicators, adults living with a partner had higher rates than married adults: they were more likely to be in fair or poor health, to have some type of limitation of activity for health reasons and to have experienced low back pain and headaches ... and serious psychological distress […].

“The report found that married people were least likely to light up a smoke, at 18.8 percent, compared with 22.9 percent for all adults. The most likely to smoke were those living with an unmarried partner, 38.4 percent, and divorced and separated people, 34.7 percent.

“Some 4.7 percent of adults reported they had become heavier drinkers than previously, with the lowest rate among marrieds at 3.7 percent. Again, those living with an unmarried partner had the largest share reporting more drinking, 8.2 percent, followed by the divorced and separated, 6.4 percent.”

You could potentially explain the fact that married couples have overall better health by saying that stability reduces stress and low stress levels lead to better health, but with the divorce rate as high as it is, I don’t see how signing a few papers and laying down 50 G’s on a ceremony to celebrate your couple-hood guarantees anything but a lot of debt. Also, the stability yields lower stress theory wouldn’t explain the alleged fact that unmarried people who cohabitate are predisposed to lung cancer, liver failure, and probably leprosy. If you’re at a point in a relationship when you’re going to move in with your sig other, I’d think your relationship could at least pass for stable.

I also can’t help but grimace at the statistic about adults becoming “heavier drinkers than previously.” When is this nebulous “previous” time in one’s life? I’m a heavier drinker than I was when I was 18, but that doesn’t say anything about my current lifestyle.

So should I go ahead and throw down the ‘religious right wing conspiracy’ red flag, or is there any way marriage *actually* makes you healthier?

I [heart] domestic violence?

2004-12-10T11:16:00.000-05:00

I'm in the process of intermittently writing something fairly lengthy, but I just had a brief "WTF" moment. So here it is: what's up with the apparent need to feminize websites that discuss women's issues? I keep running across these websites about fairly serious topics that are frilly, pink or purple, or contain an obscene amount of cursive. Some recent examples I've come across are the DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women, Smith's Women's Studies Department homepage, and even a Cato tribute to several women who contributed to the founding of the modern libertarian movement (which I later found out was written by none other than one of the libertarians I mention offhand in my post below). Are sexual assault and objectivism really that cute? If so, perhaps the rather austere DOD homepage could also be softened up a bit with, say, a floral motif; maybe they could replace the threat advisory icon with a nice calalily or add a border of chrysanthemums around the pic of Rummy and the troops. Defending the homeland would seem just darling then, wouldn't it?

If I were choosing my battles, this is definitely something that would get left high and dry, but I do think it's a bit silly.

On Technical Difficulties...

2004-12-09T13:45:00.000-05:00

Bear with me for a few days while I adjust basic aesthetic properties of my blog. I taught myself to read Hebrew a few summers ago (really), so I figured, how hard could it be to teach myself HTML?

Absolute Value = Zero

2004-12-09T11:36:00.000-05:00

Michael Kinsley pretty much sums up how I feel about the values aspect of this past election in this rather blunt op-ed piece when he says, "When I want values, I go to Wal-Mart."

Because he's so dead on about everything else in his article, I'll forgive Mr. Kinsley for inadvertently pushing a company NOW dubbed a Merchant of Shame with that last line.

Also, since we're going to play the Jesus card here, whatever happened to tolerance as a 'value'? Isn't that what all that love thy neighbor business was about?

Ask not what you can do for libertarianism, but what libertarianism can do for chicks

2004-12-09T08:46:00.000-05:00

My life has recently become crowded with libertarians. I’ve befriended two of the scoundrels in the past three months, and I was on the phone with my father when he ‘came out’ as a libertarian just before this past election. On par with my general trend of trying new things (a trend that has recently included shiraz, the Midwest, and a lactose-free diet) I’ve decided to give libertarianism a fighting chance. But before I can temporarily co-opt a philosophy of any kind, I can’t avoid posing the inevitable question: what can it offer the ladies?

On a broad philosophical level, I’m all about the whole anti-paternalistic aspect of libertarianism and what it means for women (fancy that; a philosophy that treats women as rational beings!) Heck, the fact that libertarianism champions reproductive freedom almost won me over from the get-go. I also experienced a bit of déjà vu when reading the call to arms of the Association of Libertarian Feminists. They basically call for change that they believe can be achieved outside of ‘special treatment’ of women by the state. I had read something similar by Foucauldian feminists Irene Diamond and Lee Quimby in which they advocated an approach called ‘contextual feminism’. If my aging memory doesn’t fail me, I believe the major difference this approach takes is that it avoids sweeping generalizations about women and, more importantly, discussions that exist completely within political dichotomies (e.g. pro-choice/pro-life). It instead focuses on woman as an individual and allows for alternative concepts of selfhood and ethical relations that exist outside of the current highly politicized feminist dialogue. That may strike you as a bunch of sociological mumbo-jumbo, but I think at its core it’s a tempting argument.

Nonetheless, there are a few fundamental clashes between my own feminist views and libertarianism as I understand it that I just can’t seem to reconcile. First of all, because it falls into the category of philosophies that deny the need for affirmative action of one form or another, I have a hard time not writing it off as being detached from reality. Yes, women and men should ultimately be equal before the law, but the reality is that right now we’re not and I don’t think that’s just going to magically happen without some sort of reverse discrimination in the short-term. If the market truly solved in this case, wouldn’t equality already exist? Secondly, I have a hard time believing that women bring certain situations upon themselves where the law should not assist them. This is particularly pertinent with regards to sexual harassment litigation. If a 1996 policy analysis on feminist jurisprudence published by the Cato Institute (as a side note, this paper is overall actually quite solidly argued and I did agree with the portions that attacked pro-censorship radical feminists) is reflective of the stance most libertarians take towards this issue, then I might have to bid this philosophy adieu. For instance, the report has this to say in response to a case about hostile work environment sexual harassment:

“That is not to say that [the plaintiff] was hypersensitive… Traditionally, however, the law has posited that when a person takes a job in what is known to be a rough environment, she or he willingly assumes the risk of being offended. While such an approach arguably limits some people’s choice of jobs, it avoids the intrusiveness of the government regulating the mental comfort level of a workplace.”

Um, it may be true that this is traditionally what the law has posited, but I’d like to think that the move away from blaming the victim in rape and sexual harassment cases is a sign of, you know, progress. This stance also disregards the fact that sexual harassment is about more than just “mental comfort,” something I also thought we, or at least the legal world, had moved past. If we’re just going to blame the woman for being harassed and/or discriminated against when she tries to enter the “rough environment” of some male-dominated fields, then I don’t see how any gains for women could come out of taking this position.

I'm not terribly convinced, but at least I'll continue to give it a fighting chance.

Look, Ma! I have a blog!

2004-12-08T17:38:00.000-05:00

I know what you're thinking. You've seen me do this before and you're already trying to over/under how many days it takes me to abandon my blog without warning. Well, I can't make any promises about this time around either, but at least hear me out about why I've started it up again.

1) I have a nauseating amount of free time.
I work 40.0 hours a week to the nanosecond, and I need something interesting to do with the other 128 besides sleeping and, well, drinking.

2) I am severely understimulated intellectually.
Or perhaps it's that I was so used to being overstimulated to the point of mental breakdown at Smith that my life now seems tepid in comparison.

3) My feminist rants need a home that is not Chicken and/or Waffles.
I love my little brother, and I love reading his blog, but when I post about labiaplasty and get comments that involve intercourse with baked goods, I know it's time to move on.

4) I am quite, how shall we say... opinionated.
I'm not so presumptuous that I expect anyone to care one way or the other about what I have to say, but I figure since I already bombard some of you with emails on a near-daily basis, this is just an effort to relocate those thoughts to one place.

5) I'm honestly interested in what people have to say about my various musings.
For real.

I have no grand vision for my blog at this point; I assume that if I keep it long enough it will evolve on its own. I can tell you right now that, as I noted above, it will involve quite a few feminist rants, but I'm going to make a good faith effort not to be trite or preachy. I hope you all will keep me in check there.

As they say in show biz (or at least as we used to say in high school drama before going on stage), into the breach we go...