Link Roundup!

by Nicole Cliffe · December 13, 2013

nicole
icebergmama made this picture for me, what did the rest of you accomplish?

*

“Why I Only Read Books By Women in 2013″

*

I am here to talk about Six By Sondheim, and I hope you are too. I cried like a baaaaaaby.

*

Twitter totally messed up by changing their block function, which I only used once for this guy who got into a fight with me about Napoleon Bonaparte’s height (he was a perfectly normal size! it’s a pouce/inch difference!) and then turned out to be a white supremacist, though why that has anything to do with Napoleon I will never know.

*

Sarah Miller’s “Positive Book Reviews” for The New Yorker:

“Crime and Punishment,” by Fyodor Dostoyevsky

“Crime and Punishment” takes place in St. Petersburg. Right off the bat, having the novel set here makes you feel like you can do anything, because, in 1919, St. Petersburg was re-named Leningrad, but in 1991 it was re-named St. Petersburg, which was really a glorious comeback.

*

Sarah Robles, the American weightlifter, has been suspended from professional competition for two years because she tested positive for…the drug she takes for her PCOS.

*

Jesus, Eve Ensler.

*

Billy Eichner and Amy Poehler yell Christmas carols at strangers.

*

Colin Wilson has died. I loved all his freaky books on the occult when I was younger (and, probably, now; they were just parental bookshelf thefts then.)

*

How committed are you to reading Jolie Kerr’s book before other people?

*

The GIF guide to getting paid.

*


Tags: , ,

Related Posts

Nicole Cliffe

Nicole Cliffe

More from Nicole Cliffe →

100 Comments

  1. noodge4lyfe +6

    hm. I’m confused about the weightlifter with PCOS. As a fellow PCOSer, I’ve heavily researched all the different options for treatment (new and old) and never came across DHEA supplementation. I just did some quick searching and it even looks like DHEA is often naturally elevated in patients with PCOS. So… why was she taking it? does anyone have any information?

      1. noodge4lyfe +2

        I did some more digging and it says in a number of articles that it’s contraindicated in PCOS. Are we being trolled?

        1. daisymap +3

          RIGHT? Well you know what, who knows – treatment is so much let’s try this let’s try that with PCOS, I mean. My feeling is, if it works for you, do the thing. For me: Inositol.

          1. noodge4lyfe +5

            TOTES. I’m still in the early stages but I have high hopes (I may have actually ovulated on the 14th day of my cycle which I don’t think I’ve ever done!)

          3. noodge4lyfe +3

            OMG! so my chart ended up saying that I ovulated ont eh 13th day of my cycle!!! I’VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE!!! the earliest I was ever able to get it was the 17th day, and that was really uncommon and only if I was super strict with my diet and exercise regimen (I’m a machine with that stuff, so it really means I was doing EVERYTHING right and working out 5 days a week). This stuff is freakin MAGICAL. Fingers crossed it helps my egg quality so we don’t miscarry when Mr. Noodge and I are ready to make little noodglets… that’s been my main reason for wanting to get healthier with this. SPREAD THE WORD, INOSITOL IS MAGICAL!!!

          4. daisymap +1

            NOOOODGE! I understand what a victory this is in so many ways! Congrats on all your good stuff, but especially an actual real-life 13 days-in-ovulation! I’ll bet it’s all down to your hard work, which is so impressive. You and I have the same approach to the old PCOS thingy,, which is What Do I Need To Do? and the eating/excercise/supplements regime can be hard to stick to when the symptoms make one feel a bit less than great. So HATS OFF TO YOU! Good stuff for the future, for sure. But yeah, also Inositol. Man that stuff actually changed my life.

          5. noodge4lyfe +2

            Thanks! I had to come back to let you know, since none of my friends understand how amazing this is. I honestly feel like hi-fiving people on the street on my awesome ovulation! but that would definitely be weird.

    2. rkfire +2

      Oh! Okay, so this is very interesting to me. I follow Sarah Robles’ fb page and sent the link over to Nicole, but I do so because I’m into weightlifting. I don’t really know anything about PCOS and just took her on her word.
      In her blog entry it said she has thyroid issues (in addition to PCOS? unclear to me) and her doctor said she has unusually low levels of DHEA, so she was proscribed some artificial DHEA to balance things out.

      I don’t think/I hope we’re not being trolled, her public image and communications has always struck me as being very earnest and sincere. She’s generally been very body positive, and talks a lot about being a female athlete even when people don’t think you “look” like one, etc.

      1. noodge4lyfe +2

        it’s odd, because (to state it a bit too simply) PCOS has two main endocrine issues: excess insulin and excess testosterone. DHEA is a precursor to testosterone, so it makes no sense to use it as a supplement to treat PCOS. It wouldn’t balance anything, it would just throw her more off balance, it seems. I dunno, I would need more information I guess before just accepting her explanation.

        1. rkfire +3

          This is really helpful, thanks! Seriously, her fb post on this right now is filled with folks who are like “boooo USAW” and no one has yet publicly said “uh, this doesn’t make sense to my understanding of PCOS, wtf?” so I really appreciate it.

          Either that or she’s been deleting people who have been. o_O

          2. rkfire +10

            So this’ll go up as “the best time I suggested a link/story for link roundup that turns out to potentially be lies,” which, go me. But we’re having a great conversation of PCOS, so.. worth it?

          4. daisymap +2

            Totally worth it – and I maintain that it really may not be lies – people need all sorts of different treatment and it really might have been right for her.

      2. twobluebikes +4

        It’s hard to say. It’s possible her statement is in fact the truth of the matter.

        At the same time, though, DHEA shows up quite often in doping cases. It’s a “lightweight” steroid often used as part of a steroid cycle. Science says it may not really do much in terms of enhancing performance by itself, but there is not much in the way of clinical trials on doping protocols, so it’s hard to say exactly what it’s being used for. DHEA seems to be used as part of the “coming off” part of the cycle, when users are tapering from heavier use.

        If you want to know more about steroid cycles and whatnot, drop by a bodybuilding forum – many of them have sections devoted to this kind of thing.

        One reason DHEA is common is that it’s cheap and readily available. It’s not covered under the US laws governing steroids, so it’s easy to buy.

        DHEA is also found in “tainted” legal supplements sometimes. That means, either the legal supplement was processed on machinery or in a factory with DHEA or poorly quality controlled in some way. Or, it’s in there on purpose as a “secret proprietary ingredient” that isn’t listed on the label. Elite athletes subject to testing should by now know to stay the fuck away from “supplements” of any kind.

        That was probably more than you wanted to know 😉

        1. rkfire +2

          It isn’t! It really isn’t–like I said, I follow weightlifting and other strength sports (but not bodybuilding) at a distance, and the issue of steroids comes up often enough. I just haven’t bothered getting into the weeds about it, partly because I hadn’t enough emotional investment in any particular lifter to care. So I know very little about DHEA other than the fact that apparently it’s tested.

          As other people have mentioned, this also isn’t the first time that USADA has come down on folks for testing positive for things that they take for well documented, legit medical issues too so.. you know, fuck it.

          1. twobluebikes +2

            Yes, DHEA is a banned substance under World Anti-Doping Agency rules, due to its steroid characteristics.

            There was a prominent case in U.S. cycling where the positive was almost certainly a consequence of a tainted supplement. But there have also been cases that almost equally certainly the result of intentional doping.

            I have not seen an argument before where DHEA was claimed as a medication. It is not, as far as I know, in the category of substances where it’s possible to obtain a clearance, but I would have to look it up to be sure. The WADA rules delineate certain substances as legal with a clearance or legal out of competition.

            I’ve spent quite a lot of years in the endurance sports and my day job involves writing about cycling. Doping knowledge is a side effect 😉

  2. chickpeas +4

    Yeah I got one paragraph into that Eve Ensler piece last night and thought “NOPE.” For the sake of being an informed citizen I will read it today but I could already feel the rage building last night and I had to get to bed at a reasonable hour and rage does not facilitate restful sleep.

    She seems to be tripping over herself a lot of late… there was some controversy last year over her dealings with Indigenous Canadian women (background here: http://chiefelk.tumblr.com/post/49527456060/an-op…. Clearly she hasn’t learned from that experience. So, great. Good work, Ensler.

    1. Sugar&Snails +9

      Ugh. Lately I’ve been making more of an effort to not instantly condemn people for screwing up, and trying to push myself to explain to them why I think they’re wrong and give them a chance to let it sink in before deciding I hate them forever. (I do NOT think other people should necessarily take that approach, especially if it’s exhausting or hurtful to them. YAY cleansing fire of anger! I’m trying it because I realize how many times people have been ridiculously patient and helpful when I screw up, and because I remembered that most people don’t read social justice blogs for fun.)

      HOWEVER. If you are a Professional Feminist, a key feature of your job is to keep up on your topic of (supposed) expertise, which includes to be challenging and educating yourself as well as others, and seeking out your own resources, and being aware of criticisms and the work of others. Ordinary people who spend most of their time thinking about, say, tax codes at work and childcare at home might not automatically know what “othering” means or be aware of racist context to something that seems harmless to them. Eve Ensler, professional feminist, should. Jeeeeez.

      1. chickpeas +4

        Yeah, agreed, and the point about this actually being her job is a good one. I mean, my job requires me to know a lot of random stuff that has no relevance to anyone outside my industry and if I fall apart on all the little fiddly bits, lord knows I will hear about it. And these things that she’s screwing up, they aren’t even little fiddly bits! They’re big things! Like treating people as whole people with their own lives which are also valuable! Also, frankly, this should not be difficult! Auugh!

        I, personally, am trying to dial back on the cleansing fire of rage thing. Not because people don’t deserve it, but because I realized that it’s a better strategic option to ration my rage. First of all, as you note, there are some people who are well meaning but clueless and sometimes you can get through to them if you take them aside and are like, “not cool, dude.” (and yeah, I get that not everyone has the energy and/or social capital to do this. But sometimes I do, so I do it.) The second reason is that if I save up my rage fires it just makes the occasional eruption all the more powerful and unexpected when unleashed on a deserving target.

    2. depizan +3

      I started to read her new(ish) book about her bout with cancer. It ended up being this extended metaphor about how her body is the world, specifically her cancer=the rape/violence in the DRC. It started feeling like one long pro-colonization, tragedy appropriation tract so I had to stop. Also, when she gets her cancer diagnosis, she’s bewildered about how it could happen to her because she’s an activist. I’m sorry, cancer is awful awful business, but WTF makes you think you’re immune to a disease because you work for change?

        2. Prawns +5

          I accidentally spoke in doge to a bunch of managers at work last week. They didn’t get it, but it felt weird that I let the crazy part of my brain seep into work.

        3. noodge4lyfe +1

          i am too…
          I posted a picture on facebook of doge wrapped up in bed, with “such sikness” etc all around him and it just cracked me up so harrrrddd. Why is he so funny? I don’t really get it but it’s amazing.

  5. SarcasticFringehead +10

    I actually had to skip over parts of the excerpts from Ensler’s piece because seriously, what the hell was she thinking.

    1. walkingthecow +2

      Seeing all the criticism online did not at all prepare me for how bad the piece is. I was astounded by the insensitivity.

    2. clarizard +3

      SO AMAZING/ I almost had a heart attack last night. Also, having just finished all of Adichie’s books last week and thinking to myself, ‘I miss having her voice in my head all day,’ this is perfect timing!!!!!

    3. carmencicero +2

      It’s amazing. And I need to replicate each and every one of her make up looks, starting with the lavender-pink lipstick in “No Angels.”

  7. gorebooth +3

    I’ve only used the block function to block companies that advertise to me through ‘sponsored’ tweets. Makes me mad, going to see what new clever jokes or snippets of outrage my tweeps have posted, just to find an ad about toothpaste or something. So I block ’em.

  8. SarahDances +12

    USADA rules can be so draconian. I had to compete once while barely able to breathe for all the mucus in my system because literally any decongestant my doctor could have prescribed was a banned substance. I also couldn’t be on the asthma medication I was initially recommended, because it too was banned. Even though I was diagnosed with asthma by the national governing organization for my sport, I still had to submit documentation to them every single year that I needed my inhaler.

    I’m all for “clean sport,” as Robles calls it, and I don’t know the particulars of the reasoning behind the use/prohibition of DHEA, but I can absolutely speak to the fact that some of the rules on banned and controlled substances are absolutely ridiculous.

    1. cuminafterall +12

      I pronounce it with a long O and a soft G, like the leader of the Most Serene Republic of Venice. I refuse to entertain other pronunciations.

  12. lilsebastian01 +13

    Is it… snowing on the Eve Ensler article page? I want to have substantive things to say but it’s super distracting.

  13. AmazingSandwich +1

    Ok, the spoiler for this comment…it’s fiction. Maybe I’m the doofus, but this mag is new and so far I’d only ever nonfic in it so I read the whole thing thinking it was a truly OTT memoir and then at the end I didn’t know how to feel.

  14. abbeyroadmedley +16

    YES THANK YOU, Napoleon was about 5’7, which was totally average for his time! (He also tended to hang out with the Old Guard grenadiers, who were all giant dudes, making him look shorter in comparison.) I have had this argument (and others about popular misconceptions about Napoleon) SO MANY TIMES, you would not even believe it. (Huh, and I just realized that it has always been with men who know absolutely nothing about the subject, yet refuse to defer to my clearly more informed position. GEE THERE SHOULD BE A WORD FOR THAT.)

    2. queenofbithynia +2

      I have heard this before but here is what I have never heard explained: if he was really 5’7, which is not only normal for his time but unexceptional for a man of today, too, WHY are all his portraits of a tiny tiny man?? Did he just have an enormous head that throws off the visual proportions? That would explain it but I don’t know what else would. I mean I really don’t think the false (?) impression persists just because of the mythology, it’s because people have seen the pictures.

      1. EPWordsnatcher +11

        The answer appears to be threefold: 1, British propaganda; 2, his nickname “le petit caporal” was interpreted literally (“the little corporal”) rather than as it was meant (a term of affection–see “petit ami” for boyfriend, French is weird); 3, he surrounded himself with very tall people.

        tl;dr: People drew his portraits without ever having seen him and this is what happens, I think.

        1. queenofbithynia +4

          The Davids are from life, aren’t they? But all the paintings I’ve ever seen by anyone are so consistent. Like this hilarious painting just for example:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Montfort_-_Adie…

          leaving aside whether it is supposed to be realistic to this degree, you can’t quite tell where the top of his head is cause of the hat, although he is definitely shorter than the man grasping his sword (!), the man facepalming to the right, and the man rolling his eyes at all of them even further to the right. But even if he were stretched out a little bit to be as tall as the rest he has short-person proportions to an extreme degree (so do I, so I recognize them readily.)

          thus I think it is very fair to say that Napoleon was a tiny, tiny man of unusually large size.

          1. abbeyroadmedley +8

            You’re probably right about the proportions — I do seem to recall he had small feet and hands, and his head does look big for his frame (like a lot of actors!). In this particular painting, though, he’s surrounded by Imperial Guardsmen, who were all over 6’1. Sooo…he just had a thing for tall men in uniform who liked to grasp his sword. Understandable!

            I think David only ever had one sitting with him, back in 1797, and probably put the most effort into his face. And Napoleon’s body changed a lot between ’97 and 1815. So that could also have some effect on the way he is portrayed.

            Oh, man, I’m way too excited about getting to ramble about Napoleon on a Friday morning. 🙂

    3. cuminafterall +8

      I did not know this about Napoleon! Personally I’m a little sad to see him leave the Short Club and join the ranks of the Average-Heighted. At least we’ll always have James Madison and Kylie Minogue.

      1. abbeyroadmedley +4

        *points at icon* You have Yuri Gagarin! He was 5’2. A tiny, beautiful, perfect human. And a freakin’ hero. And by all accounts, one of the nicest dudes ever.

  15. normal_catlady +5

    The gif guide to salary negotiation confuses me. The article says to ask for 50% more than the average for your position (that you came up with from websites and networking). Then it says in order to justify this number to your future employer you should state “The industry-standard salary for this level of experience and responsibility is….” How can you say that with a straight face when the number is 50% more than the number your research came up with. I completely understand asking for more than the average and saying you are worth it….but not to say that the 50% more is the average you found. Did I read this wrong? Can I not do math in the morning? (still drinking my coffee)

    1. EPWordsnatcher +3

      That’s the same interpretation I got, and yeah, I’m with you. That seems…off, somehow.

    2. cuminafterall +2

      I thought the 50% was more a guide for freelancers’ rates… I could way more easily see somebody asking for $18/hour instead of $12, or $300 per task instead of $200, than asking for a salary of $60K when your rock-bottom number is $40K.

      I’ve never negotiated my own salary (it’s set by Congress, yay/ugh), but my job involves a lot of negotiating for prices of other things. If I were in a salary negotiation and had to give a number first,* I’d shoot for the top of the salary range for my level of experience, maybe plus 20%. I wouldn’t say anything about industry standards.

      *I’d try to get the employer to mention a number first. Maybe there was a salary range listed with the job posting– ask for 20% more than that.

      1. normal_catlady +2

        That makes more sense. 50% seems reasonable per task and 20% seems more reasonable for yearly salaries. I’m graduating soon and I cannot see myself being taken seriously if I ask for $150K when they offer $100k! (Not that I’ll be making anywhere near that much! Ha!) The Toast’s Science Gal should do this for a post; that would help me so much.

        2. cuminafterall +3

          Good luck in the job market! ALSO in addition to non-money things like training and exposure that Ann mentions in the article, sometimes a company can offer its employees money-adjacent things to sweeten the deal even if they can’t offer a higher salary. Things like transit/parking subsidies, a few extra vacation days, or a company culture of leaving you the fuck alone on weekends can make a really big difference!

  16. icebergmama +19

    Just a lovely conversation with a male friend of mine to give y’all hope for the future on this fine morning:

    Have you noticed that only women nag..

    yuuuuup.

    One for you feminists there.

    hahaha

    Kill all men.

    right.

    Not me though. I’m on your side.

    i’ll put in a request for you to be spared in the misandrist revolution

    I for one welcome our new double x chromosome overlords.

  17. blushingflower +7

    I already bought Jolie’s book for my Kindle to be delivered as soon as it is released, so I will just wait contentedly. And wonder when AHP’s book is coming out.

  19. sednarea51 +11

    This is late, but I just read an absolutely beautiful editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine on contraceptive access (http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1315461?query=featured_home)

    HIGHLIGHTS:

    “First, appropriately prescribed contraceptive services prevent unintended pregnancies without promoting promiscuity. Preventing unplanned pregnancies, more than half of which are currently terminated, averts these induced abortions and their attendant financial, physical, and psychosocial expense. More important, planned pregnancy affords women and their children a better quality of life: it gives younger women the opportunity to complete school, start careers, and establish stable relationships, and older women the ability to add to their families only when they have the capacity to care for them.” (personally, I don’t care if it promotes promsicuity, but that’s another editorial altogether)

    “… the welfare of the patient must trump the religious convictions of her employer. After all, it is the woman, not her employer, whose health is at risk.”

    “It would clearly be unacceptable, for example, if an employer who was opposed to blood transfusions offered employees a health insurance policy that did not cover transfusions, thus putting them at high risk for avoidable complications or even death after severe trauma or major surgery.”

    “If a woman’s religious beliefs compel her to decline such services, she has the right to do so. But to deny coverage for these vital public health services to women who want them but cannot afford them outside their employer-sponsored insurance would be a personal and public health tragedy.”

    It’s so beautiful I just want to climb inside it and live there forever. BOOM, Hobby Lobby! SCIENCE!

    1. EPWordsnatcher +4

      That editorial is fantastic and I want to blare it from loudspeakers in every Hobby Lobby in the country.

      So many of the arguments against Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood’s bullshit lawsuits keep missing the point that’s the most egregious to me, though–that the religion of a [for-profit] employer should IN NO WAY affect its employees–the religious people in question aren’t the ones taking the pills, so WHY THE FUCK SHOULD THEY CARE?*

      *because they want to punish women for having sex the end.

  20. hearyoume +1

    I would love to pre-order Jolie’s book, but does anyone know which of those sellers will put the most money in her pocket?

    1. chickpeas +2

      Book industry person here. Can’t speak to this particular book (and would not do so if I had any insider knowledge), but generally speaking authors make more on print books than ebooks. THAT SAID, book math is ridiculous and complicated and dependent on a whole bunch of dynamic factors which you as a consumer have no knowledge of. (I mean, I still find royalty statements fairly confusing.) The best thing that you can do for any author who you want to support is to buy a NEW copy within the first couple of weeks of the book’s release (or pre-order if you’re that kind of gal.) If you prefer to read ebooks, buy an ebook. If you are further feeling generous and want to also support book culture/the book industry as a whole, buy at your local independent bookstore.

      Happy reading/cleaning!

  21. deleted2997279 +2

    But, Ms. Marcus, what books did you read this year?!? Inquiring minds want to add to their list of books by ladies to read!

  24. Aunt_Beast +3

    Ok, there is definite bad objectification and colonialism going on with Eve Ensler. I do wonder, though, if, at least in her mind, her fixation on holes and excretions is about The Vagina in the sense of a replacement for phallocentrism? There are certainly problems with focusing on genitals at the exclusion of personhood, especially when it ostracizes people who are trans, or people of color, using her white cis gaze. It just does seem like most of her work is focused on reclaiming love for and focus on the vagina as a counter to a phallocentric culture, and she may have been so focused on that, her favorite issue, that she neglected to see the larger context.

    1. SarcasticFringehead +10

      But you CAN’T neglect the context. You cannot go in, as a person in a position of privilege, and observe and objectify a woman who is literally incapable of consenting or not to that observation and to further being made a prop in your musings. I get what you’re saying, but it’s unacceptable.

      1. Aunt_Beast +3

        You are absolutely right. I guess it seemed unsurprising to me that Ensler would focus on “holes,” so the questions in that post about why she chose those words, with what seemed to me to be an assumption that her focus was meant to be on black bodies, was perhaps a less useful angle than pointing out what she missed by ignoring the context with her myopic focus on vaginas. And I just might be too focused on semantics.

  25. cherrispryte +3

    Um I tried to get early access to Jolie’s book, but all I managed to do was enter myself in a drawing for early access to her book? Was that right? Should I not have done that? Someone help me, please.

    1. daisicles +1

      You entered yourself into a drawing, yes. I’ve belonged to that website for a couple of months and each month you can go enter into a drawing for a digital galley. They have like 5 or 6 different books each month you can try for.

      (Needless to say, when I saw Jolie’s book listed in this month’s e-mail, I was on it straight away.)

  26. inapartydress +3

    WHY IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT SHOW TUNES? Nicole, I, too, loved Six by Sondheim though was completely underwhelmed by Jarvis’s “I’m Still Here.” Audra was flawless as always. I just love how he tells stories and I’m pretty sure his eyes literally twinkle. If you want to waste some time, all of the archival footage of the original cast recording of Company is up on YouTube. They’re all smoking cigarettes while they’re singing!

    1. mbculver +2

      Came down here to say the same thing. SONDHEIM! I’m bummed, though, because I no longer have HBO so can’t see the documentary. *sob* Anywhere else we can see it? (Legally, of course.)

  28. Bittersweet

    Came down here to say the same thing. SONDHEIM! I'm bummed, though, because I no longer have HBO so can't see the documentary. *sob* Anywhere else we can see it? (Legally, of course.)