Over the summer, I called bullshit on the old "whatever group that isn't us makes intentional mistakes to show only God is perfect" crap.
Someone kindly directed me to this article, specifically the second on Humility Blocks. End result of research: it is crap!
Amish do not intentionally put a mistake into quilts, and are aghast at the idea that they would or would think they would need to.
I lambasted the idea towards Navajo work last time.
And the article there talks about how experts in Persian rug and that history also believe the Humility Boof to be BS.
So, enough with the racist crap, fellow artisans.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Friday, December 12, 2008
In which Kati waffles about the car industry bailout failure.
OK, I'll admit up front that I don't know much about the proposed American auto industry bailout. I'm discussing from a very theoretical standpoint, and as such I don't mind if someone wants to give me some more information or gently correct errors.
Now, just from an academic standpoint, I was torn about the idea of a bailout. On one hand, this industry falling right now would be positively detrimental, but on the other, the American auto industry has been doing poorly for twenty or thirty years. The Big Three have been run on an insanely short-sighted "business strategy" when this result was quite predictable to anyone willing to take a long-term view, and our government has done them no favors by coddling them during that time. For example, the American government's refusal to set any reasonable gas mileage standards (and overturning states who did so) and the corporations' neglect of developing higher mileage cars on their own insured that the American car makers' market is limited exclusively to the United States. Any analyst could tell you that's a horrible state for a multi-billion dollar corporation to be in, but investing in a wider (and thus more stable) market long-term would have amounted to higher expenses short term.
Next, with the bailout work that just fell through, I think the UAW should have been included at least as much as the high company executives were -- especially as cutting UAW wages became the primary mechanism to reestablish profitability. I think it is also essential that CEO wage limits be a part of any type of bailout. It's not just a matter of the money -- although at the money CEOs get, that is significant. It's a matter of proving good faith. A limit on a CEO's wages is the same as the earnest money you pay when negotiating to buy a house. The limit is to prove that "yes, we really are in this much trouble and yes, we really are serious about fixing the problems."
Furthermore, if we're going to expect the ground-pounding workers to be paid as much as their counterparts working for Japanese companies, isn't it only fair that we expect the American company CEOs to be paid as much as their Japanese company equivalents?
Also with that, although I could be wrong and I don't have any statistics to back this up, I strongly suspect that the Japanese-owned plants are safer than the American-owned ones. I base this on a comparison of how Japanese corporations usually operate and how they balance long-term versus short-term costs, compared to American corporations. The higher wages and benefits negotiated for workers in American plants are not just smoke and mirrors. They have been at least partially negotiated to compensate for higher risks.
Finally, I find this unthinking economic recovery strategy of corporate welfare, coupled with the abhorrence of citizen-level socialism, to be pretty scary. For example, with the auto industry bailout, instead of giving $34 billion in handouts to the companies, couldn't we instead give $34 billion of rebates to households that buy a brand new, American made automobile? We pump the money directly into the economy, it ultimately gets more money to the auto industry because the households that participate will be adding in some of their own, it increases the market for the companies' products and probably trickles down to other industries. I can't say that it's the best option, since on the flip side there's also the risk of crashing the used car market as it's flooded with trade-ins (although on the third side, that also reduces the price of them, encouraging those who couldn't afford a brand new car even with rebate to buy a used car) and who knows what other effects. But my point is that it was never even on the table.
You can see this also in the 700 billion bailout. $700 billion would stop a LOT of home foreclosures, which is what caused the problem. But it was never considered to give this money to citizens, to directly benefit the American people. The only lever our politicians consider pulling is dumping money on companies that have proven their irresponsibility and hoping that it trickles down.
That's absurd.
Now, just from an academic standpoint, I was torn about the idea of a bailout. On one hand, this industry falling right now would be positively detrimental, but on the other, the American auto industry has been doing poorly for twenty or thirty years. The Big Three have been run on an insanely short-sighted "business strategy" when this result was quite predictable to anyone willing to take a long-term view, and our government has done them no favors by coddling them during that time. For example, the American government's refusal to set any reasonable gas mileage standards (and overturning states who did so) and the corporations' neglect of developing higher mileage cars on their own insured that the American car makers' market is limited exclusively to the United States. Any analyst could tell you that's a horrible state for a multi-billion dollar corporation to be in, but investing in a wider (and thus more stable) market long-term would have amounted to higher expenses short term.
Next, with the bailout work that just fell through, I think the UAW should have been included at least as much as the high company executives were -- especially as cutting UAW wages became the primary mechanism to reestablish profitability. I think it is also essential that CEO wage limits be a part of any type of bailout. It's not just a matter of the money -- although at the money CEOs get, that is significant. It's a matter of proving good faith. A limit on a CEO's wages is the same as the earnest money you pay when negotiating to buy a house. The limit is to prove that "yes, we really are in this much trouble and yes, we really are serious about fixing the problems."
Furthermore, if we're going to expect the ground-pounding workers to be paid as much as their counterparts working for Japanese companies, isn't it only fair that we expect the American company CEOs to be paid as much as their Japanese company equivalents?
Also with that, although I could be wrong and I don't have any statistics to back this up, I strongly suspect that the Japanese-owned plants are safer than the American-owned ones. I base this on a comparison of how Japanese corporations usually operate and how they balance long-term versus short-term costs, compared to American corporations. The higher wages and benefits negotiated for workers in American plants are not just smoke and mirrors. They have been at least partially negotiated to compensate for higher risks.
Finally, I find this unthinking economic recovery strategy of corporate welfare, coupled with the abhorrence of citizen-level socialism, to be pretty scary. For example, with the auto industry bailout, instead of giving $34 billion in handouts to the companies, couldn't we instead give $34 billion of rebates to households that buy a brand new, American made automobile? We pump the money directly into the economy, it ultimately gets more money to the auto industry because the households that participate will be adding in some of their own, it increases the market for the companies' products and probably trickles down to other industries. I can't say that it's the best option, since on the flip side there's also the risk of crashing the used car market as it's flooded with trade-ins (although on the third side, that also reduces the price of them, encouraging those who couldn't afford a brand new car even with rebate to buy a used car) and who knows what other effects. But my point is that it was never even on the table.
You can see this also in the 700 billion bailout. $700 billion would stop a LOT of home foreclosures, which is what caused the problem. But it was never considered to give this money to citizens, to directly benefit the American people. The only lever our politicians consider pulling is dumping money on companies that have proven their irresponsibility and hoping that it trickles down.
That's absurd.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Something to think about.
From "Dance of Fear" (or "Fear and Other Uninvited Guests") by Harriet Lerner:
"In reality, every human being is dependent on the help and support of others. There's nothing shameful about recognizing how much we need each other -- a fact we can deny when we're healthy and things are going along well. What's shameful is the myth that with the right "can-do" attitude, we can bootstrap our way to health, wealth, and happiness. Or that staying strong, vigorous, and youthful is what matters most, rather than cultivating acceptance for what is. Or that fear and suffering is weak, and that our job is to "take control of our lives" and "run the show." Surrender is not the American Way. We are expected to turn even the most terrifying experiences and unfathomable losses into an opportunity for personal growth. Writer Michael Ventura calls this our "consumer attitude" toward experience and notes that other cultures would find it unnatural.
"In reality, every human being is dependent on the help and support of others. There's nothing shameful about recognizing how much we need each other -- a fact we can deny when we're healthy and things are going along well. What's shameful is the myth that with the right "can-do" attitude, we can bootstrap our way to health, wealth, and happiness. Or that staying strong, vigorous, and youthful is what matters most, rather than cultivating acceptance for what is. Or that fear and suffering is weak, and that our job is to "take control of our lives" and "run the show." Surrender is not the American Way. We are expected to turn even the most terrifying experiences and unfathomable losses into an opportunity for personal growth. Writer Michael Ventura calls this our "consumer attitude" toward experience and notes that other cultures would find it unnatural.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Enough with the Prop 8 Racist Crap.
I'm so sick of the B.S. racial blaming here.
1) Why are we talking about the 856,000 black people that voted for Prop 8, but NOT the 3,774,000 white people and 1,180,000 Hispanic people? 5 and 3/4 as many white and hispanic people (4 1/2 times as many white people alone) voted for Prop, and somehow it's the black voters' fault the thing passed? There are people who deserve to be beaten over this sort of misinformation.
2) Is it just me, or does some of the "this happened because black voters came out to vote for Obama" rhetoric sound an awful lot like "Black people shouldn't vote" and/or "a black man shouldn't have been running"?
3) Anyone else notice that some of the white anchors reporting on how this was black people's fault look a little... sheepish? "Gosh, I sure hope no one guesses which way I voted while I'm blaming the black people."
4) And finally, fellow white folk, how about we shut up about why we think 70% of black voters supported Prop 8, and actually go talk to some black voters who went that way and find out why. Let's get some information on what activist failure was here, and fix it. Because that kind of statistical flyer, however small in absolute numbers, shows a serious and embarrassing problem in tactics.
1) Why are we talking about the 856,000 black people that voted for Prop 8, but NOT the 3,774,000 white people and 1,180,000 Hispanic people? 5 and 3/4 as many white and hispanic people (4 1/2 times as many white people alone) voted for Prop, and somehow it's the black voters' fault the thing passed? There are people who deserve to be beaten over this sort of misinformation.
2) Is it just me, or does some of the "this happened because black voters came out to vote for Obama" rhetoric sound an awful lot like "Black people shouldn't vote" and/or "a black man shouldn't have been running"?
3) Anyone else notice that some of the white anchors reporting on how this was black people's fault look a little... sheepish? "Gosh, I sure hope no one guesses which way I voted while I'm blaming the black people."
4) And finally, fellow white folk, how about we shut up about why we think 70% of black voters supported Prop 8, and actually go talk to some black voters who went that way and find out why. Let's get some information on what activist failure was here, and fix it. Because that kind of statistical flyer, however small in absolute numbers, shows a serious and embarrassing problem in tactics.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Well, that was sickening.
I had to get my car worked on this morning. And OF COURSE the television was on in the waiting room, and it was on the news, talking about the economic crisis with some so-called experts.
If ever I have wanted to hit the button that blows up the world because it's a lost freakin' cause...
Honestly, it was truly sickening. It made me want to hurt someone. Some highlights:
1) We shouldn't raise taxes on rich people because they don't like it. *jaw, meet floor. Floor, jaw. You two are going to be muchly acquainted.*
2) Besides, the rich people will cheat out of it anyway. (Um, isn't this like saying we shouldn't make serial killing illegal, since most serial killers are smart enough that they never get caught?)
3) Instead, we should take money away from the working classes and give it to the rich. This, somehow, will solve everything and there will be rainbows and unicorns and little kittens who never scratch or poop.
You know, I can't help but think that if we had econ 101 classes in middle school instead of college, our public policy discussions would look completely different. The only reason some of this bullshit is even allowed in polite discourse is because most people don't understand how money actually works -- and as evidence towards that, I present the percentage of non-regular readers who read that and went "Duh, don't you know how money works? You give some money to the store and they give you something in return."
That's one step out of hundreds or thousands, guys.
So, very briefly, how money works. Say, I've got a buck. I spend my dollar at my yarn store. I now have $1 worth of yarn and the yarn store lady now has a physical dollar bill. She spends that bill at the butcher's and gets $1 of meat.
That single dollar bill has now bought $2 worth of stuff. Butcher goes to buy something from the bakery, now it's bought $3 of stuff, and so on.
So, what happens if the baker puts it in the bank instead spending it? Now something interesting happens. The bank lends to someone else -- and suddenly that single physical dollar bill is two dollars -- one owned by the banker, and one simultaneously being used the borrower. This works as long as there is growth, so that the dollar the borrower spent returns more than a dollar, so they can return what they borrowed plus interest and hopefully keep something. However, if the borrower defaults, not so good things happen.
So, you can see that money on a large scale is a lot more complicated than a stack of bills.
Now, let's take a quick high-level look at so called "trickle down" economics versus bottom up approaches. At best, you can now see there's no advantage to giving the money to the rich. They won't be spending it, so they'll invest it and it'll get out that way. However, there are some problems with this.
1) It's a slower process than giving the money directly to the poor and working classes. The lower classes spend what they have; they have to. It immediately gets out flowing through the economy buying people food and electricity and houses and all that stuff people need. Give it to the rich, it has to go through the delay of going to the bank and getting lent and then the borrower spending it and so on.
2) Think about who borrows from banks. It's not people trying to meet their everyday needs -- those people don't get lent to. It's businesses and larger investors -- which can be small businesses and home buyers, but is OFTEN large corporations spending someone else's money so they don't put their own at risk, or the rich doing the same.
Furthermore, the richer you are, the more return you're going to demand for the money you invest -- which means the harder it will be for others to borrow it, and thus the more elite the borrowers will be.
What this amounts to is that money tends to move upwards. Oh, there will be little bits that temporarily go to the gardener or the maid or the burger flipper, but most of it moves upwards and stays there.
If you want a quick jolt to the economic system, you put money into the lowest levels. It circulates (and thus multiples) quickly there, improving the customer base which is required to be in place to support the larger business that money will eventually move into as it gets invested.
There is some decent argument for simultaneously injecting funds into the middle levels -- local business, that sort of thing -- so that they can be prepared for the growing consumer base coming from the low-level injection.
But there is no justification for taking money from the lower levels to put into the highest levels unless you are intentionally trying to crash 80% of the population, or you just don't care as long as you personally benefit. Unfortunately, look at who is in that last group: every corporation by definition, and thus the media that are corporate owned; and large chunks of our government.
If ever I have wanted to hit the button that blows up the world because it's a lost freakin' cause...
Honestly, it was truly sickening. It made me want to hurt someone. Some highlights:
1) We shouldn't raise taxes on rich people because they don't like it. *jaw, meet floor. Floor, jaw. You two are going to be muchly acquainted.*
2) Besides, the rich people will cheat out of it anyway. (Um, isn't this like saying we shouldn't make serial killing illegal, since most serial killers are smart enough that they never get caught?)
3) Instead, we should take money away from the working classes and give it to the rich. This, somehow, will solve everything and there will be rainbows and unicorns and little kittens who never scratch or poop.
You know, I can't help but think that if we had econ 101 classes in middle school instead of college, our public policy discussions would look completely different. The only reason some of this bullshit is even allowed in polite discourse is because most people don't understand how money actually works -- and as evidence towards that, I present the percentage of non-regular readers who read that and went "Duh, don't you know how money works? You give some money to the store and they give you something in return."
That's one step out of hundreds or thousands, guys.
So, very briefly, how money works. Say, I've got a buck. I spend my dollar at my yarn store. I now have $1 worth of yarn and the yarn store lady now has a physical dollar bill. She spends that bill at the butcher's and gets $1 of meat.
That single dollar bill has now bought $2 worth of stuff. Butcher goes to buy something from the bakery, now it's bought $3 of stuff, and so on.
So, what happens if the baker puts it in the bank instead spending it? Now something interesting happens. The bank lends to someone else -- and suddenly that single physical dollar bill is two dollars -- one owned by the banker, and one simultaneously being used the borrower. This works as long as there is growth, so that the dollar the borrower spent returns more than a dollar, so they can return what they borrowed plus interest and hopefully keep something. However, if the borrower defaults, not so good things happen.
So, you can see that money on a large scale is a lot more complicated than a stack of bills.
Now, let's take a quick high-level look at so called "trickle down" economics versus bottom up approaches. At best, you can now see there's no advantage to giving the money to the rich. They won't be spending it, so they'll invest it and it'll get out that way. However, there are some problems with this.
1) It's a slower process than giving the money directly to the poor and working classes. The lower classes spend what they have; they have to. It immediately gets out flowing through the economy buying people food and electricity and houses and all that stuff people need. Give it to the rich, it has to go through the delay of going to the bank and getting lent and then the borrower spending it and so on.
2) Think about who borrows from banks. It's not people trying to meet their everyday needs -- those people don't get lent to. It's businesses and larger investors -- which can be small businesses and home buyers, but is OFTEN large corporations spending someone else's money so they don't put their own at risk, or the rich doing the same.
Furthermore, the richer you are, the more return you're going to demand for the money you invest -- which means the harder it will be for others to borrow it, and thus the more elite the borrowers will be.
What this amounts to is that money tends to move upwards. Oh, there will be little bits that temporarily go to the gardener or the maid or the burger flipper, but most of it moves upwards and stays there.
If you want a quick jolt to the economic system, you put money into the lowest levels. It circulates (and thus multiples) quickly there, improving the customer base which is required to be in place to support the larger business that money will eventually move into as it gets invested.
There is some decent argument for simultaneously injecting funds into the middle levels -- local business, that sort of thing -- so that they can be prepared for the growing consumer base coming from the low-level injection.
But there is no justification for taking money from the lower levels to put into the highest levels unless you are intentionally trying to crash 80% of the population, or you just don't care as long as you personally benefit. Unfortunately, look at who is in that last group: every corporation by definition, and thus the media that are corporate owned; and large chunks of our government.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Oh God, it's starting early.
"Some people don't celebrate Christmas and they won't even pretend! This oppresses me! Help, help, I'm being oppressed! Come see the violence inherent in the system!"
*head desk*
I did have the amusing realization that from right now until New Years, for some pagans, Nietzsche is right. God is dead. ^_~
*head desk*
I did have the amusing realization that from right now until New Years, for some pagans, Nietzsche is right. God is dead. ^_~
Thursday, October 16, 2008
It's *ALWAYS* the economy, stupid.
Dear Senator McCain,
Thank you for resolutely refusing to talk about, much less have a workable proposal to address, the biggest issue in this country right now, the one that is on just about everyone's lips. In all your much-vaunted years of experience, surely you've seen how often this one single issue wins or loses an election under normal circumstances. Here we are in terribly abnormal circumstances, possibly facing the worst economic disaster in 80 years, yet you refuse to talk about it unless your arm is absolutely twisted. Then you suggest the same policies that got us into this mess, funded by taking money away from the people who need it most. Then you try to divert to absolutely stupid shit.
By the way, thank you for your absolutely stupid shit, too. You've already got the insane bigot vote, after all. As for undecided voters, I have enough faith in my fellow citizens to think that "Obama is a terrorist" is the level of Big Lie that makes people go "WTF? That can't be right." And when they hear what the real deal is with that Ayers guy, you look like a fucking moron. You look like a half-senile dimwit who's grasping at the tiniest of straws because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which is what you are, so I appreciate your honesty.
Keep up the good work. You're giving me a glimmer of hope that there might be a chance for this country after all.
~Jinnayah
Thank you for resolutely refusing to talk about, much less have a workable proposal to address, the biggest issue in this country right now, the one that is on just about everyone's lips. In all your much-vaunted years of experience, surely you've seen how often this one single issue wins or loses an election under normal circumstances. Here we are in terribly abnormal circumstances, possibly facing the worst economic disaster in 80 years, yet you refuse to talk about it unless your arm is absolutely twisted. Then you suggest the same policies that got us into this mess, funded by taking money away from the people who need it most. Then you try to divert to absolutely stupid shit.
By the way, thank you for your absolutely stupid shit, too. You've already got the insane bigot vote, after all. As for undecided voters, I have enough faith in my fellow citizens to think that "Obama is a terrorist" is the level of Big Lie that makes people go "WTF? That can't be right." And when they hear what the real deal is with that Ayers guy, you look like a fucking moron. You look like a half-senile dimwit who's grasping at the tiniest of straws because he doesn't have a leg to stand on. Which is what you are, so I appreciate your honesty.
Keep up the good work. You're giving me a glimmer of hope that there might be a chance for this country after all.
~Jinnayah
Saturday, October 11, 2008
Keep your proselytizing to yourself.
I know, you can't really keep your proselytizing to yourself, or else it's not proselytizing. Of course, that's my point. In any event, the particular incident I'm about to get into isn't a big deal in the overall scheme of things by itself. However, it is a scenario I've seen played out a hundred times. Those kind of numbers make it a big deal as a collective, and like many people, I'm really getting sick of it.
So, in August, I joined a mystery stole knit-along that started at the beginning of September. I was having a hard time and needed to pamper myself. I spent quite a bit on yarn and needles and beads for it, started it with everyone else -- over 5000 people across at least 24 counties -- and... Well, I haven't been able to keep up. At all. Six weeks in, I'm just now on the second week's work. When Clue 4 was released and I saw the stoles of those keeping up , I wasn't so thrilled with the design. When at Clue 5 she also released the "theme" of the stole, which turned out to be "I was farting around with design", I was even less impressed. I thought I'd be doing something with some meaning or point, even if it was along the lines of "Swan Lake" or "Scheherazade" like the previous Mystery Knit-alongs. I wouldn't have volunteered to test knit someone's doodlings.
I state all this only so you don't think my final reaction was solely the result of the controversy, or that it is only bitter grapes.
Anyway, I'd already put in this time and money into the stole, so I figured I'd keep going. Then Clue 6, the final one, came out. Beforehand, the designer had said that when she released the final pattern for sale, not only would it be at a reduced price for knit-along participants, but it would include a bonus pattern. So, I'm skimming quickly through the clue file, and I see something about a surprise. Thinking about the bonus pattern, I read closer, and:
I would not have participated in this knit-along if I'd known it would end in some proselytizing, and I really get sick of this hypocritical crap from certain Christians. (I will be unpacking the phrase "hypocritical crap" in a little bit. Please hang with me.)
I did resolve not to do any more patterns by Georgina Logsdon, but this was not enough to stop me dead in my knitting tracks. What did stop me was the reactions to people protesting being proselytized to. There was a lot of variation of the words "shut the hell up", and of course majority privilege whining. In fact, let me just go through some of the typical ones.
First, from the designer:
I do this in all my designs. Oh, so you already knew how offensivee it would be to so many of your participants, and you just didn't give a damn. Lovely.
On top of that, how are those of us knitting one of your designs for the first time to know you're going to use this as an excuse to proselytize to us?
My best friend is Jewish. Uh huh. Yeah. This figures in how?
And it gets even worse from fans.
She gave this for free, so shut up you ingrate. Not exactly. We are all test-knitting for Georgina before she releases the pattern for sale. Granted, it's not a normal test-knit set-up. There's a lot more knitters on one hand, but on the other we're not getting a final copy for free. Oh, and a condition snuck in at the last minute is that we all have to put up with being proselytized to!
She did something nice, but that entitles her to "thanks for the pattern", not to worship, and not to a chance for proselytizing.
Stop looking for offense. Sometimes phrased with personal insults. Right, 'cause it's our fault and there'd be no problem except for us pesky not-rabid-Christians. *eye roll*
It's just an expression of the designer's religion. It has nothing to do with you. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pattern, either. Guys, I am being generous when I assume that out-of-nowhere 'summary of my great religion that implies death and/or destruction if you don't believe in it too" quote is proselytizing. Because if it isn't, then that thing Georgina did? Jesus specifically said not to do that. That's praying on street corners, and with all the bigoted ego-stroking triggered by this, I'd guess Georgina does already have her reward. (Hypocritical crap. Jesus said not to wear your religion on your sleeve, so if you're wearing your Christianity on your sleeve, that's hypocritical crap.)
And my personal favorite:
Oh noes, Christians are getting picked on so bad again. An exact quote, if I may: "I suspect many people that are offended by a Christian quote would be thrilled to have a quote from another large religion."
If it was one with an implication of death or damnation if I didn't believe in that other large religion, yes, I would be offended by that quote.
If the quote were more innocent, it would be less offensive, but there would still be another important difference. Most religions aren't proselytizing. Seriously, let's list off proselytizing religions. There's Christianity and its offshoots (Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example). There's Islam. There's Souka Gakkai. There's... Nope, that's all I know about. There's probably a few others, but there's also a lot that don't. When's the last time a Hindu proselytized to you? You ever have a Jew hand you a Torah? Of the religions that do proselytize, Souka Gakkai is considered kinda nutty (ironically for techniques that sound an awful lot like my Christian missionary coworker). Islam scares the crap out of Christians when they proselytize, and on top of that at least has codified respect for Judiasm and Christianity. (Not always followed, but it is in their book.)
Christianity, on the other hand, is infamous for not playing nice with others. China kicked Christianity out of the country for it. Japan had a 200 year policy of executing foreigners who washed up on shore because of it. Christianity thinks everyone else needs to either convert or die. Almost as soon as it left Jesus' hands, it placed itself in a superior, if sometimes martyred, position to others. Christianity has no tradition of respect for others' beliefs. Which puts it and Souka Gakkai in a class all by themselves.
This is what it really all gets back to: respect for others. Christianity is a proselytizing religion, and especially when a religion is in the majority, proselytization is the destruction of others' belief systems. Adding this quote to the pattern out of nowhere, with no tie to the design, is disrespectful of the participants who do not share Georgina's beliefs. And telling them to stuff their protests is even more so.
As for me and the stole, I seriously think I'm going to frog it and use the yarn for something else, maybe a Juno Regina. I wasn't terribly fond of the design to start with, and the level of insult and disrespect towards non-Christians has really turned me off. I hate to spend several more months working on something with so much negativity and end up with something I might not even wear. I'll put it away for now until I finish another lace project I had started, and then see how I feel.
(Comments are disabled to prevent trolling.)
So, in August, I joined a mystery stole knit-along that started at the beginning of September. I was having a hard time and needed to pamper myself. I spent quite a bit on yarn and needles and beads for it, started it with everyone else -- over 5000 people across at least 24 counties -- and... Well, I haven't been able to keep up. At all. Six weeks in, I'm just now on the second week's work. When Clue 4 was released and I saw the stoles of those keeping up , I wasn't so thrilled with the design. When at Clue 5 she also released the "theme" of the stole, which turned out to be "I was farting around with design", I was even less impressed. I thought I'd be doing something with some meaning or point, even if it was along the lines of "Swan Lake" or "Scheherazade" like the previous Mystery Knit-alongs. I wouldn't have volunteered to test knit someone's doodlings.
I state all this only so you don't think my final reaction was solely the result of the controversy, or that it is only bitter grapes.
Anyway, I'd already put in this time and money into the stole, so I figured I'd keep going. Then Clue 6, the final one, came out. Beforehand, the designer had said that when she released the final pattern for sale, not only would it be at a reduced price for knit-along participants, but it would include a bonus pattern. So, I'm skimming quickly through the clue file, and I see something about a surprise. Thinking about the bonus pattern, I read closer, and:
"The most unexpected happy surprise is stated in John 3:16As someone else phrased it, that really took the wind out of my sails. I was not aware that a condition of participating in this knit-along was giving the designer a chance to proselytize to me. I am not on good terms with the Christian religion. I would technically be considered a Christian (I prefer the older term "Follower of the Way"), and I do go to church, but you have to understand that's a UCC with a congregation of about 12 people, where a sermon about the parable of the vineyard owner trying to collect his profits from workers who don't want to hand them over starts with "this passage has been used to justify so much anti-Semeticism. But there's so many different ways to interpret it. Who says God is the absentee landlord?" and then we discuss slumlords and mistreatment of the working poor.
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
I would not have participated in this knit-along if I'd known it would end in some proselytizing, and I really get sick of this hypocritical crap from certain Christians. (I will be unpacking the phrase "hypocritical crap" in a little bit. Please hang with me.)
I did resolve not to do any more patterns by Georgina Logsdon, but this was not enough to stop me dead in my knitting tracks. What did stop me was the reactions to people protesting being proselytized to. There was a lot of variation of the words "shut the hell up", and of course majority privilege whining. In fact, let me just go through some of the typical ones.
First, from the designer:
I do this in all my designs. Oh, so you already knew how offensivee it would be to so many of your participants, and you just didn't give a damn. Lovely.
On top of that, how are those of us knitting one of your designs for the first time to know you're going to use this as an excuse to proselytize to us?
My best friend is Jewish. Uh huh. Yeah. This figures in how?
And it gets even worse from fans.
She gave this for free, so shut up you ingrate. Not exactly. We are all test-knitting for Georgina before she releases the pattern for sale. Granted, it's not a normal test-knit set-up. There's a lot more knitters on one hand, but on the other we're not getting a final copy for free. Oh, and a condition snuck in at the last minute is that we all have to put up with being proselytized to!
She did something nice, but that entitles her to "thanks for the pattern", not to worship, and not to a chance for proselytizing.
Stop looking for offense. Sometimes phrased with personal insults. Right, 'cause it's our fault and there'd be no problem except for us pesky not-rabid-Christians. *eye roll*
It's just an expression of the designer's religion. It has nothing to do with you. It has absolutely nothing to do with the pattern, either. Guys, I am being generous when I assume that out-of-nowhere 'summary of my great religion that implies death and/or destruction if you don't believe in it too" quote is proselytizing. Because if it isn't, then that thing Georgina did? Jesus specifically said not to do that. That's praying on street corners, and with all the bigoted ego-stroking triggered by this, I'd guess Georgina does already have her reward. (Hypocritical crap. Jesus said not to wear your religion on your sleeve, so if you're wearing your Christianity on your sleeve, that's hypocritical crap.)
And my personal favorite:
Oh noes, Christians are getting picked on so bad again. An exact quote, if I may: "I suspect many people that are offended by a Christian quote would be thrilled to have a quote from another large religion."
If it was one with an implication of death or damnation if I didn't believe in that other large religion, yes, I would be offended by that quote.
If the quote were more innocent, it would be less offensive, but there would still be another important difference. Most religions aren't proselytizing. Seriously, let's list off proselytizing religions. There's Christianity and its offshoots (Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses, for example). There's Islam. There's Souka Gakkai. There's... Nope, that's all I know about. There's probably a few others, but there's also a lot that don't. When's the last time a Hindu proselytized to you? You ever have a Jew hand you a Torah? Of the religions that do proselytize, Souka Gakkai is considered kinda nutty (ironically for techniques that sound an awful lot like my Christian missionary coworker). Islam scares the crap out of Christians when they proselytize, and on top of that at least has codified respect for Judiasm and Christianity. (Not always followed, but it is in their book.)
Christianity, on the other hand, is infamous for not playing nice with others. China kicked Christianity out of the country for it. Japan had a 200 year policy of executing foreigners who washed up on shore because of it. Christianity thinks everyone else needs to either convert or die. Almost as soon as it left Jesus' hands, it placed itself in a superior, if sometimes martyred, position to others. Christianity has no tradition of respect for others' beliefs. Which puts it and Souka Gakkai in a class all by themselves.
This is what it really all gets back to: respect for others. Christianity is a proselytizing religion, and especially when a religion is in the majority, proselytization is the destruction of others' belief systems. Adding this quote to the pattern out of nowhere, with no tie to the design, is disrespectful of the participants who do not share Georgina's beliefs. And telling them to stuff their protests is even more so.
As for me and the stole, I seriously think I'm going to frog it and use the yarn for something else, maybe a Juno Regina. I wasn't terribly fond of the design to start with, and the level of insult and disrespect towards non-Christians has really turned me off. I hate to spend several more months working on something with so much negativity and end up with something I might not even wear. I'll put it away for now until I finish another lace project I had started, and then see how I feel.
(Comments are disabled to prevent trolling.)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Again triggered to get off my hinder and post by a post by ldragoon.
Last time I was at Barnes and Noble, I saw a book titled "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them." Yes, with emphasis in the title and everything. Bad sign, that.
So, perhaps the biggest environmental catastrophe us liberals don't want you to know about? When women take hormonal birth control, some of those hormones are carried out of her body in her urine and pass into the water supply, where they are affecting the reproductive abilities of aquatic species downstream.
1) I thought everyone already knew about that. Guys, there's this problem with widespread birth control use I don't want you to know about, that's why I just told you about it. I don't know any reliable links, or I'd direct you to those. Because I don't want you to know about this.
2) You know, there's always trade-offs and you need to make apples to apples comparisons. Hormones in water supplies in amounts that effect ecosystems are a problem. Over population among humans is also a problem. Which do you suppose causes more damage overall, the amount of hormones a woman taking birth control pisses into the ecosystem over her lifetime, or the three extra humans beings she would bring into the world on average without them and the damage they would do over their lifetime, not to mention the extra humans they would then produce?
3) If you consider the existence of birth control to be "liberal", then YOU'RE A FUCKING WINGNUT! Iain Murray = wingnut. George W. Bush = wingnut. McCain = likely wingnut, because you don't pause like that when you actually don't know about an issue, you pause like that when you know what you want to say will royally piss someone off.
On top of that, I'm probably heading into a political debate with my mother. She sent me a political joke that was a bit too conservative for my taste. I wrote back "Dare I ask who you plan to vote for? Or should I just say that I'm voting for the one who isn't a mysogynistic war-monger and leave it at that? ^_~"
If she wants to get into it, I'm just going to ignore her. I can NOT deal with her ignorant hypocritical shit right now.
Last time I was at Barnes and Noble, I saw a book titled "The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them." Yes, with emphasis in the title and everything. Bad sign, that.
So, perhaps the biggest environmental catastrophe us liberals don't want you to know about? When women take hormonal birth control, some of those hormones are carried out of her body in her urine and pass into the water supply, where they are affecting the reproductive abilities of aquatic species downstream.
1) I thought everyone already knew about that. Guys, there's this problem with widespread birth control use I don't want you to know about, that's why I just told you about it. I don't know any reliable links, or I'd direct you to those. Because I don't want you to know about this.
2) You know, there's always trade-offs and you need to make apples to apples comparisons. Hormones in water supplies in amounts that effect ecosystems are a problem. Over population among humans is also a problem. Which do you suppose causes more damage overall, the amount of hormones a woman taking birth control pisses into the ecosystem over her lifetime, or the three extra humans beings she would bring into the world on average without them and the damage they would do over their lifetime, not to mention the extra humans they would then produce?
3) If you consider the existence of birth control to be "liberal", then YOU'RE A FUCKING WINGNUT! Iain Murray = wingnut. George W. Bush = wingnut. McCain = likely wingnut, because you don't pause like that when you actually don't know about an issue, you pause like that when you know what you want to say will royally piss someone off.
On top of that, I'm probably heading into a political debate with my mother. She sent me a political joke that was a bit too conservative for my taste. I wrote back "Dare I ask who you plan to vote for? Or should I just say that I'm voting for the one who isn't a mysogynistic war-monger and leave it at that? ^_~"
If she wants to get into it, I'm just going to ignore her. I can NOT deal with her ignorant hypocritical shit right now.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
You know what else?
Link-hopping off of ![[info]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uay4kVqLswrFO9uBDEd5FLw92LzAhYZvXL9hcE-3Yi8Bd8lUemqe6nTJpt4gisSHD25oInY1X-w5-BFaRM0H4JOOB00ALjVIt-_f9SxwunAs4=s0-d)
ldragoon's "Spec Fic Wank" post, I find a mention that James Watson is racist. James Watson... Oh, Watson and Crick DNA double-helix Watson.
Yup, he's racist. You know what else? He's sexist, too. And much of the work he's credited for was actually done by a woman named Rosalind Franklin. But, you see, she didn't have a penis, but she wasn't really pretty and feminine and ladylike either. So Cambridge didn't really want her getting credit for the discovery of the decade. So they just kind of gave her research to the guys without asking her or giving her credit. And she was even nice enough to die before she could make a big stink out of it.
Sadly, someone can be a brilliant scientist and still be a huge wanker. My reading suggests that James Watson is very much a product of his times -- and unfortunately those times were the 1950s.
ldragoon's "Spec Fic Wank" post, I find a mention that James Watson is racist. James Watson... Oh, Watson and Crick DNA double-helix Watson.Yup, he's racist. You know what else? He's sexist, too. And much of the work he's credited for was actually done by a woman named Rosalind Franklin. But, you see, she didn't have a penis, but she wasn't really pretty and feminine and ladylike either. So Cambridge didn't really want her getting credit for the discovery of the decade. So they just kind of gave her research to the guys without asking her or giving her credit. And she was even nice enough to die before she could make a big stink out of it.
Sadly, someone can be a brilliant scientist and still be a huge wanker. My reading suggests that James Watson is very much a product of his times -- and unfortunately those times were the 1950s.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
A Harry Potter Observation
First, let me lay out an assumption. Line up all the Harry Potter books in order. It is a fact that the final length of the first was dictated by editorial decree (i.e. Rowling was forced to cut it down to have it published.) There is a large increase length at book 4, without an equivalent increase in actual significant content. Therefore, I'm going to assume that, with book 4, the editor was no longer exercising significant creative control over the content.
Now, with that established, let's look at racism in Harry Potter. Not what the books are supposedly about or the message you're beaten around the head with, but what is actually found in the books themselves.
Book 1: Racists are jerks. So are snobs.
Book 2: Racism is The Huge Evil! Racism causes death and destruction and horrible horrible things! On top of that, slavery is absolutely wrong and slaves are miserable.
Book 3: You shouldn't judge people without hearing their side, or make assumptions just because of their bloodlines. Also, chronically ill people have to put up with a lot of crap and discrimination on top of their illness.
Book 4: French people are worthless and pathetic. Slavic people are walking bricks. Foreigners and non-English speakers in general can be a big pain in the butt. Slavery's actually a good thing in most cases, and people who are traditionally slaves like it better that way, even if they have the rare bad owner. Only nutters in that group want freedom, but we guess they can be OK as long as they know their place. [Anyone remember Dobby asking for less pay than Dumbledore offered? Because, you know, he knows his place.] In any event, they're happiest when they're doing menial labor.
Hmmm.... I don't think this says good things about Ms. Rowling.
Now, with that established, let's look at racism in Harry Potter. Not what the books are supposedly about or the message you're beaten around the head with, but what is actually found in the books themselves.
Book 1: Racists are jerks. So are snobs.
Book 2: Racism is The Huge Evil! Racism causes death and destruction and horrible horrible things! On top of that, slavery is absolutely wrong and slaves are miserable.
Book 3: You shouldn't judge people without hearing their side, or make assumptions just because of their bloodlines. Also, chronically ill people have to put up with a lot of crap and discrimination on top of their illness.
Book 4: French people are worthless and pathetic. Slavic people are walking bricks. Foreigners and non-English speakers in general can be a big pain in the butt. Slavery's actually a good thing in most cases, and people who are traditionally slaves like it better that way, even if they have the rare bad owner. Only nutters in that group want freedom, but we guess they can be OK as long as they know their place. [Anyone remember Dobby asking for less pay than Dumbledore offered? Because, you know, he knows his place.] In any event, they're happiest when they're doing menial labor.
Hmmm.... I don't think this says good things about Ms. Rowling.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
OK, this is really sad.
I saw gas for $3.98 a gallon, and I got excited. *shakes head*
So, people out there who are following the election: does any candidate support getting the Federal Reserve a flippin' clue? Earlier this week, they decided to leave the interest rate at 2%, but they're now putting back on the table the option of raising it later to combat inflation, because the economy is looking better.
*blinkblink*
Economy is looking better. Where do I start here?
1) I don't know anyone, including myself, who is doing as well now as they were a year ago. Most people I know, including myself, are doing noticeably worse than they were 3-6 months ago. I'm seeing a noticeable Not Improvement here.
2) One of the big problems is that the dollar exchange rate has been in the toilet for years. YEARS. What's one way to fix that? Raise the interest rates, thus making other countries want to invest in this one, thus making dollars more desirable in order to do so. (To put it in highly simplified terms, of course.)
As I touched on in February, I am very much getting to the point where I think "economic growth" is a euphemism for corporations pumping resources out of this country as quickly as possible for the benefit of a few. The more the economy "grows", the worse actual people seem to be doing.
So, people out there who are following the election: does any candidate support getting the Federal Reserve a flippin' clue? Earlier this week, they decided to leave the interest rate at 2%, but they're now putting back on the table the option of raising it later to combat inflation, because the economy is looking better.
*blinkblink*
Economy is looking better. Where do I start here?
1) I don't know anyone, including myself, who is doing as well now as they were a year ago. Most people I know, including myself, are doing noticeably worse than they were 3-6 months ago. I'm seeing a noticeable Not Improvement here.
2) One of the big problems is that the dollar exchange rate has been in the toilet for years. YEARS. What's one way to fix that? Raise the interest rates, thus making other countries want to invest in this one, thus making dollars more desirable in order to do so. (To put it in highly simplified terms, of course.)
As I touched on in February, I am very much getting to the point where I think "economic growth" is a euphemism for corporations pumping resources out of this country as quickly as possible for the benefit of a few. The more the economy "grows", the worse actual people seem to be doing.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Obesity
Rants bounce around my head for a while before finally hitting the electrons. This one's been in there for a while, and since Ldragoon posted something on this topic just today, what the hey.
So, as we've all heard five bagillion times, there's an obesity epidemic in America. There's all sorts of theories of various levels of insult on why this is, from the overweight are lazy bastards (what parental marital status has to do with it is anyone's guess), to more sedentary professions and city planning that is unfriendly to pedestrians and bicyclists.
In general, though, it's reduced to "eating more calories than you use." Which is certainly a very effective way to gain weight, but I'm not convinced
There's this phenomena with cats that a cheap food can be more expensive than a more expensive, better quality food, because the cat must eat more of the cheap food in order to get the amount of nutrients it needs, and it will instinctively do so. Of course, because the cat is also eating a lot more filler (i.e. empty calories), this is a recipe for obesity (and thus vet bills, higher longer term costs, and thus cheap food really isn't).
There's no reason to think that human food is immune to this. In fact, given the obesity rates among the poor, there's very good reason to believe that human food is absolutely subject to this same phenomena. So, let's go to the pantry and see what's in our food. Let's see what I can grab at random. I've got a can of Cream of Mushroom soup here. What's the fourth ingredient? "Modified food starch". You know what that is? Filler. Empty calories. Next to zilch in the way of nutrional value. [I really did go into the kitchen and grab the first container of something I saw. I didn't pick and chose.] American food is FILLED with that kind of stuff.
Worse than the worthless fillers, though, there may be things in our food that actively make us fat. Studies suggest that high fructose corn syrup can mess up the body's response to leptin, which is the hormone that tells you when you're full. Let's see, what's has high fructose corn syrup in it? Oh, EVERYTHING. (You know why? Because it's cheaper than sugar. You know what that is. Because 1) our government subsidizes the growth of way more corn than we need, and 2) because there is a "protective" tariff on sugar that raises the American cost to 2 or 3 times the worldwide price. :P)
Here's another one: improper estrogen levels cause weight gain. Too high, too low, both ways can cause weight problems depending on other factors and the person involved. (Remember the PCOS patients I mentioned?) Soy products contain plant estrogens. What is soy used as a filler in? Oh, everything ELSE.
This 'personal responsibility' mentality, the idea that all obesity is caused by personal failing? Bunch of bullshit. If you look at the studies, "laziness" and "poor character" are just about never listed as causes of obesity. Exercise and healthy eating are important, and will work for some people, but not everyone, and it's not their fault. There are a lot of societal issues here. Some are obvious: vehicular-centered city planning, widespread overworking that eliminates time (and energy) for exercise. Some are not so obvious. All the personal responsibility in the world is not going to give us a better food supply and a healthier environment.
So, as we've all heard five bagillion times, there's an obesity epidemic in America. There's all sorts of theories of various levels of insult on why this is, from the overweight are lazy bastards (what parental marital status has to do with it is anyone's guess), to more sedentary professions and city planning that is unfriendly to pedestrians and bicyclists.
In general, though, it's reduced to "eating more calories than you use." Which is certainly a very effective way to gain weight, but I'm not convinced
- it's always that simple, and
- that eating more calories than needed is as avoidable as we like to think with the American food supply.
There's this phenomena with cats that a cheap food can be more expensive than a more expensive, better quality food, because the cat must eat more of the cheap food in order to get the amount of nutrients it needs, and it will instinctively do so. Of course, because the cat is also eating a lot more filler (i.e. empty calories), this is a recipe for obesity (and thus vet bills, higher longer term costs, and thus cheap food really isn't).
There's no reason to think that human food is immune to this. In fact, given the obesity rates among the poor, there's very good reason to believe that human food is absolutely subject to this same phenomena. So, let's go to the pantry and see what's in our food. Let's see what I can grab at random. I've got a can of Cream of Mushroom soup here. What's the fourth ingredient? "Modified food starch". You know what that is? Filler. Empty calories. Next to zilch in the way of nutrional value. [I really did go into the kitchen and grab the first container of something I saw. I didn't pick and chose.] American food is FILLED with that kind of stuff.
Worse than the worthless fillers, though, there may be things in our food that actively make us fat. Studies suggest that high fructose corn syrup can mess up the body's response to leptin, which is the hormone that tells you when you're full. Let's see, what's has high fructose corn syrup in it? Oh, EVERYTHING. (You know why? Because it's cheaper than sugar. You know what that is. Because 1) our government subsidizes the growth of way more corn than we need, and 2) because there is a "protective" tariff on sugar that raises the American cost to 2 or 3 times the worldwide price. :P)
Here's another one: improper estrogen levels cause weight gain. Too high, too low, both ways can cause weight problems depending on other factors and the person involved. (Remember the PCOS patients I mentioned?) Soy products contain plant estrogens. What is soy used as a filler in? Oh, everything ELSE.
This 'personal responsibility' mentality, the idea that all obesity is caused by personal failing? Bunch of bullshit. If you look at the studies, "laziness" and "poor character" are just about never listed as causes of obesity. Exercise and healthy eating are important, and will work for some people, but not everyone, and it's not their fault. There are a lot of societal issues here. Some are obvious: vehicular-centered city planning, widespread overworking that eliminates time (and energy) for exercise. Some are not so obvious. All the personal responsibility in the world is not going to give us a better food supply and a healthier environment.
You know what I hate?
The old "Navajo/Persians/Amish/Islamic Artists/whatever group isn't us always put a mistake in their artwork to show that only God is perfect" BS. It's the definition of glurge, in that something that's supposed to be 'sweet' and 'inspiring' is actually amazingly racist.
- It's completely out of touch with reality. Example: A Persian rug has a few hundred thousand knots in it. Hell yes there's there's going to be a mistake in it somewhere. There's no need to add a fake mistake.
- It accuses the other group of amazing ego. They think they could make something perfect and Godlike, so they chose not to.
- With some groups, it's a major projection of Western Christian belief on others. For example, why would the Navajo feel the need to show only God is perfect? I know little about their religion, but enough to know that they have multiple deities, and perfection is not a requirement. Just the idea itself reflects the Western belief that perfection is desirable and the goal that must be aspired to in any endeavor.
- With some cases, it's disrespectful and denigrating to the actual work. Again with a Navajo example, an odd bead in a piece of beadwork is not necessarily a mistake. Often they are intentionally added to mark some event that happened in the maker's life, which might be minor or major.
- What group hasn't been accused of this at some time or other?
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Open Letter to Clothing Manufacturers
OK, you clothing-making assholes,
1) Give me ALL the shirt buttons. I will decide how much of my blouse I want to leave unbuttoned.
2) You know what's tossed on my bed right now? Brand new men's pants. And you know what I'm going to do with them? I'm gonna WEAR them. I have absolutely had it with poor quality, thin fabric, and stupidly small pockets. After traipsing all over that damn mall trying to find something vaguely acceptable, I took my child-bearing hips and all the junk in my trunk over to the men's section, and you know what I found. Stuff that fits. Screw you, women's clothing makers!
I wish I'd tried the men's section years ago. I honestly didn't think it would work with my body shape. I've got a 34 inch waist, 43 inch hips, and 27 inch inseam. 36X29 or 38X29 pleated fronts, baby. Taken in a vacuum, I'll admit they don't have the nicest line possible. I'm using pleats designed to hang straight in order to get room for my hips, so there's a bit of flair. But you compare to the women's equivalent, and you know what? Most women's pants do that to me, too, except now I won't have my wallet and my keys protruding from my hips like a pair of saddlebags. Men's pockets just keep going and going! I stick my hand in one and keep going to mid-forearm. It's wonderful.
They really don't look any different on me than most of the women's pants I've bought. I don't think anyone will be able to tell they're men's.
Honestly, right now I'm thinking all that "women's bodies are so different that they need specially made pants" stuff is a bunch of advertising hooey. It would certainly be true if clothing was well shaped and tailored, but it's not in this mass-produced world. I think women's and men's pants patterns are a LOT more similar then the companies want us to believe.
So, ladies, if you haven't tried to see if men's pants would fit you, take some time and see, even if you're curvy. If you don't find anything you like, you're not out much, and if you do, you'll be very happy. Even if you don't think it'll work, give it a try. 9-inch waist-hip difference here, worked just fine.
I was so intoxicated by the functional pockets thing that I bought myself a nice comfy pair of cargo pants. :) I swear I could throw a knitting project into one of those pockets, ball of yarn and all. (Single sock knitting would fit just fine, I have no doubt at all. Ooh, that'd be deliciously geeky.)
A few weeks ago, someone who works for a clothing manufacturer wrote into a thread on Ravelry (I think) explaining what she goes through, and suddenly all the problems with women's clothing make sense. It all comes down to money, both at the design company and then again at the manufacturing plant. Every quarter inch of fabric they save, every curve they reduce to straight lines, every button and buttonhole they don't put on, every extra patternset they can cut out at once (even though it negatively affects the fit of the bottommost pieces), basically every single cent they can squeeze out of a single item is worth it at their volumes, regardless of what it does to fit or quality. Screw the customer. And they can get away with this in women's clothing because historically, every clothing producer has done this and there's no competition. We're used to have no pockets, to having to try on every individual item because even the same items differ between units, and having our clothes wear out in three months, and there's little to nothing on the market for us that doesn't have these problems.
Men's clothing, on the other hand, has historically been long-wearing, fit to size, and had deep pockets. A 34-waist, 32-inseam guy buys his 34 X 32 pants without trying them on, gets them home, and finds they don't fit, he takes them back and he doesn't buy that brand anymore, because he knows when he grabs the competitions off the rack, they will fit. He sticks his hand into a pocket and about breaks his fingers before his wrist is into it, he's going to raise hell and buy the competition. His clothing wears out after 12 washes, he's taking it back, complaining, and buying the competition.
In men's clothes, those are defects. In women's clothes, they're industry standard. In case I'm not clear, let me stress that these problems are not the faults of end consumers, they're the fault of the manufacturers. We female consumers don't have alternatives. Show me a women's clothing manufacturer that, for decent prices, makes clothing that's robust, always fits like the tag says, and has deep pockets. (PLEASE. I'm desperate to buy from the company.)
Until then, guess I'm buying men's pants. :)
1) Give me ALL the shirt buttons. I will decide how much of my blouse I want to leave unbuttoned.
2) You know what's tossed on my bed right now? Brand new men's pants. And you know what I'm going to do with them? I'm gonna WEAR them. I have absolutely had it with poor quality, thin fabric, and stupidly small pockets. After traipsing all over that damn mall trying to find something vaguely acceptable, I took my child-bearing hips and all the junk in my trunk over to the men's section, and you know what I found. Stuff that fits. Screw you, women's clothing makers!
I wish I'd tried the men's section years ago. I honestly didn't think it would work with my body shape. I've got a 34 inch waist, 43 inch hips, and 27 inch inseam. 36X29 or 38X29 pleated fronts, baby. Taken in a vacuum, I'll admit they don't have the nicest line possible. I'm using pleats designed to hang straight in order to get room for my hips, so there's a bit of flair. But you compare to the women's equivalent, and you know what? Most women's pants do that to me, too, except now I won't have my wallet and my keys protruding from my hips like a pair of saddlebags. Men's pockets just keep going and going! I stick my hand in one and keep going to mid-forearm. It's wonderful.
They really don't look any different on me than most of the women's pants I've bought. I don't think anyone will be able to tell they're men's.
Honestly, right now I'm thinking all that "women's bodies are so different that they need specially made pants" stuff is a bunch of advertising hooey. It would certainly be true if clothing was well shaped and tailored, but it's not in this mass-produced world. I think women's and men's pants patterns are a LOT more similar then the companies want us to believe.
So, ladies, if you haven't tried to see if men's pants would fit you, take some time and see, even if you're curvy. If you don't find anything you like, you're not out much, and if you do, you'll be very happy. Even if you don't think it'll work, give it a try. 9-inch waist-hip difference here, worked just fine.
I was so intoxicated by the functional pockets thing that I bought myself a nice comfy pair of cargo pants. :) I swear I could throw a knitting project into one of those pockets, ball of yarn and all. (Single sock knitting would fit just fine, I have no doubt at all. Ooh, that'd be deliciously geeky.)
A few weeks ago, someone who works for a clothing manufacturer wrote into a thread on Ravelry (I think) explaining what she goes through, and suddenly all the problems with women's clothing make sense. It all comes down to money, both at the design company and then again at the manufacturing plant. Every quarter inch of fabric they save, every curve they reduce to straight lines, every button and buttonhole they don't put on, every extra patternset they can cut out at once (even though it negatively affects the fit of the bottommost pieces), basically every single cent they can squeeze out of a single item is worth it at their volumes, regardless of what it does to fit or quality. Screw the customer. And they can get away with this in women's clothing because historically, every clothing producer has done this and there's no competition. We're used to have no pockets, to having to try on every individual item because even the same items differ between units, and having our clothes wear out in three months, and there's little to nothing on the market for us that doesn't have these problems.
Men's clothing, on the other hand, has historically been long-wearing, fit to size, and had deep pockets. A 34-waist, 32-inseam guy buys his 34 X 32 pants without trying them on, gets them home, and finds they don't fit, he takes them back and he doesn't buy that brand anymore, because he knows when he grabs the competitions off the rack, they will fit. He sticks his hand into a pocket and about breaks his fingers before his wrist is into it, he's going to raise hell and buy the competition. His clothing wears out after 12 washes, he's taking it back, complaining, and buying the competition.
In men's clothes, those are defects. In women's clothes, they're industry standard. In case I'm not clear, let me stress that these problems are not the faults of end consumers, they're the fault of the manufacturers. We female consumers don't have alternatives. Show me a women's clothing manufacturer that, for decent prices, makes clothing that's robust, always fits like the tag says, and has deep pockets. (PLEASE. I'm desperate to buy from the company.)
Until then, guess I'm buying men's pants. :)
Thursday, June 12, 2008
See, this is why I hate Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart is convenient to the bus line, so every once in a while the grocery shopping gets done there. Now, I usually have a little container of yogurt as a mid-morning snack at work. Usually I get the grocery store brand, which isn't fabulous yogurt but is pretty good. So we picked up the Wal-Mart equivalent.
Ugh! Ack! Melodramatic gagging sounds! That is absolutely the most disgusting thing I can remember having eaten. The stuff tasted like flavored corn starch. And since those were two of the top three ingredients, I suppose that's not surprising. I know a lot of commercial yogurts have corn starch in them, but most of them don't taste like it. This was not yogurt. I'm sure it met some legal definition of yogurt, but it's not yogurt.
OK, so I got some lousy yogurt. But this just reinforces my biggest gripe about Wal-Mart: its exploitation of the poor. There's this strong (and I would say cultivated) air about Wal-Mart of "you have to shop here because you can't afford anywhere else." And indeed, I know many people who shop at Wal-Mart because they don't think they can afford anywhere else. But the thing is, and the thing my family members can't seem to catch on to, is that Wal-Mart has a very bad value-to-cost ratio. The stuff they sell isn't just cheap, it's crappy beyond what it's price suggests. Take the yogurt again. The grocery store brand is actually cheaper, tastes much better, and I think has better nutritional capabilities. In my experience, just about everything Wal-Mart sells can be had elsewhere at similar prices and better quality. But they've cultivated this image of "we're the cheapest", and a further insinuation of "you can't afford any better" to those most struggling to keep it together financially.
No more Wal-Mart shopping, I don't care how convenient it is.
Ugh! Ack! Melodramatic gagging sounds! That is absolutely the most disgusting thing I can remember having eaten. The stuff tasted like flavored corn starch. And since those were two of the top three ingredients, I suppose that's not surprising. I know a lot of commercial yogurts have corn starch in them, but most of them don't taste like it. This was not yogurt. I'm sure it met some legal definition of yogurt, but it's not yogurt.
OK, so I got some lousy yogurt. But this just reinforces my biggest gripe about Wal-Mart: its exploitation of the poor. There's this strong (and I would say cultivated) air about Wal-Mart of "you have to shop here because you can't afford anywhere else." And indeed, I know many people who shop at Wal-Mart because they don't think they can afford anywhere else. But the thing is, and the thing my family members can't seem to catch on to, is that Wal-Mart has a very bad value-to-cost ratio. The stuff they sell isn't just cheap, it's crappy beyond what it's price suggests. Take the yogurt again. The grocery store brand is actually cheaper, tastes much better, and I think has better nutritional capabilities. In my experience, just about everything Wal-Mart sells can be had elsewhere at similar prices and better quality. But they've cultivated this image of "we're the cheapest", and a further insinuation of "you can't afford any better" to those most struggling to keep it together financially.
No more Wal-Mart shopping, I don't care how convenient it is.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Crafting Copyright Confusion Causes Katian Craziness
(Don't hit. How often do I get to be that alliterative? ^_~)
Mini rants:
Rant 1: The need to slap up an "I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice" disclaimer on stuff like this. Why do we live in such a paranoid society? Frivilous lawsuits are actually very rare. And usually started by corporations, not individuals out to make a buck.
Rant 2:
Rant 3: There is a difference between 'legal', 'ethical', and 'moral'. Going to the almighty dictionary:
The other thing to remember is that morality is changeable and individual. There are certain big things that society as a whole considers immoral (example: murder), but even those are changeable and debatable given the circumstances (example: killing during a war).
If you ever want to see the stages of moral development in action, watch a copyright and licensing thread on a craft board. I would probably help my sanity a lot of I'd remember that many people don't make it past level 4, "legal = right".
(In general, it's sad how many people never get past the second stage - "What's in it for me?".)
Mini rants:
Rant 1: The need to slap up an "I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice" disclaimer on stuff like this. Why do we live in such a paranoid society? Frivilous lawsuits are actually very rare. And usually started by corporations, not individuals out to make a buck.
Rant 2:
- Clothing is a useful good.
- Useful goods cannot be copyright.
- Therefore, a clothing pattern with a standard "all rights reserved" copyright notice and nothing supplemental to that covers the pattern itself, but NOT the finished item. It is not "always illegal to make something for sale from a copyrighted pattern."
- Many designers now do include extra licensing terms. How legal these are remains to be seen, but in a society that allows click-through licenses to add additional conditions with no additional return, the odds are good they would be binding. *eye roll*
Rant 3: There is a difference between 'legal', 'ethical', and 'moral'. Going to the almighty dictionary:
- Legal: conforming to or permitted by law.
- Ethical: conforming to accepted professional standards of conduct.
- Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior.
The other thing to remember is that morality is changeable and individual. There are certain big things that society as a whole considers immoral (example: murder), but even those are changeable and debatable given the circumstances (example: killing during a war).
If you ever want to see the stages of moral development in action, watch a copyright and licensing thread on a craft board. I would probably help my sanity a lot of I'd remember that many people don't make it past level 4, "legal = right".
(In general, it's sad how many people never get past the second stage - "What's in it for me?".)
Friday, May 16, 2008
Atheist writers
I am about ready to toss in the towel looking for a good, open-minded, inclusively leaning atheist writer. My atheist friends, I really feel for you. It's not enough that you guys face major discrimination, that a majority of American voters wouldn't vote for an atheist candidate, you have to put up with this weird Freudian projection thing from opponents, that... Well, you know the laundry list better than I do. But on top of that, the representatives who get the major air time are... Well, it's about like if I were judged on the basis of Fred Phelps, Pat Buchanan, and Pat Robertson. (Never trust an evangelist named Pat.)
The two I've found who don't significantly trigger the nut-o-meter are both internet celebs. They're not really getting the big book deals and video shots.
Greta Christina's generally OK. Except when she gets angry. Then I'm the enemy and nothing I can say or do will change that unless I change a fundamental part of myself or cease to exist. Can't help you there, ma'am. If you're interested in working together to solve those problems once you calm down, gimme a shout.
PZ Myers is also OK, but I personally wouldn't really call his page an atheist blog, because he generally concentrates on science. No, the two are not the same. Which nicely leads to my biggest complaint about most of the big name, well-known (well, as well-known as possible) atheist names.
Just because I have some religious beliefs does not mean I am a flaming moron who is actively hostile to fact-based reality and has no understanding of science.
I'm an extremely fact based person. I love data. Show me a study, and I want to know your sample size and your margin of error. Show a confidence interval too, and I'll squee. (Literally. I really did the last -- OK, the one -- time I saw a confidence interval included in a mass media write-up of some study or other.) I not only support the theory of evolution in the same way I 'support', say, the theory of gravity, but furthermore, I know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law.
Yes, I have some beliefs that are not fact based. Um, so does everyone. (Any Cubs fans? Sorry, guys, but the idea that "this is their year!" is not fact-based.) I personally don't expect other people to share my non-fact-based beliefs. They don't even have to like them, but I do expect a certain basic level of respect for the fact that I have them. If someone calls me a flaming moron for the mere act of having such beliefs, he and I are not going to get along. Point blank.
OK, I'll be honest. Anyone calls me a flaming moron, he and I are not going to get along, period. Everyone's got buttons.
Usually at this point someone says "Oh, you'll like Dawkins." No, I will not like Dawkins. According to Dawkins, I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the guts to be an atheist. I'm a liberal, you see, and liberal religious apparently doesn't compute so well him for him. So we're obviously in denial.
Actually, this brings up another point. A while back I watched this chunk of a Dawkins video. No more, because after getting slapped with the insanely irrational idea that religion is the only thing that will make 'good' people do 'bad' things (uh huh. Jingoism, fear, greed, lack of survival needs, those have NEVER caused such things. It's 100% religion. *eye roll* Tell me how this is rational.), I decided that an hour of my life was worth more than that. But, at the end of that snippet, he asks how religious people (Christians in particular) decide which parts of their scriptures, traditions, etc to believe and which to toss in a rhetorical tone that supports the "don't have the guts to be an atheist" implication.
Let's say I drop a stack of scientific studies on the desk in front of you. Some of these studies are well-done and insightful. Some are poorly done and biased. Some have a broad body of work ahead of them. Some are brand new areas, wholly unique. Now, how do you decide which of these studies to believe for the time being, which should be filed away for future observation but are not yet strong enough to act on, and which to toss as complete junk?
Same thing, guys. When I decide which portions of scripture might be worth keeping around and which should just be ignored, I look at my own life, I look at the contradictions in the work itself and the relative dates they were produced, I look at what we now know scientifically (yes, data trumps scripture for me), I weigh against some base assumptions (for instance, I refuse to believe in an incompetent asshole god), I use a little judgment, and I do come back and re-evaluate every now and then. It also helps to know a little history behind some of the books in the Bible. [Not all 66 (isn't that a terribly ironic number?), but I can tell you, for instance, that the books of Ruth, Job, and Jonah were all written as fiction, not intended to be taken literally, and Revelations likely was as well. (Apocalypses were a popular literary movement at the time. And Revelations was not necessarily a description of the end of the world anyway. The Greek word used in it is 'eon', an age.) See, more data. I like crunchy bits.]
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So, Dawkins does not work for me due to his message that anyone who does understand and agree with science is either an atheist or a closet atheist, and conversely all religious people are morons, often violent. And he's about as good as it gets in the mainstream channels. Then there's Hitchens, who's probably about the most well-known atheist writer out there from my perspective. He's also the nuttiest. I'd almost think he was responsible for the "atheism is a religion too" BS some fundies spout, because the man is a zealot. And like many zealots, he has no problem lying to promote his beliefs. (He's also terribly sexist, and an arrogant dick to boot.)
I almost think it's a conspiracy that the atheist writers/speakers who get the air time and wide distribution are the nutty, non-mainstream ones. The media has an agenda to show that there's "something wrong" with atheists, so they only let atheists who are hostile to theists have the camera. Which doesn't help me find books by intelligent, inclusively-minded atheists, and certainly doesn't help my atheist friends get treated with the basic respect and rights all humans deserve.
The two I've found who don't significantly trigger the nut-o-meter are both internet celebs. They're not really getting the big book deals and video shots.
Greta Christina's generally OK. Except when she gets angry. Then I'm the enemy and nothing I can say or do will change that unless I change a fundamental part of myself or cease to exist. Can't help you there, ma'am. If you're interested in working together to solve those problems once you calm down, gimme a shout.
PZ Myers is also OK, but I personally wouldn't really call his page an atheist blog, because he generally concentrates on science. No, the two are not the same. Which nicely leads to my biggest complaint about most of the big name, well-known (well, as well-known as possible) atheist names.
Just because I have some religious beliefs does not mean I am a flaming moron who is actively hostile to fact-based reality and has no understanding of science.
I'm an extremely fact based person. I love data. Show me a study, and I want to know your sample size and your margin of error. Show a confidence interval too, and I'll squee. (Literally. I really did the last -- OK, the one -- time I saw a confidence interval included in a mass media write-up of some study or other.) I not only support the theory of evolution in the same way I 'support', say, the theory of gravity, but furthermore, I know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and a law.
Yes, I have some beliefs that are not fact based. Um, so does everyone. (Any Cubs fans? Sorry, guys, but the idea that "this is their year!" is not fact-based.) I personally don't expect other people to share my non-fact-based beliefs. They don't even have to like them, but I do expect a certain basic level of respect for the fact that I have them. If someone calls me a flaming moron for the mere act of having such beliefs, he and I are not going to get along. Point blank.
OK, I'll be honest. Anyone calls me a flaming moron, he and I are not going to get along, period. Everyone's got buttons.
Usually at this point someone says "Oh, you'll like Dawkins." No, I will not like Dawkins. According to Dawkins, I'm a wishy-washy fence-sitter who doesn't have the guts to be an atheist. I'm a liberal, you see, and liberal religious apparently doesn't compute so well him for him. So we're obviously in denial.
Actually, this brings up another point. A while back I watched this chunk of a Dawkins video. No more, because after getting slapped with the insanely irrational idea that religion is the only thing that will make 'good' people do 'bad' things (uh huh. Jingoism, fear, greed, lack of survival needs, those have NEVER caused such things. It's 100% religion. *eye roll* Tell me how this is rational.), I decided that an hour of my life was worth more than that. But, at the end of that snippet, he asks how religious people (Christians in particular) decide which parts of their scriptures, traditions, etc to believe and which to toss in a rhetorical tone that supports the "don't have the guts to be an atheist" implication.
Let's say I drop a stack of scientific studies on the desk in front of you. Some of these studies are well-done and insightful. Some are poorly done and biased. Some have a broad body of work ahead of them. Some are brand new areas, wholly unique. Now, how do you decide which of these studies to believe for the time being, which should be filed away for future observation but are not yet strong enough to act on, and which to toss as complete junk?
Same thing, guys. When I decide which portions of scripture might be worth keeping around and which should just be ignored, I look at my own life, I look at the contradictions in the work itself and the relative dates they were produced, I look at what we now know scientifically (yes, data trumps scripture for me), I weigh against some base assumptions (for instance, I refuse to believe in an incompetent asshole god), I use a little judgment, and I do come back and re-evaluate every now and then. It also helps to know a little history behind some of the books in the Bible. [Not all 66 (isn't that a terribly ironic number?), but I can tell you, for instance, that the books of Ruth, Job, and Jonah were all written as fiction, not intended to be taken literally, and Revelations likely was as well. (Apocalypses were a popular literary movement at the time. And Revelations was not necessarily a description of the end of the world anyway. The Greek word used in it is 'eon', an age.) See, more data. I like crunchy bits.]
Anyway, back to the topic at hand. So, Dawkins does not work for me due to his message that anyone who does understand and agree with science is either an atheist or a closet atheist, and conversely all religious people are morons, often violent. And he's about as good as it gets in the mainstream channels. Then there's Hitchens, who's probably about the most well-known atheist writer out there from my perspective. He's also the nuttiest. I'd almost think he was responsible for the "atheism is a religion too" BS some fundies spout, because the man is a zealot. And like many zealots, he has no problem lying to promote his beliefs. (He's also terribly sexist, and an arrogant dick to boot.)
I almost think it's a conspiracy that the atheist writers/speakers who get the air time and wide distribution are the nutty, non-mainstream ones. The media has an agenda to show that there's "something wrong" with atheists, so they only let atheists who are hostile to theists have the camera. Which doesn't help me find books by intelligent, inclusively-minded atheists, and certainly doesn't help my atheist friends get treated with the basic respect and rights all humans deserve.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Zealots ruin everything.
During my last chain store visit, I was frustrated to discover that prayer shawls are going the way of the WWJD bracelet: something that had good meaning and intention when it was limited to a small group who believed in it, moved into yet another brainwashing technique, and is now on its way to becoming meaningless commercial fluff.
I suppose first I should specify that I'm talking about Christian prayer shawls, not to be confused with the Jewish Tallit or any other article of religious clothing. A Christian prayer shawl is given to someone during a time of hardship. The very original seed of the idea was a wonderful one. The idea was to mindfully knit a comforting items for a (preferably specific) person in a difficult time in their lives, keeping them in mind while working. It was to be a very spiritual, meditative practice, basically a physical manifestation of a prayer.
Well, it went wrong almost as soon as it started with The Prayer Shawl Ministry. Yes, I am aware that I'm saying the people who first codified the idea are doing it wrong. You know why? 'Cause they're doing it wrong. As soon as just about anything becomes a 'ministry', it becomes a failure at its original purpose. Why? Because the focus is no longer about helping people in need; it's about 'spreading the word of Jesus'. Only last I checked, the 'word of Jesus' was about loving and helping people. If you stop concentrating on loving and helping people in favor of talking about it, you've failed. It's a terribly tragic spiral. People are the message, and if you've put aside the people in favor of the message, you've put aside the real message.
In the case of the Prayer Shawl Ministry itself, almost immediately the focus was no longer the people in need, but rather the shawls. Prayer Shawls became yet another way for churches to get face time, and giving aid to people in pain was a convenient side effect. Many makers are not mindful, but rather crank them out, just thinking or praying for the recipient "when they come to mind" as one maker put it on Ravelry. Some churches keep a stock of them back to hand out whenever they're 'needed', which can be anything from a tragic accident to a birthday gift. It doesn't matter who gets them; it only matters who from what organization makes them. So, basically the original idea is in the toilet.
Naturally, Lion Brand yarn is very happy to help you with your Prayer Shawl. They recommend Lion Homespun. Interestingly enough, it seems that most prayer shawls are made out of Homespun. So much for grass-roots and non-profit.
Suffice to say, I'm pretty disgusted, both in how this particular idea was corrupted into a propaganda scheme, and how that seems inevitable with anything spiritual in modern American Christianity.
I suppose first I should specify that I'm talking about Christian prayer shawls, not to be confused with the Jewish Tallit or any other article of religious clothing. A Christian prayer shawl is given to someone during a time of hardship. The very original seed of the idea was a wonderful one. The idea was to mindfully knit a comforting items for a (preferably specific) person in a difficult time in their lives, keeping them in mind while working. It was to be a very spiritual, meditative practice, basically a physical manifestation of a prayer.
Well, it went wrong almost as soon as it started with The Prayer Shawl Ministry. Yes, I am aware that I'm saying the people who first codified the idea are doing it wrong. You know why? 'Cause they're doing it wrong. As soon as just about anything becomes a 'ministry', it becomes a failure at its original purpose. Why? Because the focus is no longer about helping people in need; it's about 'spreading the word of Jesus'. Only last I checked, the 'word of Jesus' was about loving and helping people. If you stop concentrating on loving and helping people in favor of talking about it, you've failed. It's a terribly tragic spiral. People are the message, and if you've put aside the people in favor of the message, you've put aside the real message.
In the case of the Prayer Shawl Ministry itself, almost immediately the focus was no longer the people in need, but rather the shawls. Prayer Shawls became yet another way for churches to get face time, and giving aid to people in pain was a convenient side effect. Many makers are not mindful, but rather crank them out, just thinking or praying for the recipient "when they come to mind" as one maker put it on Ravelry. Some churches keep a stock of them back to hand out whenever they're 'needed', which can be anything from a tragic accident to a birthday gift. It doesn't matter who gets them; it only matters who from what organization makes them. So, basically the original idea is in the toilet.
Naturally, Lion Brand yarn is very happy to help you with your Prayer Shawl. They recommend Lion Homespun. Interestingly enough, it seems that most prayer shawls are made out of Homespun. So much for grass-roots and non-profit.
Suffice to say, I'm pretty disgusted, both in how this particular idea was corrupted into a propaganda scheme, and how that seems inevitable with anything spiritual in modern American Christianity.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Eternally 15 years away...
I've got a little quote for you, and I want you to guess when it was written:
"You may think that undue stress is being laid upon this driving force in her, upon this business ability. But remember that this was fifteen years or more ago, before women had invaded the world of business by the thousands, to take their place, side by side, salary for salary, with men."
Go ahead, guess when that was written. I'll wait. When was 15 years ago before women had invaded the workforce?
... waiting...
1917! Nineteen hundred and effin' seventeen!
*snarls* I'm sick of being lied to and jerked around about women's history.
Why wasn't I taught about Nellie Bly as a child? Why wasn't I told that women journalists were normal in the late 19th century?
Why wasn't I told about the roll of women war workers in bringing about American women's suffrage? Why wasn't I told there WERE woman workers during WWI. Rosie the Riveter was nothing new; she was part of a very long tradition.
In fact, why wasn't I told that since the 1920s if not before, most women have worked at some point in their life. Yes, even during the 1950s.
What else is being hidden back there? I want to know, dammit! I want every 11-year-old girl in this country to know!
You find some really scary/shocking/annoying stuff when you start reading primary sources. >:P
Somewhat different rant, I am really truly sick of the "romantic stalker" storyline. Stalking is not romantic. Ever. It's creepy and stalkers should be forced to have regular talks with Mr. Police Man about why it is not appropriate behavior. And a shrink would be good too.
And the storyline itself is un-freakin'-believably insulting. "Women don't really know what's best for them or what they want. Here, this terribly creepy man knows what you want better than you do. Give up your free will and self-determination and give in to him. He won't go away until you do." And this is supposed to be romantic? Who do I need to strangle?
And off of that, I'm really sick of certain men trying to tell me what women want and what women think. What the hell makes them think that they are more qualified than me on this topic? Last I checked, I'm the one with boobs!
I need to knit me one of these for moments like this, I think. I wonder what ever happened to the stuffed rat creature I used to keep around for when I needed to smack something around and shout "stupid STUPID rat creature!"
"You may think that undue stress is being laid upon this driving force in her, upon this business ability. But remember that this was fifteen years or more ago, before women had invaded the world of business by the thousands, to take their place, side by side, salary for salary, with men."
Go ahead, guess when that was written. I'll wait. When was 15 years ago before women had invaded the workforce?
... waiting...
1917! Nineteen hundred and effin' seventeen!
*snarls* I'm sick of being lied to and jerked around about women's history.
Why wasn't I taught about Nellie Bly as a child? Why wasn't I told that women journalists were normal in the late 19th century?
Why wasn't I told about the roll of women war workers in bringing about American women's suffrage? Why wasn't I told there WERE woman workers during WWI. Rosie the Riveter was nothing new; she was part of a very long tradition.
In fact, why wasn't I told that since the 1920s if not before, most women have worked at some point in their life. Yes, even during the 1950s.
What else is being hidden back there? I want to know, dammit! I want every 11-year-old girl in this country to know!
You find some really scary/shocking/annoying stuff when you start reading primary sources. >:P
Somewhat different rant, I am really truly sick of the "romantic stalker" storyline. Stalking is not romantic. Ever. It's creepy and stalkers should be forced to have regular talks with Mr. Police Man about why it is not appropriate behavior. And a shrink would be good too.
And the storyline itself is un-freakin'-believably insulting. "Women don't really know what's best for them or what they want. Here, this terribly creepy man knows what you want better than you do. Give up your free will and self-determination and give in to him. He won't go away until you do." And this is supposed to be romantic? Who do I need to strangle?
And off of that, I'm really sick of certain men trying to tell me what women want and what women think. What the hell makes them think that they are more qualified than me on this topic? Last I checked, I'm the one with boobs!
I need to knit me one of these for moments like this, I think. I wonder what ever happened to the stuffed rat creature I used to keep around for when I needed to smack something around and shout "stupid STUPID rat creature!"
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
I need to rage.
There's a number of things I want to rage about, and I'm having a hard time deciding, so I think I'll go rage about rape. It is very rage-able.
I know it's old, but did you hear about this case? There is a fairly recent (and not positive) update, though. In a rape trial, the victim was slapped with a gag order preventing her and the prosecutors from using the words “victim,” “assailant,” “rape,” “date rape drugs,” “sexual assault kit,” and “sexual assault.” The only terms she was allowed to use in her testimony to describe what happened were "sex", "sexual intercourse" and "intercourse".
Where does a woman even start with the rage here? Can you imagine a burglary case where the judge banned the use of the words "theft", "stole", and "crime scene investigation", and only allowed the words "transaction" and "property transfer" to define the crime? Can you imagine that judge keeping his job? Can you imagine the media not being all over that? But put "Tory Bowen" (the woman's name) into a news search at Google, and only 6 results come up!
I will never be allowed on a rape jury. Why? Because I know the mere fact that I'm there means there's a 95% chance the guy is guilty, and about a 5% chance he'll be convicted, and about a literal 1% chance overall that he'll do any time for it.
A little look at the statistics shows why justice for raped women is almost an impossibility. You know what statistics I want to see shoved down our throats as much as the one-in-four? I want everyone to be told just as often that at least 1 in 8 men is a rapist, and that 1 in 2 think it's OK "under certain circumstances" (which are typically everyday things -- spending a lot of money on her, she's wearing the wrong thing, they've been going out for a while, etc.).
Now, assuming you have a rape trial jury that's only half male (I suspect they're typically more than half male), that means there is a 55% chance that there will be a rapist on the jury. And a 98% chance that at least 1 of the male jurors will think rape is OK. When you consider all the men that are involved in a rape trial -- maybe police officers, maybe doctors, maybe lawyers, maybe the judge -- it's practically a guarantee that a rapist will be in at least one key position in the trial.
How can we ever expect justice in that sort of environment?
There is something seriously wrong with the way rape is presented to men as opposed to women. As I've ranted before, I was taught that rape was the absolutely worst thing that could possibly happen to me, far worse than even being murdered. That's so fucked up. And yet I think that my upbringing was pretty typical in this regard. I'm quite certain it wasn't terribly atypical.
I do not believe that half of all men are monsters. I don't believe that even 12% of them are.
Therefore I must believe that large portions -- no, humongous portions! At least half, as a matter of fact! -- of the male population is not taught to view rape NEARLY as severely as women are.
This needs to change.
Worse, somehow we need to lessen the way women as a group view rape while strengthening the way men as a group view it. I'd like to see both genders view rape as an assault. If someone gets stabbed, few people ask what they did to deserve it, or blame the victim for it happening, or expect the victim to be ruined for life. Likewise, few people think that it's OK to stab someone "under certain circumstances" (and certainly not under fairly everyday ones), and I'm almost certain that the number of men who have stabbed someone is significantly less than 1 in 8.
I know it's old, but did you hear about this case? There is a fairly recent (and not positive) update, though. In a rape trial, the victim was slapped with a gag order preventing her and the prosecutors from using the words “victim,” “assailant,” “rape,” “date rape drugs,” “sexual assault kit,” and “sexual assault.” The only terms she was allowed to use in her testimony to describe what happened were "sex", "sexual intercourse" and "intercourse".
Where does a woman even start with the rage here? Can you imagine a burglary case where the judge banned the use of the words "theft", "stole", and "crime scene investigation", and only allowed the words "transaction" and "property transfer" to define the crime? Can you imagine that judge keeping his job? Can you imagine the media not being all over that? But put "Tory Bowen" (the woman's name) into a news search at Google, and only 6 results come up!
I will never be allowed on a rape jury. Why? Because I know the mere fact that I'm there means there's a 95% chance the guy is guilty, and about a 5% chance he'll be convicted, and about a literal 1% chance overall that he'll do any time for it.
A little look at the statistics shows why justice for raped women is almost an impossibility. You know what statistics I want to see shoved down our throats as much as the one-in-four? I want everyone to be told just as often that at least 1 in 8 men is a rapist, and that 1 in 2 think it's OK "under certain circumstances" (which are typically everyday things -- spending a lot of money on her, she's wearing the wrong thing, they've been going out for a while, etc.).
Now, assuming you have a rape trial jury that's only half male (I suspect they're typically more than half male), that means there is a 55% chance that there will be a rapist on the jury. And a 98% chance that at least 1 of the male jurors will think rape is OK. When you consider all the men that are involved in a rape trial -- maybe police officers, maybe doctors, maybe lawyers, maybe the judge -- it's practically a guarantee that a rapist will be in at least one key position in the trial.
How can we ever expect justice in that sort of environment?
There is something seriously wrong with the way rape is presented to men as opposed to women. As I've ranted before, I was taught that rape was the absolutely worst thing that could possibly happen to me, far worse than even being murdered. That's so fucked up. And yet I think that my upbringing was pretty typical in this regard. I'm quite certain it wasn't terribly atypical.
I do not believe that half of all men are monsters. I don't believe that even 12% of them are.
Therefore I must believe that large portions -- no, humongous portions! At least half, as a matter of fact! -- of the male population is not taught to view rape NEARLY as severely as women are.
This needs to change.
Worse, somehow we need to lessen the way women as a group view rape while strengthening the way men as a group view it. I'd like to see both genders view rape as an assault. If someone gets stabbed, few people ask what they did to deserve it, or blame the victim for it happening, or expect the victim to be ruined for life. Likewise, few people think that it's OK to stab someone "under certain circumstances" (and certainly not under fairly everyday ones), and I'm almost certain that the number of men who have stabbed someone is significantly less than 1 in 8.
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Sometimes other people embarrass me.
First and foremost, I'm fed up and so I'm just going to say it.
If someone's opinion depends on the idea that science has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, they are not worthy of serious debate.
If their opinion depends on the idea that science has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and that religion does not, they don't deserve to be talked to like an adult unless they've shown critical thinking skills elsewhere.
Ditto on that last part for governments or corporations.
Not related to that last part, but have you ever read something so stupid that you are embarrassed for the writer, even though you don't know them?
I've been getting that every time I see an article by Grace Hutton on Fiber Femmes. Every time she has one, she sounds like a flaming moron. Her articles are poorly researched, poorly thought out rants.
Take Predator Friendly -- Not Me. There are organizations out there that encourage livestock owners not to kill naturally occurring predators. There are areas with a near-natural wildlife balance where this is practical. She doesn't live in one; she apparently lives in an area where the black bear population is greater than the natural wildlife can support. Fine, predator-friendly livestock management is not a viable option for her. There's nothing wrong with that. But no, she has to go off on how the very concept is stupid, and makes herself look like a complete moron in the process. Some representative, but non-exhaustive examples:
The very first sentence: "Lately what is making me so mad my hair is about to catch on fire is the notion that there are “ethical” issues with using wool."
The article argues that there are absolutely no ethical issues with wool. That's ludicrous! I've previously ripped PETA a new one for their misrepresentation of the issues, but going to the other extreme is just as insane and irresponsible. Again, let's take some key, but non-exhaustive, points from this article.
It's up to each individual to determine what the ethical issues are with each fibers, and which best align with their values. Thus for some people acrylic is preferable to leather ethically, and for others the reverse is true. By all means address and, if possible, correct the ethical concerns with your own fiber of choice. But pretending that those simply don't exist is flat-out delusional.
If someone's opinion depends on the idea that science has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, they are not worthy of serious debate.
If their opinion depends on the idea that science has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and that religion does not, they don't deserve to be talked to like an adult unless they've shown critical thinking skills elsewhere.
Ditto on that last part for governments or corporations.
Not related to that last part, but have you ever read something so stupid that you are embarrassed for the writer, even though you don't know them?
I've been getting that every time I see an article by Grace Hutton on Fiber Femmes. Every time she has one, she sounds like a flaming moron. Her articles are poorly researched, poorly thought out rants.
Take Predator Friendly -- Not Me. There are organizations out there that encourage livestock owners not to kill naturally occurring predators. There are areas with a near-natural wildlife balance where this is practical. She doesn't live in one; she apparently lives in an area where the black bear population is greater than the natural wildlife can support. Fine, predator-friendly livestock management is not a viable option for her. There's nothing wrong with that. But no, she has to go off on how the very concept is stupid, and makes herself look like a complete moron in the process. Some representative, but non-exhaustive examples:
- She complains that yearly elk calf survival in Yellowstone is 14 calves per 100 elk cows, and obviously this horrible number must be because of predators.
- Problem: Wild elk have an average lifespan of 10 to 13 years, which means the sustainable replacement rate is 7 to 10 elk per 100. So, depending on the number of males in that population and the adult lifespan for same, that could very well be a sustainable number.
- Problem: Predation is not the only cause of death. There's also disease (sometimes transmitted, interestingly enough, by livestock), human hunting/poaching, lack of correct food, and so on.
- She says that the Pennsylvania Game Commission advised her to bait her electric fence with bacon so that bears will learn this is not a place they want to be, and then states "Bear baiting and dog fights are regarded to be cruelty of the worst sort."
- Hold on, so she's in Pennsylvania. Then what in the world does Yellowstone, a completely different ecosystem 1500 miles away, have to do with her situation?
- 'Bear baiting' was the practice of using a bear as bait for dogs, not of baiting the bear. The term is sometimes used for a hunting practice of leaving bait for a bear until it has established a pattern of taking it, and then waiting for the bear to show up and shoot it. It has nothing to do with developing a negative association in the bear against your property.
- She attempts to redefine predator to include parasites, so she can then dismiss the idea of predatory-friendly as ludicrous because it protects parasites. *eye roll*
- And at the end of the article, we have a nice little appeal to tradition. Killing predators was good enough for her ancestors, dammit, so it's good enough for her, and anyone who "ignores the lessons of history" must be a moron. Ma'am, I'd like to point out that one of the lessons of that exact same history and those very same ancestors is that if you eliminate the natural prey sources and provide an alternative one, you're going to have closer encounters with predators, while at the same time if you eliminate all of the predators you're going to have a terrible time with destructive, unchecked prey animals.
The very first sentence: "Lately what is making me so mad my hair is about to catch on fire is the notion that there are “ethical” issues with using wool."
The article argues that there are absolutely no ethical issues with wool. That's ludicrous! I've previously ripped PETA a new one for their misrepresentation of the issues, but going to the other extreme is just as insane and irresponsible. Again, let's take some key, but non-exhaustive, points from this article.
- "Most of the plant and man-made fibers require some powerful chemicals to dye them pretty colors. Wool on the other hand can be dyed permanently with food safe colors - - think Kool Aid and Easter egg dyes plus diluted vinegar." This one's my favorite.
- Yes, you heard it here. There were absolutely positively NO dyed cotton or linen ever before the invention of industrial aniline dyes in 1856. Except, um, there were. Even today some of our cotton jeans are dyed with indigo. Plant fibers can be dyed very well with natural dyes and safe mordants.
- Food safe dyes on wool do not produce results that most people would call "permanent". They are infamously fragile and prone to fading, not to mention generally starting in very pastel shades.
- She brings in the cattle industry, and then denies that existence of factory farms that never pasture their cows. Not only is that delusional, it's not even remotely topical. Last I checked, cows don't produce wool.
- Because short-tailed sheep exist and there is an "ethnic market" (her term) that desires uncastrated lambs, the issues of tail docking and castration without anesthesia simply do not exist. She's not arguing that they aren't as cruel as they seem to an uninformed outsider; she's saying that because it is not an issue in all cases, it is not an issue in any case.
It's up to each individual to determine what the ethical issues are with each fibers, and which best align with their values. Thus for some people acrylic is preferable to leather ethically, and for others the reverse is true. By all means address and, if possible, correct the ethical concerns with your own fiber of choice. But pretending that those simply don't exist is flat-out delusional.
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
Men's Crafts versus Women's Crafts
OK, first off, apologies for the title. Naturally there's no such thing as a "man's" craft or a "woman's" craft. I don't know of a single craft done with the use of a penis, and you could probably use a dildo if there was. Likewise female genitalia is not used in any craft I can think of. So properly speaking, the title should be "Predominately men's crafts versus predominately women's crafts." But that's not as pithy and doesn't fit in the subject line as well. And certainly doesn't let me share the mental image of penile and vaginal craft projects.
Anyway, what I'm actually hear to talk about are attitudes towards intellectual property rights in scroll sawing and wood carving (traditionally male-dominated crafts) and knitting, crocheting, and sewing (traditionally female-oriented crafts). For some reason, women seem to be a LOT more stingy about the IPRs. You would be hard pressed to find a modern fiber craft book that does not have a "patterns may be made for personal use only" disclaimer in the front. I've seen ones that try to put limits on how many copies you can make for yourself to mark up as you work -- copies no one else ever even sees.
On the other hand, you pop open a scroll saw book or magazine, and there's good odds that there's advice on how to sell what you've made from the patterns. (For example, Scroll Saw Scandinavian has a nice little section on how best to display the items it's giving you patterns for.) Not to say I've never seen the complaint about someone making money off of a designer's work. I did once, from someone who walked into a Hallmark store and saw hundreds of lasercut ornaments made with his pattern and without a license.
Ladies, what are we doing here? They're worried about mass production; we're worried about a church raffle. Why is this?
I know it's not that the men's crafts are harder or slower. I've been knitting and crocheting since I was a kid, but give me a choice of making a coaster with an elaborate design with yarn or on the scroll-saw, and I'll be down making some sawdust. It's so much faster.
Are men more secure in their IPs? I'll be the first to admit that men's crafts are more respected; it's much rarer for a woodworker to be told "you know, you can buy one of those" compared to a yarn artist. The hypothetical coasters: I strongly suspect the scroll-sawed one will get more wow's than the yarn.
I don't think the men's crafts have a larger customer base, and I'm quite certain that's not the cause in any event. In the 1980s, when knitting was a terribly niche market, many American patterns had a limited license (allowance to make 100 items/year for sale, or for 'pin money', or some other non-mass-production commercial use OK).
Is it related to the way women are taught to hate each other and view each other as competition? This is the one I always suspect, although I wouldn't try to say whether it's an effect or part of a cause. Is it really that horrible for your work to help another woman ease her financial burden? It's insanely rare for a crafter to be in direct competition with the designer selling the finished article, and the sort of person who would buy the pattern is not the sort to buy the finished article. (Otherwise we wouldn't be in this knitting thing; it's faster and cheaper to buy sweaters from the store.) So why not let other women sell what they've made?
I'd really like to see women's crafts open sharing back up. I mean, isn't it cool to think that the thing you designed has helped pay for another woman's car, or a meal, or a doctor's visit? Or even just a couple of balls of yarn? Designers don't have to close it off to individuals in order to prevent mass manufacturing. Heck, you will almost never see me suggest this, but grab a Creative Commons license. Instead of worrying about small losses, let's think about the big helps we can provide.
Anyway, what I'm actually hear to talk about are attitudes towards intellectual property rights in scroll sawing and wood carving (traditionally male-dominated crafts) and knitting, crocheting, and sewing (traditionally female-oriented crafts). For some reason, women seem to be a LOT more stingy about the IPRs. You would be hard pressed to find a modern fiber craft book that does not have a "patterns may be made for personal use only" disclaimer in the front. I've seen ones that try to put limits on how many copies you can make for yourself to mark up as you work -- copies no one else ever even sees.
On the other hand, you pop open a scroll saw book or magazine, and there's good odds that there's advice on how to sell what you've made from the patterns. (For example, Scroll Saw Scandinavian has a nice little section on how best to display the items it's giving you patterns for.) Not to say I've never seen the complaint about someone making money off of a designer's work. I did once, from someone who walked into a Hallmark store and saw hundreds of lasercut ornaments made with his pattern and without a license.
Ladies, what are we doing here? They're worried about mass production; we're worried about a church raffle. Why is this?
I know it's not that the men's crafts are harder or slower. I've been knitting and crocheting since I was a kid, but give me a choice of making a coaster with an elaborate design with yarn or on the scroll-saw, and I'll be down making some sawdust. It's so much faster.
Are men more secure in their IPs? I'll be the first to admit that men's crafts are more respected; it's much rarer for a woodworker to be told "you know, you can buy one of those" compared to a yarn artist. The hypothetical coasters: I strongly suspect the scroll-sawed one will get more wow's than the yarn.
I don't think the men's crafts have a larger customer base, and I'm quite certain that's not the cause in any event. In the 1980s, when knitting was a terribly niche market, many American patterns had a limited license (allowance to make 100 items/year for sale, or for 'pin money', or some other non-mass-production commercial use OK).
Is it related to the way women are taught to hate each other and view each other as competition? This is the one I always suspect, although I wouldn't try to say whether it's an effect or part of a cause. Is it really that horrible for your work to help another woman ease her financial burden? It's insanely rare for a crafter to be in direct competition with the designer selling the finished article, and the sort of person who would buy the pattern is not the sort to buy the finished article. (Otherwise we wouldn't be in this knitting thing; it's faster and cheaper to buy sweaters from the store.) So why not let other women sell what they've made?
I'd really like to see women's crafts open sharing back up. I mean, isn't it cool to think that the thing you designed has helped pay for another woman's car, or a meal, or a doctor's visit? Or even just a couple of balls of yarn? Designers don't have to close it off to individuals in order to prevent mass manufacturing. Heck, you will almost never see me suggest this, but grab a Creative Commons license. Instead of worrying about small losses, let's think about the big helps we can provide.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
A Customer Profile
While I was out shopping, I picked up the latest issue of Beadwork magazine, and one of the "bead biz" articles caught my eye. It was describing a particular kind of art jewelry customer:
Nope. "Every shoplifter we have ever caught in our store or at our bead show has fit this profile somewhat."
Much of that doesn't surprise me, but what blows my mind is the "knows you, a bit about you, and asks about your husband and kids" part. I can understand people who steal from people they don't know: the "they'll never miss it" attitude, the belief that this stranger can afford the loss, the idea that you're not hurting a real human. But to know someone as an individual, to know them by name and family, to know that they really can't spare it, and to take from them anyway... I just can't imagine looking at the world that way.
Then again, my step-cousin did steal my poverty-line-hovering mother blind, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Still. *shakes head*
- Regular customer
- "used to buy a lot more from you, but still comes to see you on a regular basis for little purchases"
- Perhaps in her 50s
- Dresses well.
- Knows your name, a bit about you, often asks about your husband and children
- Comes to all the shows; maybe even brings cookies to her favorite vendors
Nope. "Every shoplifter we have ever caught in our store or at our bead show has fit this profile somewhat."
Much of that doesn't surprise me, but what blows my mind is the "knows you, a bit about you, and asks about your husband and kids" part. I can understand people who steal from people they don't know: the "they'll never miss it" attitude, the belief that this stranger can afford the loss, the idea that you're not hurting a real human. But to know someone as an individual, to know them by name and family, to know that they really can't spare it, and to take from them anyway... I just can't imagine looking at the world that way.
Then again, my step-cousin did steal my poverty-line-hovering mother blind, so I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Still. *shakes head*
Friday, March 28, 2008
Blog Anti-Torture Day
The Bush administration claims that torture is a crucial interrogation method, absolutely essential to "keeping America safe".
This is bullshit.
First and foremost, torture is not an effective interrogation technique. Even the most cursory glance at history will tell you this. Witch hunts? Inquisition? Any of these ring a bell? Even today, name me one specific, documented, imminent terrorist attack that has been thwarted by torture tactics. I mean the same detail that was released when the 2006 airline liquids ban went into place: expected dates, expected targets, actual means to do so in the near future. If torture is so critical, then after 6 years there ought to be at least one case the Bush administration could trot out whenever challenged, one instance where they could say "had we not used these tactics, then on Nov 23, 2005, approximately 700 people would have been killed due to a bomb explosion in Time Square" or something similar.
There's not. The administration and its lackeys may like to say that "we've stopped dozens of potential attacks because of this", but why should we believe it when not a single one is at a stage where definite, concrete details can be given -- as they were the day the liquids ban went into place?
Now, think about this a little more, and get scared. If torture is not an effective interrogation technique, why is it being used?
Let me point something out. Torture is a common war tactic to demoralize a populace. Vietnam showed us this. So did WWII, and probably every war before that. The point of torture as a war tactic is not just the person being tortured. At least as important, often more so, is the populace scared into inaction by fear of that torture.
This is also why it's a very common tactic of terrorist groups. Since the start of the Iraq war, how many journalists/aid workers/others have been kidnapped in the Middle East and tortured on video in attempts to scare the torturers' enemies into complying with their demands? Enough to have kept the media busy for a while.
When we do the same, we are the same. When we use terrorist tactics, we are morally no different than any terrorist group. Having large funding and government approval makes such tactics more onerous, not less.
The trick when using torture as a war (or terror) tactic is for your enemies to know about it, and your proponents not to. Now I have to point out that many Iraqs outside the prison knew about Abu Ghraib long before the American press caught wind of it. Hmm...
The catch is, the Bush administration didn't keep the cat in the bag very well. Now, America is supposed to be a civilized country. We don't like that kind of thing. But, the administration wasn't about to abandon their torture tactics, so their task became making us like, or at least tolerate, them. Which is more likely to garner that result: "we want to use it to terrify a populace into submission", or "we want to use it to keep you, each and every one of you, safe."
Don't think for a second that torture tactics are really about protecting us; they're not. That's merely a smoke screen, a ruse to get the American people to look the other way. Torture tactics are an unacceptable means to an unjustifiable end, and America's citizens should demand that they be stopped.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Teeth
Some of you may have seen this already, but for those of you who haven't, the story. Rachel Nabors is a comic book artist, living paycheck to paycheck like most young (and many not-so-young) people in US society today. She has a severe cross-bite that is causing the bone of her jaw to thin. This needs to be treated in the near future, or the damage will become too severe to fix, and she risks losing her teeth. The procedure costs $25,000. Rachel doesn't have insurance, so at the encouragement of her friends, she's asking for donations.
Now, let me toss in a little from my own experience. I'm currently wearing braces. Before they first went on, I had to have four permanent teeth removed in addition to the four wisdom teeth that shouldn't have been left there as long as they were. So, from my own experience:
Insurance wouldn't help. Not enough. It might cover the surgical portion of it, IF it's considered a medical procedure instead of a dental one. (Goofiest thing. On me, the anesthesia was covered by medical, but the extraction was dental.) If it's dental... No, not gonna help much. 8 extractions put me WELL over my yearly dental coverage limit. I ended up paying several hundred dollars out of pocket. Even if she had really good dental insurance, that would maybe knock off $2K from the $25K if the surgery was considered dental.
The orthodontia, nothing covers. No insurance if you're over 23, no federal benefits, nothing. Both insurance companies and the federal government say that orthodontia is always cosmetic for adults.
Bull shit.
I would not be having this done for cosmetic reasons. Because of my age, I've developed one exposed root and two or three partially exposed roots as a complication from the procedure (which may or may not heal after the braces are off), it's excruciatingly painful some days, and it is really helluva expensive! And, I will probably be wearing a retainer every night for the rest of my life. No, the reason I'm having it done is because my choices were have my teeth straightened and keep them for the rest of my life, or come in for more fillings every few years until they finally had to be pulled and replaced with dentures. As an added benefit, I no longer have a tooth literally cutting into my tongue, which is nice.
Furthermore, if it's cosmetic for adults, it's cosmetic for children. That's a bullshit excuse to cut off all adults from help.
This is not something Rachel "got herself into". This would not be addressed if she were somehow "more responsible" or "got a real job with insurance". She's a victim of a shitty system, and there's lots of people out there. So:
1) she could use some help. It is a serious problem, not just a cosmetic issue. Please donate if you can. (Just click on the banner, and it'll take you to a page with the full story and a donate button.)
2) it's time Americans started holding our politicians feet to the fire and demanding that this country act like it has citizens instead of walking resources fit for exploitation.
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Clueless Rich
I rarely go onto "banter" or "OT" sections of forums, because the assholes feel even more free to be there than on-topic locations. But I foolishly clicked such a thread, and saw someone insist this regarding estate taxes (which do kick in or are proposed to kick in, I'm not sure which, at $2 million):
"In saying that $2 million in wealth doesn't make you wealthy, I was thinking of a retired person with a good home and a nest egg that they lived off of, since that is usually who is passing on an estate. If $500,000 is the home value, then $1.5 million is used to generate your income for retirement, the person could probably get about 10% per year to live off of which would be $150,000."
1) Half a million dollar home? In some American markets that's downright ostentatious, in others it would be reasonable for a family home, but in all cases I know of, that would be an overly large house for a retired couple.
2) $150,000/year nicely qualifies someone as the top-most 10% of the economy, maybe the top 5% (top 2% starts at $200K) -- in other words, RICH. Even more so with an elderly person, as the rest of us are expected to cut our spending in half once we leave the work force. (At least according to the few remaining pension plans out there.)
3) That's $150,000/year without touching the principle! Most responsible retirement planning for people who aren't rich involves carefully managing depletion of principle, so that a person does not end up broke and perhaps leaves behind a moderate inheritance, but enjoys most of the spoils of what they earned in their youth. The only people who can bring in $150K a year without touching principle are, again, RICH.
4) This is all beside the point anyway, because the estate tax is charged on the heirs, not the cute old grandparently couple the speaker is trying (and failing) to make us sympathize with.
Yes, $2 million in wealth DOES make you wealthy, ya selfish dumbass.
"In saying that $2 million in wealth doesn't make you wealthy, I was thinking of a retired person with a good home and a nest egg that they lived off of, since that is usually who is passing on an estate. If $500,000 is the home value, then $1.5 million is used to generate your income for retirement, the person could probably get about 10% per year to live off of which would be $150,000."
1) Half a million dollar home? In some American markets that's downright ostentatious, in others it would be reasonable for a family home, but in all cases I know of, that would be an overly large house for a retired couple.
2) $150,000/year nicely qualifies someone as the top-most 10% of the economy, maybe the top 5% (top 2% starts at $200K) -- in other words, RICH. Even more so with an elderly person, as the rest of us are expected to cut our spending in half once we leave the work force. (At least according to the few remaining pension plans out there.)
3) That's $150,000/year without touching the principle! Most responsible retirement planning for people who aren't rich involves carefully managing depletion of principle, so that a person does not end up broke and perhaps leaves behind a moderate inheritance, but enjoys most of the spoils of what they earned in their youth. The only people who can bring in $150K a year without touching principle are, again, RICH.
4) This is all beside the point anyway, because the estate tax is charged on the heirs, not the cute old grandparently couple the speaker is trying (and failing) to make us sympathize with.
Yes, $2 million in wealth DOES make you wealthy, ya selfish dumbass.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Duelling Billboards!
OK, this is just fun: Duelling with the "God Speaks" billboards.
Now, I will admit that I had a "That 'love that neighbor' thing? I mean that." T-shirt, and loved it. Was very sad when the cotton wore out, and I'd happily get another. (Was even sadder when my "Love 'em all, let God sort 'em out" shirt wore out, because they're not made any more. :( ) I like the shot at the way the more important tenants of Christianity have been ignored in favor of trivial, superceded, and hate-mongering ones.
And I find a lot of the Godspeaks stuff fairly innocuous.
But then they ran out of good ones, and started getting annoying and insulting. Like, say, the "Big Bang theory? You've gotta be kiddin' me" one. Good way to take already non-Universal statements, narrow the fuck out of them, and make them insulting to those outside the circle. Do you really think that's going to encourage people to join your side?
Anyway, enjoy the hypocrisy smack-down. I did. :)
Now, I will admit that I had a "That 'love that neighbor' thing? I mean that." T-shirt, and loved it. Was very sad when the cotton wore out, and I'd happily get another. (Was even sadder when my "Love 'em all, let God sort 'em out" shirt wore out, because they're not made any more. :( ) I like the shot at the way the more important tenants of Christianity have been ignored in favor of trivial, superceded, and hate-mongering ones.
And I find a lot of the Godspeaks stuff fairly innocuous.
But then they ran out of good ones, and started getting annoying and insulting. Like, say, the "Big Bang theory? You've gotta be kiddin' me" one. Good way to take already non-Universal statements, narrow the fuck out of them, and make them insulting to those outside the circle. Do you really think that's going to encourage people to join your side?
Anyway, enjoy the hypocrisy smack-down. I did. :)
The person Kati would like to slap today.
Dr. Nicholas Christakis, for his conclusions that obesity is contagious. He analyzed data from a study from one town (Framingham, Massachusetts), and found a correlation of friends becoming obese with other friends. "It did not even matter if the friend was hundreds of miles away - the influence remained." Conclusion: having fat friends makes you fat.
*smoldering rage*
*Slap!* *Slap!*
Hello! OBVIOUS cause-effect fallacy here. What makes people friends? Similar interests and attitudes. Similarities are further enhanced by growing up in the same town. The obesity correlation is FAR more likely to be caused by shared factors than by interpersonal influence. For hypothetical example: Joe didn't become fat because Bob did; Bob and Joe both became fat because they share a love of drawn butter and a hatred of jogging. The fact that physical separation does not affect the correlation supports my hypothesis FAR more than it supports Dr. Christakis's, and in fact should have eliminated (or at least greatly reduced attention to) the possibility of direct interpersonal influence. If your friend is hundreds of miles away, and your friendship is either not being maintained, or maintained by telephone, e-mail, and letters, you very well may not know that your friend has gained weight. If you don't, there's no way your friend's weight can affect you. But, the shared influences will remain.
I question Dr. Christakis' ability as a researcher that he did not consider (or dismissed) the more obvious and likely conclusion here in favor of the more discriminatory and fear-mongering one.
*smoldering rage*
*Slap!* *Slap!*
Hello! OBVIOUS cause-effect fallacy here. What makes people friends? Similar interests and attitudes. Similarities are further enhanced by growing up in the same town. The obesity correlation is FAR more likely to be caused by shared factors than by interpersonal influence. For hypothetical example: Joe didn't become fat because Bob did; Bob and Joe both became fat because they share a love of drawn butter and a hatred of jogging. The fact that physical separation does not affect the correlation supports my hypothesis FAR more than it supports Dr. Christakis's, and in fact should have eliminated (or at least greatly reduced attention to) the possibility of direct interpersonal influence. If your friend is hundreds of miles away, and your friendship is either not being maintained, or maintained by telephone, e-mail, and letters, you very well may not know that your friend has gained weight. If you don't, there's no way your friend's weight can affect you. But, the shared influences will remain.
I question Dr. Christakis' ability as a researcher that he did not consider (or dismissed) the more obvious and likely conclusion here in favor of the more discriminatory and fear-mongering one.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
An Economic Thought
And perhaps one that shows my ignorance on just what Ben Bernanke is thinking at any given time, but let me throw it out there nonetheless. And, BTW, forgive that this entry is very Ameri-centric.
Interest rates have been kept low for ages to "encourage economic growth." But, on the level of private citizens, the economy has been in the crapper for years, and now the word 'recession' is being bandied about.
Now, theoretically, high interest rates encourage saving, and low interest rates encourage borrowing and spending.
But, a private individual can only borrow so much before they've reached the point where they can't pay it back. Have we reached the point where we as a citizenry are tapped out, and lower interest rates are hurting the situation by giving us no way to build real assets?
Worse, have we reached a point where corporate and individual good are diametrically opposed. It is often to a corporation's benefit to borrow money, use it for development, and pay it back later rather than spend there own. This is especially true since bankruptcy laws are SO much more lenient for corporations than individuals. (Individuals can declare bankruptcy only once in a lifetime. Corporations can declare multiple times, with less obligation attached.)
But, individuals are rarely in a position where it's beneficial to borrow, spend, and pay back later.
Now, add on that many corporations are doing most of their investing overseas. In other words, the money they borrow here is not being spent here, and so is not enriching out economy as a whole. In that case, are lower interest rates actually hurting us by funneling resources out of our country faster?
After all, the last several years have proven that "business" can be doing well, while the population as a whole, the people, are doing very poorly.
Interest rates have been kept low for ages to "encourage economic growth." But, on the level of private citizens, the economy has been in the crapper for years, and now the word 'recession' is being bandied about.
Now, theoretically, high interest rates encourage saving, and low interest rates encourage borrowing and spending.
But, a private individual can only borrow so much before they've reached the point where they can't pay it back. Have we reached the point where we as a citizenry are tapped out, and lower interest rates are hurting the situation by giving us no way to build real assets?
Worse, have we reached a point where corporate and individual good are diametrically opposed. It is often to a corporation's benefit to borrow money, use it for development, and pay it back later rather than spend there own. This is especially true since bankruptcy laws are SO much more lenient for corporations than individuals. (Individuals can declare bankruptcy only once in a lifetime. Corporations can declare multiple times, with less obligation attached.)
But, individuals are rarely in a position where it's beneficial to borrow, spend, and pay back later.
Now, add on that many corporations are doing most of their investing overseas. In other words, the money they borrow here is not being spent here, and so is not enriching out economy as a whole. In that case, are lower interest rates actually hurting us by funneling resources out of our country faster?
After all, the last several years have proven that "business" can be doing well, while the population as a whole, the people, are doing very poorly.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
In Honor of Women's History Month
Here's a picture from the women's suffrage movement (with a little commentary):
You know, it kind of reminds me of this post about the confusion of sexual desire and sexual agency, and especially Nenena's remark on how every blog she's seen defending the Playboy Wonder Woman cover as "empowering" has been a man's, and Lost_angelwings' agreeing snark "Women have no idea what empowers us and what we want. If we want empowerment we need guys to give it to us, that's true female empowerment!"
You know, it kind of reminds me of this post about the confusion of sexual desire and sexual agency, and especially Nenena's remark on how every blog she's seen defending the Playboy Wonder Woman cover as "empowering" has been a man's, and Lost_angelwings' agreeing snark "Women have no idea what empowers us and what we want. If we want empowerment we need guys to give it to us, that's true female empowerment!"
Thursday, January 10, 2008
That's not priviledge.
Someone linked me to this blog entry, which in turn links to a list of "women's privileges". What we have here is either a serious problem with reality perception, or Satire Fail. Either way, we have Fail. As great a job as Rachel does ripping it, I'd like to give my own spin on it, given my own life experiences.
1. I am physically able to give birth to another human being, and then do my best to mold her or him into the kind of person I choose.
Other than my derisive laugh at the second half, I think Rachel covers that nicely.
2. I am not automatically expected to be the family breadwinner.
We are expected to work outside the home full time, AND be solely responsible for all child care duties, AND be solely responsible for all daily internal household maintenance. Since it is assumed we are not the family breadwinners, even if in fact we are, we will be paid 80%-90% as much as our male coworkers in equivalent positions. The laws will not protect us from this in any but the sloppiest of cases, as false documentation to support claims of inferior performance is insanely easy.
3. I feel free to wear a wide variety of clothes, from jeans to skimpy shorts to dresses as appropriate, without fear of ridicule.
We are expected to both possess and be able to perfectly match a near-infinite combination of clothing, and will be punished if we fall short of perfection. Punish may range from derision, to pay cuts, to rape and murder.
4. I can choose to remain seated to meet most people.
*sputter* Can I just say "Um, no"? That is so 1950s. That issue simply does not exist anymore. No one rises for someone merely because they are a woman. If I am meeting a supplier, customer, or other guest at my company, I MUST rise to shake hands just like everyone else. No one gets out of their seat when I enter a room, unless one of us is a guest and we're shaking hands.
5. I am not ashamed to ask for others’ perspectives on an issue.
We may, however, be declared technically incompetent if we do so and suffer a penalty to we pay. Men asking similar questions will be praised for "seeking out mentoring" and rewarded monetarily.
6. I feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.
Not true. Perhaps in a casual setting, where men are also allowed to more freely exhibit emotion, but in a professional setting, women are allowed LESS expression of freedom. A man breaks into tears: "Oh my God, Joe, what's wrong?" It must be legitimate. A woman breaks into tears? Oh, it's probably nothing, she's just hysterical. If a man starts yelling, it is usually assumed he is legitimately angry and actions are taken to change this. A woman is just getting hysterical. A man laughing is relaxed; a woman isn't taking things seriously enough.
7. My stereotypical excesses in shopping, clothes, jewelry, personal care and consumption of chocolate usually are expected, even the source of jokes.
This is privilege? Even under their definition, if you indulge in one of these hobbies, you will be made fun of? That's not even getting into the fact that it's assumed a woman will indulge in them.
Actually, I'll go one better. "I am expected to take excess in these areas. If I do, I will be mocked for it. If I do not, I will be declared abnormal and be punished for it."
8. Public policies generally offer me an opportunity to bond with my offspring.
What does that even mean? There's 12 weeks unpaid family leave in the US, but that's for both genders. There's no public child care. Best I can figure, this is "there is a good chance I will be forced to leave my profession and take full responsibility for all child care whether I like it or not due to a lack of support or affordable day care."
9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.
Um, wha? Well, I see someone watched "Titanic". That is so not the case anymore. If it ever was.
10. I can usually find someone with superior strength to help me overcome physically challenging obstacles, such as changing a tire or cutting a huge Christmas tree.
Going with Rachel here again. We'll be assumed to be incapable despite actual ability or personal desire.
11. Changing my mind is seen as a birthright or prerogative.
And so our decisions are never taken serious, and the reasons behind changes in stance are wholly ignored in favor of "well, you know how women are."
12. I feel free to explore alternate career paths instead of being bound to a single career ladder.
Can I get another "Um, wha?" Oh, no, I see what they're talking about. Every time we hit the goddamn glass ceiling and have to change jobs to get around it, we're supposed to be thrilled. It's an "alternate career path", not getting screwed like a rabbit on Viagra.
13. I am used to asking for help, around the kitchen table or the proverbial water cooler or the conference room.
Again, not true. Women I know rarely ask for help. We're supposed to help others, not need it themselves. When we do ask for help, we're often denied it. In professional settings, just like #5, we will again be assumed to be incompetent and punished monetarily. Men behaving in the same manner are "seeking mentoring opportunities" and rewarded.
14. People I’ve never met are inclined to hold doors open and give up their seats for me.
Rachel covers the reasons this was, and I'll throw on another "completely outdated" to sweeten the deal.
15. I can be proud of the skill I have worked to develop at stretching limited financial resources.
So, all women will be forced to stretch limited financial resources. Well, I'll grant that it's a lot more likely for women than men, statistically speaking. Men who are in that situation are also allowed to be proud of it, last I knew.
16. I am not ashamed of using alternatives to positional power to reach my goals.
Conventional methods will be blocked to us and we will be forced to manipulate the system. We will then be punished for being for being manipulative
17. I know how to put a new roll of toilet paper in use and am not above doing it for the next person.
Men do not know how to install toilet paper? Men are selfish assholes? I don't believe that. (Guys, you need to have a fit when people like this try to talk for you!)
18. I am not ashamed to admit that the decisions I make reflect my personal values.
All decisions will be assumed to have been made on some "gut instinct" or "intuition", and no amount of data will cause us to be taken seriously in some cases.
19. I am not afraid to create and maintain honest relationships with others.
Well, let's see. We're taught other women, and perhaps we ourselves, are "catty" and unworthy of friendship. We're taught that men will use us and harm us. Sorry, I've got to say that society actually tries to isolate women. Actually, it tries to isolate everyone, but that's getting deeper than I have time for.
20. I do not fear being accused of having an ethic of care in my professional life.
I fear it! It means "that was your last promotion. You're too weak to keep moving upwards. Why don't you go have some babies or something?"
21. When I enter an office, I am likely to encounter those who can help me “in low places.”
Because those who can help us in high places won't give us the time of day, thus forcing us to manipulate the system from below. We'll then, again, be punished for being manipulative.
22. I am more likely to get hugs than handshakes, depending on the situation.
So help me God, the first time a supplier or customer hugs me, my knee is going straight in his groin soooo hard and sooooo fast, I don't care who the hell he is. It is not a privilege to be treated like a child or a plaything instead of a professional peer
A little aside here. It really annoys the hell out of me when a man I'm being introduced to shakes my hand like he's afraid he's going to break it. Dude, just return the level of pressure I'm giving you. I personally have never received the two-fingered "pixie" handshake, but I did have one guy try to turn my hand horizontal.
23. I am less likely to be seen as a threat, which allows me more subtle alternatives.
Do I need to do the "I will be forced to be manipulative and then punished for it" again. How about pointing out that "not seen as a threat" can be spin for "not taken seriously."
24. I can use men’s “sheer fear of tears” to my advantage.
*points and laughs* Suuuure. Need a bridge in New York? Got one I'll sell ya cheap.
25. I can complain that these female privileges are relatively minor compared with the vast assortment of dominant male privileges, but I wouldn’t change places for the world.
I'd change places in a heartbeat, myself.
Damn, I wish I remembered all the words to "If I had a penis". *sings* "If I had a penis, I'd still be a girl. But I'd make lots more money and take over the world."
1. I am physically able to give birth to another human being, and then do my best to mold her or him into the kind of person I choose.
Other than my derisive laugh at the second half, I think Rachel covers that nicely.
2. I am not automatically expected to be the family breadwinner.
We are expected to work outside the home full time, AND be solely responsible for all child care duties, AND be solely responsible for all daily internal household maintenance. Since it is assumed we are not the family breadwinners, even if in fact we are, we will be paid 80%-90% as much as our male coworkers in equivalent positions. The laws will not protect us from this in any but the sloppiest of cases, as false documentation to support claims of inferior performance is insanely easy.
3. I feel free to wear a wide variety of clothes, from jeans to skimpy shorts to dresses as appropriate, without fear of ridicule.
We are expected to both possess and be able to perfectly match a near-infinite combination of clothing, and will be punished if we fall short of perfection. Punish may range from derision, to pay cuts, to rape and murder.
4. I can choose to remain seated to meet most people.
*sputter* Can I just say "Um, no"? That is so 1950s. That issue simply does not exist anymore. No one rises for someone merely because they are a woman. If I am meeting a supplier, customer, or other guest at my company, I MUST rise to shake hands just like everyone else. No one gets out of their seat when I enter a room, unless one of us is a guest and we're shaking hands.
5. I am not ashamed to ask for others’ perspectives on an issue.
We may, however, be declared technically incompetent if we do so and suffer a penalty to we pay. Men asking similar questions will be praised for "seeking out mentoring" and rewarded monetarily.
6. I feel free to exhibit a wide range of emotions, from tears to genuine belly laughter, without being told to shut up.
Not true. Perhaps in a casual setting, where men are also allowed to more freely exhibit emotion, but in a professional setting, women are allowed LESS expression of freedom. A man breaks into tears: "Oh my God, Joe, what's wrong?" It must be legitimate. A woman breaks into tears? Oh, it's probably nothing, she's just hysterical. If a man starts yelling, it is usually assumed he is legitimately angry and actions are taken to change this. A woman is just getting hysterical. A man laughing is relaxed; a woman isn't taking things seriously enough.
7. My stereotypical excesses in shopping, clothes, jewelry, personal care and consumption of chocolate usually are expected, even the source of jokes.
This is privilege? Even under their definition, if you indulge in one of these hobbies, you will be made fun of? That's not even getting into the fact that it's assumed a woman will indulge in them.
Actually, I'll go one better. "I am expected to take excess in these areas. If I do, I will be mocked for it. If I do not, I will be declared abnormal and be punished for it."
8. Public policies generally offer me an opportunity to bond with my offspring.
What does that even mean? There's 12 weeks unpaid family leave in the US, but that's for both genders. There's no public child care. Best I can figure, this is "there is a good chance I will be forced to leave my profession and take full responsibility for all child care whether I like it or not due to a lack of support or affordable day care."
9. I am among the first to get off a sinking ship.
Um, wha? Well, I see someone watched "Titanic". That is so not the case anymore. If it ever was.
10. I can usually find someone with superior strength to help me overcome physically challenging obstacles, such as changing a tire or cutting a huge Christmas tree.
Going with Rachel here again. We'll be assumed to be incapable despite actual ability or personal desire.
11. Changing my mind is seen as a birthright or prerogative.
And so our decisions are never taken serious, and the reasons behind changes in stance are wholly ignored in favor of "well, you know how women are."
12. I feel free to explore alternate career paths instead of being bound to a single career ladder.
Can I get another "Um, wha?" Oh, no, I see what they're talking about. Every time we hit the goddamn glass ceiling and have to change jobs to get around it, we're supposed to be thrilled. It's an "alternate career path", not getting screwed like a rabbit on Viagra.
13. I am used to asking for help, around the kitchen table or the proverbial water cooler or the conference room.
Again, not true. Women I know rarely ask for help. We're supposed to help others, not need it themselves. When we do ask for help, we're often denied it. In professional settings, just like #5, we will again be assumed to be incompetent and punished monetarily. Men behaving in the same manner are "seeking mentoring opportunities" and rewarded.
14. People I’ve never met are inclined to hold doors open and give up their seats for me.
Rachel covers the reasons this was, and I'll throw on another "completely outdated" to sweeten the deal.
15. I can be proud of the skill I have worked to develop at stretching limited financial resources.
16. I am not ashamed of using alternatives to positional power to reach my goals.
Conventional methods will be blocked to us and we will be forced to manipulate the system. We will then be punished for being for being manipulative
17. I know how to put a new roll of toilet paper in use and am not above doing it for the next person.
18. I am not ashamed to admit that the decisions I make reflect my personal values.
All decisions will be assumed to have been made on some "gut instinct" or "intuition", and no amount of data will cause us to be taken seriously in some cases.
19. I am not afraid to create and maintain honest relationships with others.
Well, let's see. We're taught other women, and perhaps we ourselves, are "catty" and unworthy of friendship. We're taught that men will use us and harm us. Sorry, I've got to say that society actually tries to isolate women. Actually, it tries to isolate everyone, but that's getting deeper than I have time for.
20. I do not fear being accused of having an ethic of care in my professional life.
I fear it! It means "that was your last promotion. You're too weak to keep moving upwards. Why don't you go have some babies or something?"
21. When I enter an office, I am likely to encounter those who can help me “in low places.”
Because those who can help us in high places won't give us the time of day, thus forcing us to manipulate the system from below. We'll then, again, be punished for being manipulative.
22. I am more likely to get hugs than handshakes, depending on the situation.
So help me God, the first time a supplier or customer hugs me, my knee is going straight in his groin soooo hard and sooooo fast, I don't care who the hell he is. It is not a privilege to be treated like a child or a plaything instead of a professional peer
A little aside here. It really annoys the hell out of me when a man I'm being introduced to shakes my hand like he's afraid he's going to break it. Dude, just return the level of pressure I'm giving you. I personally have never received the two-fingered "pixie" handshake, but I did have one guy try to turn my hand horizontal.
23. I am less likely to be seen as a threat, which allows me more subtle alternatives.
Do I need to do the "I will be forced to be manipulative and then punished for it" again. How about pointing out that "not seen as a threat" can be spin for "not taken seriously."
24. I can use men’s “sheer fear of tears” to my advantage.
*points and laughs* Suuuure. Need a bridge in New York? Got one I'll sell ya cheap.
25. I can complain that these female privileges are relatively minor compared with the vast assortment of dominant male privileges, but I wouldn’t change places for the world.
I'd change places in a heartbeat, myself.
Damn, I wish I remembered all the words to "If I had a penis". *sings* "If I had a penis, I'd still be a girl. But I'd make lots more money and take over the world."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)