Sansa is too big for her baby chair (please note that I submitted her to WeRateDogs and she was justly and rightly awarded an 11/10 for this picture.) Let us briefly stroll down memory lane:
What it takes to run an abortion clinic:
The stigma around abortion prevents Burkhart’s nonprofit from performing many of the everyday transactions essential to businesses. She and other clinic owners have had trouble securing mortgages, medical insurance, contractors, and someone willing to deliver Band-Aids and bottles of water. Especially in rural and conservative regions, a wide range of companies and organizations decline to work with abortion providers, either for reasons of personal conscience or because of fears that being associated with abortion will cost them business.
“You Will Be Tokenized” (a great addition to the ongoing conversation on diversity in publishing, featuring various Friends of The Toast, including our beloved Morgan):
Morgan Jerkins
writer and editorial assistant
CatapultDuring senior year, I was applying for all kinds of editorial assistant positions, missing class and paying $33 roundtrip from Princeton Junction to New York Penn Station. The whole trip would take about three hours for an interview that lasted less than 30 minutes most of the time. When I’d go to these places, I would always be greeted by a white editorial assistant. I’ve never shook hands with an editorial assistant who was not white.
I didn’t understand why I couldn’t get even an entry level job. While I was back at home, I just started to write on the internet and the bylines I accrued led me to getting the job I have now. It took 15 months.
During the interview, my boss asked me how was I able to write for so many places and I told him, “Because as a woman of color, I know I can’t ask for permission. Either that train is gonna come and it’s gonna be full or it’s not gonna come at all.” I left there thinking that I said too much, maybe I was too honest. But less than two weeks later, I didn’t get the internship role but an editorial assistant role.
I wouldn’t be in this business if I were cynical.
A great profile of Dr Betty Deas Clark, the female pastor now shepherding the Emanuel African Methodist Church:
“Indirectly I always knew I had a special relationship with God,” she says. But it wasn’t until she was an adult that she “felt an unction” to be part of the ministry. “While I had pioneers before me,” Clark says about being a woman in the AME church, “I saw myself as a pioneer in my own world.”
It’s Valentine’s Day, and the church is packed. Congregants and visitors are festooned in red hats, ties, shirts, skirts and dresses. Clark presides over the room with a maternal, unmistakably female energy. “For the Apostle, martyrs, heroes and sheroes of the faith,” she says in the Founders’ Day Litany, adding in the word “shero” to the written text provided to churchgoers.
Clark is unabashed about being a woman at the pulpit. During a part of service where visitors to the church introduce themselves, one particular gentleman calls out, “I’m going to ask, like I do every year.” She begins to fan herself. “Will you be my valentine?” The church erupts into laughter and cheers. “The answer is yes,” she says to her husband. More laughter and clapping.
With the premiere of Netflix’s Fuller House comes a classic conundrum: How do you mercilessly criticize a product while encouraging the instinct that led to its creation? Because despite the plaintive catchphrase of one Uncle Jesse Katsopolis (John Stamos), which reappears along with every other vaguely recognizable zinger from the original series, Fuller House doesn’t deserve mercy. The show isn’t just bad, it borders on the obscene, as much an affront to those bemused by a reboot of the sitcom that anchored ABC’s once-mighty T.G.I.F. comedy block as those receptive to it. But to attack Fuller House on conceptual grounds is wrongheaded, considering the same blindfolded nostalgia led the deep-pocketed streaming service to order a Wet Hot American Summer series, reconstitute Mr. Show as With Bob And David, and green-light four new Gilmore Girls movies. Netflix’s reboot magnanimity has been such a blessing, it’s heartbreaking to seeFuller House emerge as the perverse result.
I personally would not have sex with Donald Trump if he dropped out of the race immediately afterwards, because it’s not like Ted Cruz is such a gem either, but the question is an intriguing one, and here’s Anna Merlan’s take:
For that reason, I would, if called upon by my country, if caught on a day when I’m feeling particularly patriotic, consider having sex with Donald Trump. I would need an excellent glass (bucket) of wine beforehand, I would need to be high as hell, it would have to be in a position where I didn’t have to see his face, and I would need a guarantee that it wouldn’t last longer than like two minutes. (I don’t think it would.) And then I would need a six-week vacation, hiking alone through a jungle somewhere and weeping at night alone in a tent, a gentle rain battering the sides. A cleansing rain. A healing rain.
Who has seen The Witch and should I see it? (numerous spoilers, which I always read)
In The Witch, the locus of abjection is Thomasin’s maturing female body, anxiety over which overflows in the most unsettling ways. It’s in the heavy incestual undertones, in the weird, demi-adult form of the twins, who, with their adult clothes, tiny bodies, and sophisticated language, confuse the Puritan delineation of child and adult. It’s in the blood that spatters, never splashes, in a way that suggests the drip of menstruation, and the rotting corn, and the wide gaping woods, readily aligned with the unknowable, dark expanse of the vagina. These things are dangerous, scary, abject because they threaten established ways of understanding the world and humans’ place in it: They’re existential terror made manifest.
I am currently reading and reviewing Faye Resnick’s 1994 biography of Nicole Brown Simpson for a Real Publication, which I have all sorts of feelings around, but also think I can do skillfully and without being cartoonish, so let’s catch up with Resnick’s last appearance (she’s played by Connie Britton) in The People V OJ Simpson:
Connie Britton was back to do a hilarious sendup of Faye Resnick, who is now in the midst of writing her book, “Nicole Brown Simpson: The Private Diary of a Life Interrupted.” She tells her collaborators that she doesn’t want the book to be exploitative, but goes on to reveal tales of clubbing, how much Nicole loved her breast implants, a sexual act Nicole loved called the “Brentwood Hello,” and how much cocaine they did together. She flits around the conversation as if she’s recalling a grocery list instead of sensational facts about a newly murdered friend, all while absent-mindedly munching on carrot sticks. The most explosive thing Resnick revealed was the violent nature of the Simpsons’ marriage and divorce. Resnick claimed Nicole and O.J. reconciled constantly, and were “the most undivorced divorced couple” she’d ever known. Why would she add such an air of romance to the physical violence Nicole suffered, particularly in the wake of the 911 tapes going public?
Jay Caspian Kang, who is wrong about Hamilton, writes beautifully and cogently on the tensions he feels as an Asian-American over the Peter Liang verdict:
On Feb. 11 this year, Liang became the first N.Y.P.D. officer convicted in a line-of-duty shooting in over a decade. Many Asian-Americans felt that Liang had been offered up as a sacrificial lamb to appease the ongoing protests against police violence that started two summers ago in Ferguson, Mo. The pro-Liang protests, in turn, sparked small counterprotests by black activists, who argued that justice had been served and that a killer cop was a killer cop, period. A discomforting paradox lay beneath the whole confrontation, one that cut straight across the accepted modern vision of Asians and their adjacency to whiteness: If Liang (and, by extension, all Asian-Americans) enjoyed the protections of whiteness, then how do you explain his conviction?
The Liang protests mark the most pivotal moment in the Asian-American community since the Rodney King riots, when dozens of Korean-American businesses were burned to the ground. The episode is often said to have been precipitated by the horrific killing of Latasha Harlins, a 15-year-old black girl who was shot in the back of the head by Soon Ja Du, a Korean store owner, after a confrontation over a bottle of orange juice. In reality, the tensions between Asian store owners and the black neighborhoods they served had been simmering for years; they began well before Rodney King became a household name, and they continue today.
*
Comments deleted for being incorrect:
*
See “The Witch”, but leave before the last two and a half minutes.
NO THE ENDING IS THE BEST ENDING IN CINEMATIC HISTORY. Everything should end like that. It is crazeballs.
YES! THE ENDING IS WONDERFUL!
‘cuse me, gotta go read the spoilies now.
I was so disappointed in the ending.
it was such a subtle movie, and in comparison the end was the equivalent of a big musical number with tap dancers and fireworks.
I saw The Witch last night! I loved it and I too hated the ending. BUT it is still so so great!
This comment almost compels me to see it, just because I can’t stand not knowing what you’re referring to.
What was everyone’s scariest scene? Mine was Caleb in the woods with the caped lady… in fact I kind of wish I could unsee that scene. So wrong on so many levels.
I thought that Caleb was the heart of the movie in a lot of ways, more so for me than Thomasin. The critics largely are not calling out his performance, which feels like an injustice – to me he was the strongest one among very strong actors.
Agreed! Although it was Caleb *after* the woods for me, with the whole family around him.
The bit that made me jump the most was when the goat took dad out. Although I maintain that if you name your goat Black Phillip, you are taking your chances that he might be the devil.
Mine was when you see that the mom isn’t “nursing” Sam, but a crow. I thought she was just hallucinating and there was nothing there. NOPE! It’s a crow! I keep feeling the need to clutch my boobs to make sure they’re still there.
Ah man, I loved it. I’m glad the director actually chose to commit to an ending instead of going with something ambiguous, because I think we see the latter a little too much nowadays.
Just came here to say I live for A.V. Club takedowns. I read their episode recaps for my favorite shows, but they write especially well when they’re panning something.
Their review for the final episode of Dexter is a thing of beauty. I still go back and reread it occasionally.
As was Sonia’s spiral into madness over Hostages which lead to, I believe, the first and only ironic A grade there (a show I never even considered watching but read every recap for).
Poor Sonia also had to do The Following, I think! (That awful Kevin Bacon/Edgar Allan Poe serial killer thing.)
I somehow missed it, and now I’m gleefully snorting into my morning tea. Thank you!
“The idea of D.J. moving back into her childhood home and asking Stephanie and Kimmy to help raise her three boys following her husband’s death probably sounded great in the pitch meeting. But on screen it’s downright depressing, and creator Jeff Franklin should consider doing an episode that flashes back to colonial times to show the origin of the generational curse that strikes down the spouses of Tanner heirs after a third child is born.”
Yeah…this was pretty much my reaction when I heard about the reboot. It just sounds sad.
I’m kind of glad that it’s getting bad reviews because I can’t stand Candace Cameron. I tried to like her when she was on Dancing With the Stars, and some times she’d seem normal and then she’d go from 0 to Jesus in 3 seconds and I’d have no patience for her.
I mean yeah, there is an entire second show in there about the both the trauma, the additional trauma of it echoing her own childhood and the (sort of messed up) way she’s trying to deal with it by recreating that childhood.
Depending on the show, if I need an episode recap I’ll end up either there or Vulture. But mostly because I wish more shows had TLo-does-Mad Men analysis. (And I don’t just mean Mad Style
Yeah, Vulture has great ones too. Back when ToddVanDerWerff was writing for the A.V. Club, his reviews of Mad Men were a thing of beauty. Like just fantastic, in-depth analysis and quite lovely writing.
I really nerd out over pop culture criticism, if you haven’t already guessed lol
I enjoy the Go Fug Yourself recaps. They are doing the OJ show right now and the recaps are great.
Sad eyes in the baby chair. Poor, poor Sansa.
So poignant!
Right?
I don’t understand why they shrink-rayed her chair like that. It seems so cruel.
So Kylo Ren has discovered The Toast I see.
Kylo Ren should kill Finn, and is also ripped. I hear he has an 8-pack.
I hear he does car commercials. In Japan.
He’s a bartender. At a goth club. In the dark.
I miss journalfen.
One of my favorite artists has been doing Star Wars / Calvin and Hobbes mashups, unfortunately none so far with Kylo and Finn together so this is the closest I could find:
(The rest are here: https://www.instagram.com/briankesinger)
I. LOVE. IT.
Kylo Ren, aka Darth MRA
Did Finn-hating dude even watch the same movie everyone else did?
I know someone who said that Kylo Ren was the most interesting character, and i feel like we must have been watching completely different things.
(I can see the idea of Kylo Ren being interesting – a Jedi turning to the dark side despite the personal experience of his parents and uncle that dark Jedi are terrible! The ramifications of this on Leia and Luke’s relationship!), but the actual character we saw was not remotely compelling.
Yes I’d find his backstory really interesting if given some time in the next one but he was just a ‘done deal’ in this one with no investigation into how it happened or what the effects of if were on his family.
I think the idea of his character works – he’s doing evil things basically because he feels pathetic and small – but he is most definitely not the focus of the movie. But without him, who will the pathetic and small white boys hang onto?
That Storm Trooper who yells “Traitor!”, apparently. Sigh.
Well, like, compared to ANH Darth Vader dude’s Citizen Kane it just happens he’s also in a movie where they replaced Mark Hamill with Daisy Ridley
Kylo Ren is not interesting per se, but he’s got such traction as the archetype of a certain kind of person that he gets brought up probably more than the trio of heroes put together. I’m pretty sure we all know a “Matt” who dreams of being Kylo.
Personally, I really like Kylo (as a character, as an actual dude he’s awful) because he feels to me like what Anakin Skywalker was supposed to be, notably he feels better written and acted. Most interesting? No. But I am very interested to see where he goes from here.
Yes, Finn-hating dude did watch the same movie. It turns out that Finn is….. I… I don’t know how to tell you this…. Finn is played by a black man. I know you must not have noticed that if you thought that Finn was an interesting character. But it’s true.
I mean, you know who else had brown skin in Star Wars? Jabba the Hutt. Finn is basically equivalent to a Hutt. Would you say that Jabba was a good character? NO! No you would not.
Lando? What? No, he was clearly white. Yup. White guy with a tan. Maybe he was Italian. I don’t know, I don’t see race.
Sansa’s tail! She is so lovely.
She has a tail like an undocked lamb!
What a nice, tall dog.
Going to see The Witch tonight and the promise of rotting corn and gaping vagina woods has me now VERY EXCITED.
YES, I am so glad you submitted her to dog_rates haha, I was the one who kept @-ing you like YOU SHOULD SUBMIT HER every time you posted a pic haha.
Man, the amount of delight I got when I saw “dog_rates: Sansa…” was probably abnormally high.
I try not to get annoyed by comments on fictional characters in pop culture, but that deleted commenter is so flat-out fucking wrong it’s making me grind my teeth. Or hey, maybe that *is* your “hot take” on a character, but learn how to express your opinion like a goddamned grownup.
Dammit, day two onboard the Ornery Express.
Can I be the person on the train who blows the whistle? I can be plenty ornery, if that’s a requirement.
Now I want to write a Poirot fanfic about “Murder on the Ornery Express”
Would read!
It would just be Poirot, complaining about the perfectement meal from which he has been summoned to attend to this murder most pedestrian.
I just feel like that person is probably a racist. There are probably some not-racist reasons to dislike Finn but I’m hard pressed to think of any (other than I know some black folks didn’t love the portrayal).
Mmmm but are there non-racist reasons to dislike Finn AND compare him to Jar-Jar Binks?
It’s day three for me on the Ornery Express! WOO WOOO. (<—– said like making a train noise)
“creator Jeff Franklin should consider doing an episode that flashes back to colonial times to show the origin of the generational curse that strikes down the spouses of Tanner heirs after a third child is born.”
I would actually watch that. Like a Bell Witch/American Haunting type thing.
I saw The Witch, and while I (perhaps too loudly) said “what the fuck” several times, I do recommend it. It is stunning visually, and I am a sucker for a good old puritan horror story. Also, goats are my favorite thing, so it was a bit of a roller coaster for me.
Also, I missed the Finn article? Can I talk about Finn and how great Finn is here? I would say BB-8 edges him out as the best character, in my mind, because BB-8 has the lighter thumbs up and its the cutest thing and I squeal every time I think about it.
I definitely squealed whenever BB-8 did something cute and my date looked at me and shook his head. We did not go on another date.
You dodged that bullet!
Anybody who didn’t think BB-8 was cute deserves to wander through this cold world alone.
A++ date screening process.
Have you listened to the BB-8 playlist on spotify? It starts “Ridin'” by Chamillionaire and continues to be excellent.
The Rey and Leia playlists are also great. In fact, most of them are great.
I thought BB-8 was giving him the finger, and not a thumbs-up. I realise now that I have no basis for thinking that, just. Huh.
Well, it’s what R2 “Sass Bucket” D2 would probably have done.
I think part of me saw a thumbs-up, but a bigger part saw it as, “If you don’t make good, kid, I will straight up set you on fire.”
That’s how I interpreted it.
I thought it was a thumbs-up, but a very sarcastic one (are robots capable of sarcasm? wee BB-8 certainly is).
I feel like R2 was definitely sarcastic several times in the original trilogy.
There is a giant debate about this. It’s the new “what color is this dress” meme.
Oh, you need to read BB-8 Gate! “Jessika and Rey attempt to solve one of the galaxy’s greatest mysteries: was BB-8 giving a thumb’s up or the middle finger?”
If you only have one digit, how meaningful is that distinction, anyway?
That was great, I really enjoyed reading it. Especially the ending!
I want to like BB-8, but it feels to much like I’m being manipulated into liking him so that I’ll buy toys of him.
I had planned on liking BB-8 a lot more than I actually did. He’s fine and all, and real cute, but there just doesn’t seem to be much personality (robotality?) there.
Funny as I was the opposite, from the previews I was kind of eye-rolling the attempt to force a “cute” character but I ended up liking him a lot more during the movie.
I also feel that, but honestly I can’t help kind of admiring Disney’s skill at that kind of manipulation. It’s the same way I feel crying at Pixar movies — I know it’s a calculated manipulation, I know there’s someone at the studio probably literally calculating at what point in the movie they want the audience to start crying, but DANG, they do it so WELL I didn’t even NOTICE I was being manipulated.
This. I totally resent it when I find myself starting to tear up at a dramatic musical cue, but damned if I don’t find myself starting to tear up at dramatic musical cues designed for just that purpose in movies.
I hate Charles Dickens. I hate his cardboard characters, his contrived plots, and his emotional manipulation. I then cry through the lamentably tragic tragedies befalling tender waifs in his books. Then I have to hate him again.
I love love love Finn, but when the light saber came to Rey’s hand, tears came to my eyes.
YESSSS. I love them all. Finn and Rey and Poe (mostly because Finn was SO EXCITED TO SEE POE) and I want them all to have all of the nice things.
I was in a crowded theater and the whole theater whooped at the same time and it was GLORIOUS.
I am here for the love/hate/meh/LOVELOVE-fest that is BB-8, but they really are the adorable puppy of the new family. It’s like saying Sansa is your favorite member of the Cliffe household. OF COURSE she is, but it’s also not really a meaningful comparison between humans and direwolves.
UGH I am going to use my rage over those comments about Finn as energy to get me through these reports.
“creator Jeff Franklin should consider doing an episode that flashes back to colonial times to show the origin of the generational curse that strikes down the spouses of Tanner heirs after a third child is born. ”
Something to think about if you are wondering if you should have a third child:
Does my family have a generational curse?
Family planning in olden times.
Things to consider:
–Does my family have a generational curse?
–Are my finances sound?
–Did my previous children turn out to be changelings?
–What’s the status of my pact with Lucifer?
–Will my wife force me to steal vegetables from the garden of the witch next door? And will said witch then place a generational curse on my family?
Is it technically a generational curse if the curse states that there will be no more generations? (Things I think about …)
Good point!
I had to stop reading the abortion clinic article because it brought back too many angry memories. I used to work in an independent abortion clinic in a state very politically-hostile to reproductive rights. I was the one who wrote the policies to comply with then-newly-enacted legislation that declared we were an Ambulatory Surgery Center. Every day working there was a struggle to keep the doors open. We kept our prices for abortion services exactly what they needed to be to break even – and even then we worked with a lot of people who couldn’t afford their abortions, and whatever we couldn’t get from abortion funds we just waived, because it was the right thing to do. We recouped a little bit of the cost on gyn services (annual exams, Depo shots, emergency contraception [this was before Plan B! You had to do the Yuzpe Method!]) but all of those were still in line with what Planned Parenthood was charging in our city. I cannot even go into the personal safety issues right now.
No one was in it for the money. We were all in it for the morals. It breaks my heart that the other side calls us amoral.
Now I’m middle-aged (which seems….unpossible) and I live and work in a big city (it’s THE big city really) where abortion is politically not such a big deal. I am one of the providers in my hospital’s abortion practice (since I’m a midwife I can’t do surgeries, but I do physicals, anything contraceptive-related, sonograms, cervical dilation). I will never NOT want to do this work. These experiences are some of the most satisfying not just of my work life, but of my life-life.
Sorry for the rambling, I just.
Thank you so much for what you do.
Thank you for all the work you’ve done, and that you continue to do.
You’re a true hero!
<3 <3 <3
Thank you for doing what you do.
Thank you, forever.
Truly– thank you. A good friend worked at a Philly abortion clinic and her horror stories of trying to do good, just SENSIBLE work for good people in the face of absolute nonsense still keep me up. It’s a testament to be able to stick around in that field and as a lady I thank you for it.
Gosh, guys, you are all too kind! Thanks for all your kind words. It may seem so insignificant but it really does help!
You do good work and it is hugely appreciated. I’m sorry that terrible people made it so difficult for you and your colleagues.
Thank you for the work you do!
Thank you so much for doing this work. It is so, so important. You and your colleagues are a goddamn national treasure.
I salute you. I could barely read the article, much less have the patience and selflessness to do the work you do.
You’re a motherfucking HERO. Thank you for what you do.
You make the world a better place. Thank you.
I will add my voice to the chorus of thanks, and echo that you are a hero!
Thank you, thank you, thank you — and thanks to everyone you work with, too.
Ahhhh, you’re making me tear up. Ginormous hugs of appreciation to you.
adding my thanks into the mix. what you do is priceless for so many women. thank you.
I am so, so glad you exist and are doing what you do. Talk about meaningful work.
Thank you so much for your work in spite of all the external forces that would like you to stop. It’s so important and I’m so glad you exist. <3
Thank you so much for continuing to fight this fight to provide much-needed healthcare.
Thank you so much for the work you do. Really, truly.
I’m lucky to live in Oregon, a state with no (state-level) restrictions on abortions, and it feels weird to feel LUCKY for being able to make decisions about my own body. Oregon even funds family planning–nearly all my contraception (including my IUD) has been through Planned Parenthood and I never paid a dime for any of it because I was poor enough.
Ok, re: Sansa on WeRateDogs, I was scrolling through twitter last night, super casual, and this is what popped up as a “person you should follow”.
So I had to yell at my fiance, “I RECOGNIZE THE DOG ON WERATEDOGS! How cool is that?!? This is like a MILLION times better than seeing a celebrity walk down the street because DOGS ARE GREAT.” He disagreed, but whatever, he is definitely wrong. (Also why wasn’t I always following WeRateDogs? I’m terrible.)
Edited because whoa that screenshot uploaded really big and I don’t want to stretch all the comments, yeesh.
Following dog_rates was the best decision I ever made on twitter tbh. When I saw Sansa on there last night finally I almost fell off my chair.
Sansa’s barely hanging off her own chair!
Exact same response over here.
Sansa? Surely not THAT Sansa? OH YES IT IS.
Wait, why am I not following weratedogs?
Answer: because my followees RT it so regularly I thought I already followed it.
I urge you to break off your engagement immediately.
I ALSO SCREAMED THIS IN BED WITH MY MALE COMPANION
… and then had to breakdown the incredible synergy of WeRateDogs + the Toast (he already knows who Sansa and Nicole are).
When I was in college a stupid picture of one of my housemates made it onto the Look at This Fucking Hipster website and I screamed for like three days when I saw it. I was telling everyone I knew about it and half of them went “I don’t know what those words mean.” But I felt like i lived with a celebrity!
*It remains unclear who submitted his picture but it may have been me, while inebriated.
Peter Liang: the fact that he was sent to trial and rapidly convicted almost certainly is because he isn’t white, but holy shit, the way the people protesting this have gone about this is so awful and tone-deaf and super, super racist.
Running an abortion clinic: so much to unpack. The cowardice of the medical establishment, the craven nature of abortion opponents, the sheer, ridiculous toughness the people who run clinics have to display just to get out of bed every day.
Yeah… the problem isn’t that an Asian cop got convicted; the problem is that all the white cops don’t get convicted.
Exactly. Justice doesn’t mean that Peter Liang doesn’t go to jail, it means all cops who kill people go to jail.
“The cowardice of the medical establishment”
I work in health care and I am astounded on a regular basis by the cowardice and indifference of so many people in an industry where ethics and morals should be of the utmost concern. I know so many people are quietly and competently getting on with their days doing the right thing, but it feels like in general the patients are getting shafted, followed by the people caring for them the most often (families, nurses, and primary care providers).
Full House is always going to remind me of the fullhousereviewed guy now, who forced himself to watch every single episode of that show and do a writeup on it every week until it got to the point where he hated it with an intensity that was mildly alarming. He was so happy when he finally finished the original series!! He will never be free again!!
My husband and I have taken on the task to rewatch the entire series (I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHY) and tbh I relate to his sheer blinding rage lol. It’s frightening how angry I’ll get at the stupidest things, but then my husband will turn to me and say, “I hate this show. So much. And yet, it’s so comforting.”
You’re very brave. I have fond-ish memories of watching reruns of it after coming home from school, but reading his recaps one after another really drives home how repetitive and mediocre it is.
I never saw Full House as a child because my parents famously loathe it, but now my excellent dirtbag 12-year-old sister has taken to watching it ironically to piss them off. We are all united in our fury, including her.
Welp, I know what I’m doing with my afternoon now!
HAVE FUN! That site is a garden of angry, ranty delights (and bad tv).
That site is serious laugh-til-you-cry material.
Also relevant to the Peter Liang case: a lot of the people defending him have been drawing parallels to the case of Vincent Chin. Vincent Chin’s niece wrote an article for Medium shutting that down.
My office is getting new carpeting, so everyone has to pack up all the stuff they have on their desks. It’s stirring up so much dust that I have to wear a mask. The weird thing is, my office smells and I never noticed it before? I take off the mask to get a drink of water and suddenly realize how musty and dusty it smells. In the very least I would have expected to notice every morning when I come in to work, but apparently I never did. My friend says it’s always smelled like this. I’m feeling super weird about it now.
Mask buddies! I knew my office building Had A Smell before they tore up all the carpets, but did not realize how bad it really was (for the half a sec I could breathe without a mask on). My car’s tan upholstery is tiger striped now from all the dust clinging to my clothes. 🙁 I’m gonna have to get the blasted thing detailed.
Oh nooooo. That’s disgusting! Are they ripping up the carpets while you’re there?
They did an adjoining office’s with some people there (and my office full and full of their dust), and the atrium on the weekend. Unfortunately, nobody will vacuum, so I’m uh taking double doses of Allegra and wearing an n95 mask like the latest fashion accessory.
Carpet is awful. Why is tile or wood not the default flooring?
Good lord. Yeah, I’ve been wondering why my place is going to all this trouble just to put in more gross carpeting. Aside from providing good traction, I can’t think of any benefits.
Sound absorption?
Maybe! I think the cubicles do a pretty good job of that, though. There are some areas of the building that are tiled, so it’s not like it’s out of the question.
I am vaguely starting to wonder if we work in the same state office building (named for a president) in the midwest.
I really hope your air gets breathable again soon!
Oh, no–I work in a government office building! So very different, you know.
Due to a felicitous confluence of events, I happen to be going on vacation next week. Hopefully they’ll have the place cleaned up by the time I get back. Good luck to you, too!
It’s not that strange to not notice smells in places you hang out at every day! We habituate to smells, just like we habituate to sounds and other kinds of stimulation. It’s not just because our brains tune it out – the sensory cells in the nose (or ear, skin, etc) actually start to send fewer signals. Our senses notice changes, basically, but if a sensory experience is always the same, they don’t react. This is how people are able to live next to railroads or highways. The sense of smell habituates A LOT, for some reason. That’s why some people don’t notice that their house smells bad, or that they haven’t showered. They literally don’t get that information from their nose.
I’ve been doing a lot of cleaning at work lately (there’s a lot of dust, and the office manager wants everything to not be covered in dust when customers are in, which is fair), and my asthma’s been going crazy.
Buy some N95 masks at a hardware store. They’ll filter out just about anything, and really aren’t too uncomfortable – if the foam nose bridge is scratchy, just use a wad of facial tissues and some scotch tape to shield your skin. They’re really not too expensive and often pack flat so you can shove them into a pocket and pull them out again. They help so, so much.
This is a bit of fun/food for thought http://www.irishfeministnetwork.org/articles/five…
There’s nothing new there, but it is fun to think about how you can invert and avoid patriarchal tropes in your wedding
We did #s 3, 4 and 5! My husband and I walked in to the ceremony together (it seemed silly to be “given away” by my father as a 30-year old who had already been living with my then-fiance, and my dad was totally fine with it), I gave a short thank-you speech right before dinner with only one other speech after dinner, and we had a lovely 99% secular ceremony officiated by a UU minister (we just had one reading that was a blessing by St. Francis).
Also, I was worried that we would get some sort of blowback for walking in together for the ceremony, but I didn’t hear a single word, even from our most conservative relatives.
Maybe its because I didn’t grow up in traditional wedding culture, but it never occurred to me that a bride wasn’t expected to speak at her wedding? I know from TV that the Maid of Honour doesn’t usually speak, but it wouldn’t surprise me for them to say something at a wedding.
I think my favourite non-traditional wedding thing is getting married in the Round, I really love the idea of being surrounded by all your guests instead of having ‘his’ side and ‘her’ side. But I still want a big grand entrance (on my own) in a ridiculous dress and no fiance will be taking that off me.
My partner’s brother and his husband got married in the council chamber of a register office which had seating arranged in a sort of U shape around the place where they were standing, which was a really nice setup – no sides, just people surrounding them. They also walked in together.
Mr. Bitters and I walked in together for our ceremony back in the Stone Age (AKA 1996), but funnily enough, my very critical and etiquette-obsessed grandmother said nothing. She was fairly upset about my sister’s tattoo and the fact that we served wedding pie, though.
My dress was ivory, but otherwise all boxes firmly ticked.
I think a feminist wedding is one in which both parties agree that men and women are entitled to equal rights.
The tone of the article just irks me and seems to be of that genre of article that is forever policing women’s choices as not feminist enough. I did half of the things the article counsels against and I don’t feel any less feminist for it.
Also white dresses were never originally about purity, that meaning got read onto them after they became stylish. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/queen-vi…
I think its aimed at a much less aware audience; which is weird for the site its on, but then the Irish public wouldn’t be as feminist-literal as other places, and because its so Catholic there would be a lot of family expectation for a church wedding with all the trimmings.
What I took from it was that it was saying its ok to go against tradition if you want to, and also that the writer is maybe not super experienced or used to writing about feminist topics in online spaces.
Yeah, I guess I can see that interpretation, I think I judged it harsher because it was from a self described feminist website.
I also was recalling when the time I got a lecture from HR about how I didn’t have to change my name, when I asked about what paperwork I needed to do exactly that, which I found pretty condescending.
Yeah, IFN does some good stuff online, but it can slip into populist feminism at times.
Oof, that sucks. I think a feminist wedding and marriage is one where both people have the choice to do it the way they want to do it; so wearing white, changing your name, being ‘given away’, all cool so long as it was your choice as a person or as a couple, rather than being bullied into it (Like a friend of mine, who’s MIL threw a shit fit because she didn’t want to take her new husbands name, which TBH is a crap name and her name is Italian and awesome, eventually she caved and went double-barrelled.).
But then there might still be women out there who don’t know that they have a choice about changing their name? My half sister tried to tell me it was illegal for me to have my mothers second name instead of our fathers name when we were younger.
Yes I agree with all that!
I think not changing the name is becoming more and more common especially as women get married later so there are professional considerations. This is a big issue in occupations that involve licenses (lawyers, doctors etc) and also academia.
Yes, these days changing your name is a huge deal, especially if you’re in your 30s! I saw a great article awhile ago from a man who took his wife’s name, detailing all of the ridiculous comments and strange looks he got as he went about changing his name.
I haven’t dug too deeply into my personal thoughts on it yet; if the time ever comes I’ll think about it then, I like the idea of having a family name that I share with husband and kids, but I also like my surname a lot and my name is my identity these days and I think would like my kids to have it too; so maybe future husband is gonna have to take my name?
I think this is also one of the places where the second wave “personal is political” vs third wave “choice feminism” can come the most openly into conflict. Truly, no one should be guilt-tripping or bullying or otherwise being jerks to women about our own choices, but 70% of marriages involve a woman changing her name to match a man’s, and is that what the ideal end-game looks like? The patriarchy clearly has a preference about what is ‘supposed’ to happen; should that factor into each of our decisions? How much?
Well, and also: I never in a million years thought I would get divorced, but unfortunately I am, with very little choice about the matter. It is so very very very helpful legally, psychologically, and socially that I never changed my name in the first place, so I don’t have to change it back. If anything goes wrong and you need to divorce, name-changing becomes a cluster*ck and it makes the divorce process much more public and much more of a topic of discussion in the workplace, with acquaintances and near-strangers, etc., because you have to tell them your name is changing. Whereas not having to do that, I have a good number of work colleagues who didn’t really know I was married and have no clue I’m divorcing, and I appreciate the privacy so much.
Not something anybody wants to think about before marriage, of course, but if there is a way to consider it without damaging the happiness and commitment that are an important component to feeling emotionally ready to getting married, I think women would benefit from considering this aspect to the name-change in advance.
Thank you for articulating that so well! The clash between the two waves is getting SO tricky to navigate. I often feel unable to discuss my radical feminist beliefs without being told I’m bashing other women’s choices. And I’m certainly not trying to! I just don’t believe in the “everything is either feminist or not” brand of thinking. Like, wear makeup! Shave your legs! It doesn’t make you *not* a feminist, buuut that also doesn’t make the content of those choices feminist. To me, supporting people’s right to make choices is just a nice *human*, non-asshole thing to do.
I’m going to hush now. I respect you all! Love!
Yeah, it’s basically the only part of the second wave that still resides in my soul. I’ve been trying to articulate it and have lately settled on:
Yes, feminism means no one telling women what to choose, but also, not all choices are created equal(ly feminist). And if we can’t talk about the virtues and/or patriarchy-upholding-ness of (a) versus (b) – without any ad hominem, of course – aren’t we putting ourselves back at square one?
Okay, definitely still needs work. But the “not all choices are equal” is, I think, the core of me.
Exactly exactly exactly x a million!!!!
One of the many things I love about Miss Manners is she has no truck with the idea that white dresses are signifiers of purity brides may or may not “deserve.”
“We did the last one hand-in-hand, to symbolise us entering into marriage as equal partners.”
We did this too, and I am so so glad. I always look back on it with love and happiness.
I’m not sure about a lot of stuff that would go into my wedding (I’m not engaged and don’t plan to be anytime soon). But some things I am for certain:
– Women will definitely be giving speeches at my wedding
– I am 300% not having my ceremony in front of an audience. This is one thing that is for certain. The parents and grandparents can attend, but that’s it. I think it’s invasive to have my entire family (read: 100 people at least) staring at me as I walk down an aisle and say personal vows to my husband. I have horrible stage fright too, so that’s another reason. People are just gonna show for the reception and we’ll walk in like “Yeah, we’re married now. PARTAAYYYY” and be done with it.
– Edit: I’m also not changing my last name.
I totally get the performance anxiety! I’m always a proponent of doing it how it makes you happy!
Personally, the idea terrifies me, but I also think its romantic to stand up in front of all of your people and say you love someone. I’m not into marriage as the religious, patriarchal institution, but I do like it as a public statement of your love and intentions towards another person.
Oh, I definitely think it’s romantic. I love being the one to watch people get married. And weddings are so much fun. I’m also not into marriage for the same reason you stated. I just see it as a big party, coming together to celebrate two people you (hopefully) love as they take the next step in their lives together.
I’m just the kind of person who doesn’t like to display those kinds of emotions in front of other people anyway (like a few people is fine, but rows and rows of people? Nope.) – and honestly, just the idea of having to be the center of attention makes me uncomfortable. I would like something more intimate for the ceremony, just a small audience that would be in a nice, secluded place so people don’t have to watch me sweat buckets.
I’m slowly coming around from my original stance of “Why does every person you’ve ever possibly met or been distantly related to need to be invited to this stupidly expensive party (wedding/reception) we are having?” (See also: “What difference does it make whether your second cousin witnesses our marriage or not? It’s just between the two of us.”) to “I’m grateful that so many people around us would like to take time out of their busy lives to show their support for us and our future together.” But I do like your idea of a private ceremony and a big reception. I think it covers the same dynamic of group celebration.
I also have no current plans to get married, but still have some very definite thoughts about what I would do if I ever choose to go for it. (Civil ceremony, not being given away, definitely not changing my name, if there are speeches they will not all be by men, probably won’t wear white because I spill food on myself all the time. Also, all the food will be vegetarian and there will be a room with books and magazines where people can go and sit quietly if they want a break from socialising.)
My husband and I each walked down the aisle with both our parents and hugged them at the front; I was not given away formally and there was no “handing over from father to husband”; the officiant asked as part of the ceremony “Who is receiving a new son or daughter into their family today?” and both sets of parents answered. There was some opposition due to religious reasoning but they got over it because it was what we wanted and they didn’t want to make a fuss. It worked out beautifully and was exactly what we wanted.
That’s lovely! I walked up the aisle alone (just like my mom did) and I don’t think there was any language about “who is here/gives this woman/etc.”, but honestly it’s all a bit of a blur now. I really like the image of both people walking in with parents and the parents accepting a new child into their family!
We put a lot of thought into the wording of the traditional ceremony we used, wanting to express what we are (egalitarian) without offending family members. The site A Practical Wedding has lots of helpful suggestions and articles on non-traditional/feminist/practical wedding ideas,so that was really helpful.
APW has helped me a LOT in terms of planning. Highly recommended to anyone planning on getting hitched!
Us too! Although at wedding rehearsal the planner (who was provided by the venue) seriously tried to grab my hand and put it in my dad’s hand for him to hand me off to my partner. I SAW RED. Thankfully the awesome person who we asked to marry us could see my whole body simultaneously freeze and light on fire with shock/rage and was like “it’s ok, we’ll take it from here”, classily dismissing said wedding planner.
Seriously, this wasn’t even at a small-town church, just a city venue with no religious affiliations. Burn down the patriarchy.
I didn’t even know the speech stuff…! Based on both what seemed like common sense to me, I figured ‘traditionally’ speeches were probably given by the best man, the maid of honour, and then parents. If I’d thought further I probably would have assumed that back in the dark ages maybe it was just fathers, but not any more. I just assumed that the maid of honour was a done deal though!
In my country, walking in together IS the historical tradition. It means that they’re both consenting to the marriage. In my opinion it adds dramatic flair too – instead of having the groom lounging around at the altar before the ceremony starts, everything begins when the bridal couple enters.
Irritatingly, the American/Anglo/?? tradition of the bride’s father “handing her over” is making its way here, because people assume it’s an older tradition since it seems so old-fashioned (and of course Hollywood helps creating that image). We’re also importing those straight-couple movie proposals where the man proposes to the woman with a fancy ring, instead of getting engaged and picking out plain golden bands together, which is the actual tradition (at the wedding ceremony, the bride gets another golden band, while the groom just wears his engagement ring).
So basically we used to have pretty economically sensible and gender equal traditions that we’re now changing to MORE SEXIST options. But at least nobody cares about the last names (or virginity)…
Where are you from, if you don’t mind my asking?
That is an interesting article, but my kneekjerk reaction is a bit “No shit”; if you need to have it pointed out to you that you don’t need to have a religious ceremony and you can wear what you like, it feels a bit like you have been living under a rock. (“You mean there aren’t laws that forbid women from speaking? I had NO IDEA!”)
re: Equity in Publishing article– OOF on this one: “I had one boss who, after months of working with me, stared at me a beat too long and then asked out of the blue what my parents did for a living. It was an innocent question but she was clearly summing me up. She wasn’t trying to relate to me at all. She was trying to make sense of the difference she felt.”
ALL DAY LONG, GIRL
ALSO THIS: “I haven’t quite figured out ways to undo the structure other than living in it. Part of what kept me in the publishing industry was—god damn it—I have my foot in the door. When my job goes they are not going to give it to another black girl. There goes a black woman’s shot at changing something.”
The minute I saw Sansa on DogRates yesterday I thought “I need to see a baby Sansa pic for comparison, maybe Nicole will be generous and give us a big AND little Sansa tomorrow.” AND SHE DID
OMG, right? That made my day. (BTW, do you know what breed Sansa is? I missed that info!)
http://flavorwire.com/562808/hamiltons-lin-manuel…
My apologies if this has already come up elsewhere, but I thought I should share.
Um this is amazing and new-to-me news. Thank you for sharing it!
It is my Disney- and Hamilton- fangirl friend’s birthday today and she is going to FLIP when she sees this, thank you 🙂
Does anyone know if this a remake of the original, or an actual sequel (P.L. Travers wrote several other Poppins books)
It looks like an actual sequel! Bottom of the article said it takes place 20 years after the first.
How is 33-year old Emily Blunt going to play 49-year old Julie Andrews, I wonder?
Apropos of nothing in this particular link roundup, but I really would like to figure out if I can throw together a production of The Resistable Rise of Arturo Ui before the general election in November.
With a chaser of Sinclair Lewis’s It Can’t Happen Here.
Also H. G. Wells’ “Holy Terror”
That article about diversity in publishing is so good! Though between that and the NY Times piece about diversity in film/TV the other day, I am quite depressed about the state of the arts.
That NYT piece brought literal tears to my literal eyes.
Wait wait, is it this one? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/14/arts/television…
I googled it and it came up with a lot of race film/tv stuff published by the NYT in the last couple of months (which I will also be reading).
Probably this article that was mentioned in a comment yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/02/24/art…
Thank you! Totally missed that yesterday.
This woman in the Tokenized article, omg:
I asked, “If I had worked at a magazine like Newsweek would you propose I do an internship?” He said that’s a good question, and I said that’s a bad answer, and I walked out of his office.
What a badass.
Puritan Twin Mercy is the BEST PURITAN TWIN and my new emergency contact.
#LUVUMERCY!
Oh but the singing, I couldn’t brook the singing.
Hm. Interesting. [whispers to Mercy, who whispers to Black Phillip.]
“Don’t hex me bro!”
GOD THOSE KIDS WERE SO ANNOYING
I don’t believe for a second that Donald Trump would keep his word and actually, permanently, suspend his campaign if I agreed to have sex with him. In fact, I bet he’s been using that as a pickup line on the campaign trail, like, nightly.
I had a recent bar conversation about how much money it would take to convince you to sleep with Ted Cruz. Unanimous answer: no amount, good god, I regret even bringing this up because now we’ve had to picture his slimy face.
I can’t stop appreciating Colbert’s Trump=Circus Peanut and Cruz=half-melted GI Joe
Maybe I’m cheap but I’d do it for his resignation from all politics forever and the entire content of his campaign coffers transferred to my personal account.
You know ALL his parts are slimy, why did you make me think about that.
Oh good lord I hadn’t even considered that possibility but you are dead right.
Even if the terms of the agreement are met to the letter I know he’d find a way to continue ruining the country, it’s just what he does. Now, if he were cursed by a witch such that if having sex with him would turn him into a harmless lil toad (ideally like five minutes after the sex act, logistically, right?) I’d be willing to entertain the question.
It makes sense that a witch’s curse is the only thing that could save this country, tbh.
ideally like five minutes after the sex act, logistically, right?
in an entire sub topic about sexing cruz and/or trump, a frog in my crotch is really the least terrible thing happening tbh.
He would both continue his campaign, AND immediately brag about the sex.
And also denigrate you for thinking he’d actually keep his end of the bargain.
I might let him think he’s getting the P long enough to stab him in his bath like I wish Ivana had done.
The Met just announced their upcoming season. They’re doing an opera written by a woman for the first time in OVER A CENTURY. I know that opera changes slowly but damn, a century is a long time. http://m.sfgate.com/performance/article/Met-plans…
I read about that yesterday and was so surprised! But L’Amour de Loin is so gorgeous, I’m glad it’s getting done more! The opera company here (in Toronto) did it a few years ago and it was fantastic.
It looks SO GOOD. I wish I still had friends on NYC, I could probably justify buying a plane ticket if I had a place to stay and friends to visit.
It’s great but – it’s not the Biggest show, I worry it will drown a little on the Met stage. OTOH I guess if EleKtra can fill it, the sad knight can too….
WHAT? Seriously? That’s awesome (a woman yay!) and also horrible (HOW long??). Damn, opera, get your shit together.
Is there a very robust classical music scene in Finland and/or an excellent conservatory or something? The number of excellent musicians coming out of there seems disproportionate to the population–but I am probably also noticing said musicians out of proportion to their actual numbers, since my ears always perk up when I see someone else with a Finnish last name.
Yes to both, plus even quite small towns have their municipal orchestra. Sibelius is such a huge cultural icon that he raises the whole standing of classical music.
I want to see it! And yeah, when I read the “first staging of an opera by a woman composer in 103 years!” announcement I wasn’t surprised, exactly, but I did shake my head and sigh heavily.
I have to admit, I’m much more excited about the new production of Rossini’s “Guillaume Tell”. You never get to see that! (Also, I’m wondering if they’re cutting it down from six hours…)
I want The Witch to be something very, very specific and I don’t know if I can find out if it’s what I want without spoilers. Normally I just blow through spoilers because I’m a “lol don’t care!” person but I feel like this is a movie I want to see in its purest form. IDK, I’m also a big weenie when it comes to horror movies.
I also feel like such a scrooge because I’m not here for remakes. I think it’s one thing if the show has been very recently and unjustly canceled, but there’s a statute of limitations. I wouldn’t even want to see my most favorite, most unjustly canceled show (Pushing Daisies) brought back at this point, it’s just been too long. It’s good for shows to end. When they don’t you end up a Supernatural fan hoping for sweet release while clinging to the happy memories of S1-5.
Tell me what you want it to be and I’ll give you a hot/warm/cold on how much the movie is going to disappoint you.
I imagine that being a Puritan during the witch hysteria was a lot like living in an atmospheric horror movie and I want something that doesn’t come out and say “the demons are real!” but looks at the way that kind of hysteria ripped people apart from the inside without giving a definitive yes/no answer on if anyone is a witch/if witchcraft is real
warmish mostly, then (um) getting colder? Still worth it no matter what, come here after and we can measure our satisfactions and/or disappointments.
Plus it is a mere two hours of your life and like $10, please go see it on the big screen because it is gorgeous and stirring and the “horror” part is more psychological than gory.
Have you read Keith Thomas’s “Religion and the Decline of Magic”? It’s SUPER good if you haven’t, and is sort of an interesting mix of history and anthropology that focuses on 16th- and 17th-century systems of belief. One of the things I admire most about it is Thomas’s credulity: if someone in the historical record described herself as a witch or himself as a warlock, Thomas believes him. Or doesn’t feel the need to then tell the reader, “Of course, Goody Agnes wasn’t.”
So, the film has a bit of that because it takes its magic seriously, but it also entirely understands the psychology of immigrants near some woods who are literally thisclose to dying every moment from some sort of homesteading accident, or illness, or scarcity.
I have not even heard of that book but holy cow does it sound so fantastically up my alley! Thank you so much for the recommendation I am going to get my hands on this posthaste.
Yay! I’m so pleased!
And again, I want to praise how even-handed he is. (Unnecessary Background: I read R&tDoM about a month after reading the INCREDIBLY mean-spirited “Madame Blavatsky’s Baboon” and I am not trying to reveal, in this parenthetical, that I am a Madame Blavatsky apologist or anything; and I think that lady is a Very Complicated Lady. But the biographer was so dismissive of everything about her and theosophy that it got in the way of my learning anything because he was too busy trying to make sure I knew what a fraud she was. LET ME GET THERE ON MY OWN. Anyway, I then read R&tDoM and it was SO REFRESHING to be allowed to read accounts and make up my own mind about intent, etc. Thomas gives you some historical context for what life was like in the Early Modern period, and then just sort of shares anecdotes.)
What are you talking about, Supernatural only HAD 5 seasons. And one musical episode.
agreed on remakes. I loved the X-Files and that’s why I don’t want new X-Files, my love is all wrapped up in middle school me and 90s politics and I don’t want to risk wrecking it with a crummy remake. If I want nostalgia I’ll put the old stuff on.
The new X-Files made me so sad 🙁
I liked the Darin Morgan episode, even if it was only a pale imitation of “Jose Chung’s From Outer Space.” But yeah, not really feeling the magic there.
It’s good for shows to end. When they don’t you end up a Supernatural fan hoping for sweet release while clinging to the happy memories of S1-5.
My people.
I’ve been saying this for years. Shows should be made with an ending in mind, especially if the writer like throwing in plot twists (*cough* Lost *cough*). And this is why I like British TV, yes its short and there’s never enough, but they always leave you satisfied and wanting more rather than out-staying their welcome to the point of absurdity (House, Grey’s Anatomy, HIMYM, basically any popular US tv show.). Plus most American shows start loosing cast around season 4-5 and then the quality drastically dips.
I really, really agree. That still pisses me off with Supernatural. The went in with 5 seasons planned, made 5 good seasons, then…kept going? I stopped watching at the end of 5 and I don’t regret it.
I mean, if it had ended at S5 we wouldn’t have had Crowley or as much Castiel; but as much as I like them, they’re not enough to justify how stupid the show has gotten.
I kept hate watching up until about the start of S10, but its essentially become fanfiction of itself at this point and I’m bored and done.
I stopped watching a few episodes in to S10 because episodes had started to pile up on the DVR and I approached catching-up with the same dread I had for math homework in high school. TV is supposed to be fun, and if I’m not enjoying myself I’m not obligated to keep watching. I abandon LOTS of TV shows and it always feels great.
It was when I lived in Korea that I first discovered shows made with an intended run in mind and I loved that. The big one at the time was Sungkyunkwan Scandal and while my students were so sad when it ended but it told a complete story without getting bloated or overstaying it’s welcome. I’d love to see more shows like that on American TV!
Grey’s Anatomy can NEVER DIE. (Although they must bring back Cristina)
This is why I’m content with the three seasons of Hannibal we got. I’m sure season 4 would have been amazing, but hey, at least there’s no chance for everything to go off the damn rails.
There’s no way Pushing Daisies would be right this far gone but Terriers… that show ended with Britt probably going to prison for a while. Built in excuse to pick up after several years. Not forever, but two or three 5-10 episode season/arcs. End with Britt and Hank retiring/fleeing to Tijuana and [fan fiction deleted]
Also I want more Columbo, with a constantly refreshing Columbo. Netfilx already has my money, it’s the least they could do.
I wanted it to be something very specific that it wasn’t. It was still good, but I’d been hoping since I saw the trailer last fall that it would be this other thing. The kind of creepy that makes my eyes water. That’s the only way I can describe it. My eyes didn’t water, but I was scared to take my dog out to piss early the next morning. :/
When they don’t you end up a Supernatural fan hoping for sweet release while clinging to the happy memories of S1-5.
Amen, friend.
Soooo, Iowa, huh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/iowa-kids-han…
WTF
I assume that the intent is so that kids can go hunting with their parents? But sheesh, that’s poorly thought out. I don’t think it will pass the senate.
Wait, nope, it’s specifically about hanguns. WTF, indeed.
“Sisters Meredith Gibson, 12, and Natalie Gibson, 10, were among those lobbying in favor of the bill. Natalie told the station a gun is only dangerous if handled wrong.” This child did not get her full script, and apparently does not know what guns are for.
Oh fucking hell.
Seems like a totally reasonable law to take up the year after 43 people were shot by gun wielding toddlers (toddlers!!!!) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/…
Meanwhile, our schools go under-funded.
mumblegrumble.
I can’t believe Branstad’s got two more years. I’m not even in IA much anymore but every time I hear about something he does my blood pressure rises.
I’ll have two kids in high school next year. The elder wants to go to Iowa. I want them both to move on to somewhere more pleasant, so I can also move on to somewhere more pleasant.
Is higher ed getting cut too? Jesus, I’d only heard about the k-12 cuts. I recall that not too long ago IA had one of the best school systems in the nation. But why not just throw that out the window in the name of… I actually don’t even know what the motivation is.
Well, there was all the shenanigans about pretending to look for a legit new Pres for UI, and then getting )%&(*$& Herrald instead.
Most of the influential Rs in the state house homeschool their kids or send them to private religious schools, so it’s no big to under-fund everyone else. Just disgusting.
Except Iowa is awesome.* ** ***
*Might be biased
**Sorry about Branstad
***REALLY sorry about Steve King
. . .Iowa City has its charms, at least?
Iowa City is a treasure.
Problem was, when I lived there, I forgot how different it was from the rest of the state politically and got *super* confused and disappointed during elections.
Ehh, it’s still not a red state. But it does have a good share of terrifying politicians. And after seeing the way Wisconsin has gone lately, I’m getting more and more nervous.
Did it not go red in 2004? That was my last election as an Iowegian, and a catalyst in my moving– it was a doozy.
It went by like .05 percent, if I recall. Blue since then.
Y’know, I really don’t think enough consideration has been given to the notion that we’re living in Star Trek’s Mirror universe, and not the Prime one (or even the Abrams one).
GOP Voter: You know, this Spock guy has some good ideas. I don’t like his hippy-ass goatee, though.
I do wish that someone would look at the diversity in publishing issue from a nyc versus non-nyc perspective. I’ve worked in publishing for a decade and a half and never lived or worked in nyc… in large part because it’s way too expensive. Do publishers in areas with a lower cost of living have a more diverse staff (including people from working class families/backgrounds — also sorely underrepresented)?
That said… it’s a lot of white people. I am a white person and it’s like, jeez, I did not realize there were so many of us, what the fuck?
I worked publishing in Philly, in 3 different places. Still lots of white women, tbh. But I suspect it’s MUCH better in terms of class differences. Because you don’t need a parent to bankroll your first job. And entry-level pay was about the same here as NYC, but cost of living way lower.
If an industry can’t (won’t) be diverse in NYC, the chances drop exponentially that it will be diverse anywhere else. I worked at a publisher in the midwest and while I worked there we had maybe 3 black employees out of 50-60. There might have been 1-2 other POCs, but I don’t remember. And this was in a relatively diverse area near a big city.
I work in publishing in Portland (Oregon) and it’s incredibly white (but then, if I remember correctly, Portland is one of the whitest metros in the country, so that’s unfortunately par for the course). Upsettingly, we have no people of color on our staff of under 30. It’s also over three-fourths women (though our publisher is a man). The cost of living is getting higher all the time here, but it is still better than New York, so I do think the class diversity is probably more broad, like Biblioholic said. I will say that we do pretty well in terms of LGBTQ representation; a solid 20% of our staff (that I know of) is openly gay or queer.
Maybe this is the place to ask about something that I was chewing on when the Lee & Low survey came out: from the media attention, it seemed like everyone was blown away by this information, like no one had ever conducted a study like this before. But Publishers Weekly has been including demographic statistics in their annual industry salary surveys for years, even taking specific care to call out the lack of racial/ethnic diversity in the industry in the last few surveys that I recall recently. The full surveys are available only to members, of course, but they’re usually good about posting general breakdowns for free to the public. Were people not aware of them? Does Lee & Low just have more general-media presence and savvy? Don’t get me wrong, I’m very glad that more people are paying attention to this; it’s just odd to me because in my circle, at least, this problem has been very common knowledge, backed up by real and actual data.
More to the point, how long does it take for all of us in publishing to just look around the office and realize, hmmm, almost everyone here is a white woman?
And I will add that I have been very aware, since I entered the field in the early ’80s, of the dynamic of women in the lower echelons, men at the top, but it did take me quite a long while to realize the racial discrepancies, and I am ashamed of that.
I *think* the difference is that the Lee and Low survey aimed to get demographic information on the entire staffs of a selected group of publishers, whereas the PW survey is just… whoever clicks the link on the PW email and fills out the survey. So Lee and Low went to publishers and said, will you participate in this/get your staff to participate? I believe the data was still self-reported, so it’s not necessarily 100% of the staff at the target publishers, but it’s probably a lot more accurate than PW’s scattershot method. So basically, a better designed survey to confirm what we all intuitively know and what PW’s data point to.
But, I could be wrong.
Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for breaking it down for me!
The abortion clinic article made me so furious. The cheek of those anti-choicers describing themselves as having ‘moral’ purpose! Their ‘activism’ is immoral both in its intent and its execution.
It’s such an eye-opener to see that in parts of America it’s as hard if not harder to get an abortion than it is in Ireland. At least Britain and Europe are geographically not that far away!
I’m often struck by the Problem of anti-choice women. Does anyone here have opinions on what motivates them? From what I can see, they fall roughly into three main categories:
1. Not-bad people who misguidedly believe that they’re ‘saving babies’ and have not actually talked to an actual woman about her abortion experiences.
2. Those with religious convictions that can’t be unseated no matter what the evidence.
3. Those who have internalised misogyny to such a degree that they exploit it for their own ends and to gain status within the patriarchy. These are the most dangerous imo, because they’re often intelligent, educated, have significant careers in things like law and politics, and use their smarts to find ever more craven and underhanded ways to deprive other women of their rights.
Have you any anti-choice women in your life? Were you ever able to persuade them to do better?
PS: I’m not talking about women who personally oppose abortion but don’t believe in denying others the right. I mean those who are dedicated to forbidding *all* women the right to safe and legal abortion.
I went to a Catholic college. Students For Life was a big, big part of that campus–tiny white crosses on the lawns, etc. After school, I kept in touch for a while with my freshman year RA, who’s a religiously-based anti-choicer who kind of just doesn’t get that her life choices and privilege do not apply to everyone. She unfriended me on FB some time ago, and I have to say I don’t miss her.
I know a number of these types from Catholic grade school/ family friends. I think for a lot of the hardcore Catholics it’s a failure of imagination– “I love babies! Who doesn’t love babies? I know what I would do if I got pregnant, why wouldn’t anyone else do the same?” People just never consider anything outside their own little circle.
Right. I remember one conversation in particular a couple of years ago that revolved around her two “unplanned” pregnancies and how they were so awesome and clearly proof that abortion was evil and birth control wasn’t necessary and I (and several of my friends) were like… well, you’re definitely married and in a pretty stable place so your “unplanned” pregnancies didn’t have QUITE the same effect on your life that they’d have on, say, pretty much anyone else, also you have just proved that birth control can be pretty useful
Due to being completely broke and needing a job to, you know, live inside and eat food, I worked for two long years in the youth office of our local Catholic diocese and had to attend the national March For Life [sic] (along with some other, less objectionable youth events). The MFL was, aside from being straight-up torture that wrecked my mental health, incredibly interesting. What I could see from the youth (high school age kids) who attended these events, they weren’t really thinking through their position like, AT ALL. But that was by design! The rhetoric was sexist and dehumanizing and filled with lies, of course, but also incredibly simplistic and designed to make the teens feel they were a part of a special group — slogans, chanting, signs and symbols. The rallies and the march itself were like one big giant pep rally that told teens they were special, part of a special group who knew the real truth, they were standing up for something that everyone else would look down on them for but they were brave and unique!
The rally we went to the night before followed the template for other Catholic youth rallies I had to attend — get the kids all amped up with music and singing, throw a bunch of half-assed rhetoric at them that sounds good and is easily digestible and give them some slogans that are easy to repeat, then make them be silent and pray so they think something profound has happened. Don’t forget to do this all late at night after a long day so they’re exhausted and hungry and impressionable!
On the bus on the way back, the teens were supposed to get up and talk about what they learned, and let me tell you — they learned pretty much nothing. These are kids who I heard speak eloquently and clearly after other events about how they felt God was calling them to be more compassionate, to help people, to share their faith, that kind of thing. On this trip? They were pretty much like “I learned, um, that I guess, um, abortion is bad and we shouldn’t kill babies?” (That’s pretty much a direct quote, which I remember because I texted it to my spouse and friends like “???!!!”)
Another thing I’ll say — the people at the march were almost all teenagers and their chaperones, with the next largest demographic being priests/nuns/brothers, followed by elderly folks. Nearly everyone was white.
Having said all of that, I strongly suspect that the people who get to be in their 40s and older who are still anti-choice are definitely people who were exposed to these kinds of powerful messages early in life, who never had to confront reality (getting pregnant unexpectedly, having a friend go through it), and who basically never had to interrogate those simplistic messages of belonging, uniqueness, being brave and standing up for what they know is right against a corrupt force.
And with all of that wall of text out of my brain, I think I need to lie down. I’m still in many ways recovering from that experience. We all do what we have to do to get by, but I wish I had considered more carefully how that job would impact me. I thought I could just keep myself separate from it, but even without believing in anything they were saying, it still took a toll.
Reminds me of this essay, which I think back to often when I start getting too flummoxed by other people’s crappy politics: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2011/01/…
And actually, it also reminds me of the Catholic summer camp I went to as a kid. Not that we did any abortion protesting, but we had a lot of late-night chapel services after long days of canoeing and making friendship bracelets. And there were campfires and pretty hymns and plenty of silent head-bowing, and if that wasn’t enough to move you then there were also enthusiastic counselors around to say “wow, this is such a powerful moment, can’t you feel the Holy Spirit?” Even the surliest of 13-year-olds are going to feel drawn in by that. It’s not hard to see how some people just keep getting carried along.
That’s a fantastic read, thank you. It really resonates with what I saw on those trips and events. Teenagers have such a burning need to belong and to feel important, it’s easy to see why those messages take such hold. And if your life is otherwise unremarkable, it’s easy to see how, as you said, some people just keep getting carried along. This is bone-deep stuff that these messages are appealing to, after all!
And there were campfires and pretty hymns and plenty of silent head-bowing, and if that wasn’t enough to move you then there were also enthusiastic counselors around to say “wow, this is such a powerful moment, can’t you feel the Holy Spirit?” Even the surliest of 13-year-olds are going to feel drawn in by that.
This really reminds me of what my dad has said about being brought up a Catholic – constantly being told that he should be able to feel God’s presence, and feeling absolutely nothing, and just feeling shit and sinful about it.
One of our (now retired) bishops gave a sermon at my church, while I was at a very low point in my life mental-health-wise (and also financially), about the importance of zeal to the Christian life. I felt no particular zeal at that time, or any connection with God (or my parents, or my friends, or happiness), and I was terrified that this meant I was losing my faith. I may have cried. Those were not great times.
I was raised Catholic and then I worked there for two years and honestly I still have zero idea of what you’re supposed to be doing when you kneel down after communion.
I mean, needless to say, I never did feel close to whatever during the kneeling times, but maybe someone should’ve said what I was meant to be doing….
Oh wow, I’m sorry you had to go through that, and well done you for surviving it. I attended a counter-protest to a ‘March for Life’ in Dublin last year, primarily so I could get an idea of who exactly these people are, demographically. I’d noticed that in official photographs of previous anti-choice marches, there were usually a couple of people of colour in the front of the protests, and I wanted to see if that was true of the movement more generally. (In Ireland the population of colour is still relatively small, if growing). I was concerned that the Irish pro-choice movement might not be appealing to Irish people of colour, and wanted to investigate (a) if that was true and (b) if so, what could be done better to change that.
What I discovered, looking at the march, was that the small number of people of colour were ‘front-loaded’ in the marches so they were prominent in the photographs, but were immediately followed by large numbers of elderly white people, many brandishing Catholic paraphernalia. Numerically, there were very few non-white people in the overall march. Children and young teenagers were also ‘front-loaded’, but the overall age profile skewed older. There were comparatively few adult women of pre-menopausal age. I’m never surprised to see misinformation from anti-choicers, but there was something especially ugly and cynical about this attempt at ‘demographic manipulation’.
(Not implying that the people of colour on that march lacked agency or were merely pawns of the white organisers. For all I know they could have been organisers themselves, and quite happy with the ‘front-loading’ tactic.)
I was…relieved is a strange word, but it’s all I can think of – that there ended up being very few people of colour in the anti-choice march overall. The annual March for Choice in Dublin is also overwhelmingly white, but even with that, there have still been far more people of colour in attendance than at the ‘march for life’. More still needs to be done to make and keep the Irish pro-choice movement inclusive, but at least it’s not starting from a disadvantage in that regard.
Yeah “comparatively few adult women of pre-menopausal age” was definitely my experience as well.
Oh, wow, your description of this march reminded me of high school – a bunch of kids used to sign up for them because it was extra credit for religion class AND got them out of school for an afternoon. They didn’t actively care, but got the brainwashing anyway. (Or some probably did care/believe, but weirdly the most fervent Catholic teens I knew attended the public schools, not my school.)
Yeah there were definitely some of those kids too, but we did have a solid core group of youth group kids who took it all very seriously and thoughtfully. That’s why I was so surprised when they couldn’t seem to articulate much about what they learned/experienced.
We had a “Respect Life” week every year that I was in Catholic grade school (K-8 – it continued, of course, but my Catholic high school didn’t force participation) that had as part of it an element of Abortion Is Murder And Bad, and they encouraged children to join the Saturday protest and so on. I mostly remembered it as ethics about murder (we learned about vegetarianism and how certain Eastern beliefs won’t even squish spiders or ants or anything) and how the Death Penalty is horrible, and then tacked on anti-abortion as Baby Murder. My parents never ever said anything about abortion and didn’t encourage us to attend rallies or anything, and I personally was more motivated by the capital punishment stuff (it seemed supremely unfair to me, and I have the asperger’s/autistic fairness complex).
Anyway! I was anti-abortion until I realized as a young adult that forcing women to have babies because they should be punished for irresponsibility is incredibly unfair to the babies. And I didn’t get any strong examples of pro-choice as a kid, so it was basically brainwashing, and my parents weren’t comfortable talking about it, so they didn’t fight it. And I’m pretty sure that it’s the same for a lot of other Catholic families. Not necessarily a failure of imagination but being taught again and again how it’s a horrible thing and never being taught or given access to better information.
(FWIW my parents are most certainly pro-choice, and my mom taught me about contraception when i was 6 and she was pregnant with my little brother, so it’s not at all like they were “good Catholics”.)
I find this so depressing, because even if it’s outside one’s personal experience, how can you not read books/watch television and see examples of pregnancy being a bad thing? What sort of bubble does a person have to live in that means it doesn’t even cross their mind that some people might really not want a baby?
I have a super-Lutheran friend who is anti-abortion, but she’s pro-Planned Parenthood because she recognizes all the other important shit they do. So we’re able to get along pretty well.
(She’s also a creationist who studied biology and ecology in college? Truly, life is a rich tapestry.)
At least in Ireland I think it was just the fact that no other POV was ever taught to young women, you were only ever taught Abortion is Baby Murder.
Plus a whole helping of #3.
I grew up in a very religious town and then went to a Catholic college. Unfortunately I don’t have a lot of friends left from those parts of my life because there just isn’t any convincing them. And if it was just abortion, I don’t know, maybe I would still be friends with them but they tend to believe a whole suite of toxic things and pretty soon there’s just no safe common ground.
Yeah, I may be wrong, but I feel like an anti-choice position is often a signifier of someone holding some pretty toxic positions in other areas too, usually along uncompassionate, ‘devil take the hindmost’ lines.
So being in Canada I think for us there’s also the confounding factor of, like, having many of the pregnancy and birth-related medical costs being covered by public healthcare (not to mention a legit mat leave policy and baby bonuses/child tax credits/whatever the thing of the day is). When I was a teenager I was like “Well, if there isn’t a risk to the mother’s health, and it’s not related to trauma like a sexual assault, what reason IS there to go for abortion instead of adoption?” (Not going to lie, there is also an element of privilege in that. I was also a teenager and didn’t know a lot about the effects on the mother’s health other than, like, the “This baby will kill you if you carry it to term!” type drama from TV shows. Also I didn’t know that pregnancy-related discrimination was a thing.) It was MIND-BLOWING when I was seventeen and (a) learned that the US did not have public healthcare and (b) realized a hospital would CHARGE YOU MONEY ??? to give birth to a baby ??? that was going to come out ANYWAY ??????? My views had already started to change by then but I think that put me a lot more firmly in the pro-choice camp. I just could not get over it.
Yeah, the abortion issues from a Canadian perspective is an interesting one — I’d love to read more pieces about Canadian reproductive rights, beyond the whole PEI/New Brunswick clusterfuck.
Living in a major Canadian city, I’ve known women who have chosen abortion, adoption or parenting when dealing with unexpected pregnancies, and there’s holes in all the systems.
Like, abortion is covered and accessible here, great! Get into a professional clinic with buffer zones against protestors! But, hey, it has to be surgical not medical. & you cannot chose a abortion past 21 weeks in Canada, and while the province might pay for the procedure in Colorado or elsewhere, you still need to get there yourself.
So, you’re past 21 weeks pregnant, and you opt for adoption. Great, all your pregnancy care & birth is covered, & you have supportive, non-religious, non-judgmental adoption orgs working with you. But, you still struggle with the lack of societal support for pregnant women, struggle against the intense social stigma regarding adoption, and struggle with workplace discrimination.
Chose parenting? Great, mat leave! Enjoy trying to live off the $600/month payment. Unless you’re a self employed or contract worker in which case nothing. And then good luck trying to find childcare for the kid before kindergarten.
This turned ranty — it’s so easy to say, “we’re better than the States” while overlooking our own issues
Thanks for the reply, you’re right in that ‘better than the States’ is not always enough in and of itself.
Why does abortion in Canada have to be surgical, not medical? I thought the WHO recommendation was that medical abortion is simpler and safer in the early weeks?
Gah, sorry, lots of feelings about repro rights in Canada that got unloaded there.
Actually, my information was slightly out of date. Health Canada *just* approved medical abortions last summer, after dragging their feet for over a decade. Accessibility of medical abortions is still an ongoing issue.
Your P.S. is important, because it’s the difference between people who want to, as we say here, make abortion “safe, legal, and rare.” BUT, the people who typically fit into categories 1-3 are not actually opposed to abortion, they’re opposed to women’s sexual liberation. They don’t believe in extending birth control to reduce “baby death” rates. So the BABIES thing is that all sex should result in a baby, and any sex that doesn’t is IMMORAL. It’s also why there’s no funding to public health programs and education etc. Because it has nothing to do with BABIES and a lot to do with regulating sex for half the population. I happen to know people in you P.S. category, who oppose abortion, believe in extending other forms of birth control, and want to fund programs that nurture children. These are not the protesters.
I personally would like to see an anti-abortion campaign that told men to stop jizzing everywhere, so women could more easily avoid unwanted pregnancies. Like a “Control Your Devil Urges” campaign directed at shaming men from the religious right. The fact that it isn’t commonplace speaks more about the motives of the anti abortion protesters than their “save babies” stuff.
I absolutely think control of women’s sexuality is the core of anti-choice rhetoric. I think a lot of people who are exposed to it early don’t necessarily notice that, and I think that’s a feature, not a bug, of the whole system. You get a bunch of people to support “no killing babies,” and get the side effect of “keep those nasty sluts locked up” without having to say out loud “we think women are nasty sluts.”
Your second paragraph reminds me of all the rhetoric South American governments are now spouting about the need for women to take precautions not to get pregnant because of the Zika virus epidemic. There is noooooooooo discussion of how men can prevent transmission or pregnancy.
AND Rebecca Solnit’s takedown of the CDC alcohol thing. There’s no acknowledgement anywhere that men *cause* pregnancy.
I’ll support the stop jizzing campaign 100%. OMG, the number of women and men who tell me (in my job as a healthcare provider) that they don’t use condoms because their partner doesn’t like them.
No one ever asks if women like the types of birth control/pregnancy termination available to them.
I can’t remember where I read it, maybe it was something Dan Savage said when I still listened to/read him (before he was explicitly transphobic and rape apologist), but it was something about how saying you “don’t like condoms because they reduce sensation” is bullshit because then how come people with penises never notice the condom broke until AFTER they’ve ejaculated? How come they weren’t like “woah suddenly this feels super different” and stopped for a second?
Why do you think so many women buy into this hatred of women’s sexuality and this misogyny? Do you think it’s like a self-protecting thing – ‘If I show just HOW much I’m not one of THOSE women, I’ll be safe!’?
Yes! The women who protested at my clinic had a very specific formula for getting men to respect you and treat you well: no pre-marital sex, and then marital sex with no protection and lots of babies. They explicitly said that this is the only way, and if you don’t do this then men will abuse you and leave you.
So much of it almost sounded like opinions they might share with lesbian separatists. “Men are all just trying to use you, and are not at all motivated to form loving relationships!” But then with a twist at the end, “-so you have to trick them into marriage!” It’s 100% a reaction to patriarchy, these women look at the system and see that it’s rigged against them, but they think if they just follow all the rules they can beat it!
In a way I’m strangely relieved that there is a least some kind of ‘logic’ to it. A self-defeating, illogical ‘logic’, but something that’s been thought out with the aim of self-protection in a patriarchal system. Maybe they feel like they can ‘save’ other women from abuse by men. They’re completely misguided and wrong, of course, but my brain *has* to find some kind of internal coherence in their argument.
“Self-protection in a patriarchal system” is a really good way of putting it. And yeah, they definitely do feel like they’re trying to save women from abuse. I do think it’s good to understand these people as well as we can, if only so we can disagree in detail!
It’s 100% a reaction to patriarchy, these women look at the system and see that it’s rigged against them, but they think if they just follow all the rules they can beat it!
That reminds me a bit of this news story I saw recently, about scholarships being given to girls in South Africa if they remained virgins: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-35534420 I think the policing of female sexuality is scary and unpleasant and that people should be allowed to have sex if they want to without being punished for it, but that is because I live in a society that gives me easy access to contraception and abortion. I can completely understand the “Girls! Don’t have sex with anyone unless you’re married” rhetoric in other contexts, where unplanned pregnancy is likely, abortions are inaccessible and being an unwed mother is stigmatised. It is shit, but it is protection of a sort.
“All sex should result in a baby” explains a lot about a male gynecologist I saw who shrugged off my significant ovarian pain after I stated I would abort if I got pregnant. It hurts too much to have vaginal intercourse, therefore I’m not likely to get accidentally pregnant.
Brb exploding from rage.
Well he needs to have his gynecologist card revoked post-haste. What an ass.
My church would divide girls and boys to give sex/abstinence lessons and I’m pretty sure the boys side focused way more on gross pictures of STDs than the potential of parenthood. Girls side was about how much more valuable you’d be to your husband pure.
Which…..like, they don’t ever assume dudes don’t actually feel that way? My boyfriend and I actually strongly prefer that neither of us were “pure,” because it means we’re both reasonably decent in bed. We’ve had some practice, dammit.
Friend of mine who spent years working at our local clinic said these types frequently show up to terminate THEIR pregnancies…when it is their body, it’s their choice, but they still want to legislate the choices of OTHER women.
Extremely frustrating for her. And me.
I’ve heard of this phenomenon and it both baffles and enrages me! *Maybe* someone suffering extreme cognitive dissonance due to the torment of an abusive relationship might be explicable (if not excusable), but even then, would they not at least gain some perspective from having gone through it themselves??
Nope. I’ve heard about this, too (from people who work in clinics), and it’s always “My situation is DIFFERENT, I’m not like all these other women!”
*screams*
Would the ‘other’ women they refer to be typically of another class/race, by any chance??
I suspect the answer to that is “no, but they think they are”.
And I think those women really, truly do think that their situation is different. They think that other women were being actively cavalier, that pro-choice women just do whatever they want and think, “oh well, if I get pregnant I’ll just have an abortion,” that other women could afford to have a baby if they just sucked it up and gave up drinking and partying. They really, genuinely think the worst of other women who are having abortions, because an abortion is a Bad Thing, and therefore people who do it are mostly Bad People who have made Bad Decisions.
I grew up surrounded by this mindset; these are the same people who believe in the welfare queen but who will happily help their grad-student-poor kids get on food stamps because their kids Deserve Help, while other people Do Not. They just don’t give other people the benefit of the doubt.
THIS.
I think that’s spot-on. Is there a name for that phenomenon where people assume that everyone else’s shortcomings are the result of irresponsibility and a cavalier attitude, but *I’m* just trying my best?
the fundamental attribution error! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribu…
people assume that behavior they observe in others is representative of those people’s personalities, rather than circumstances, while their OWN behavior is always a response to circumstances
Oh wow, I’m going to start talking about this nonstop now that I know the name. It really is one of those things that comes up in a lot of different circumstances.
I think it’s internalized guilt, tbh. Same as you get women who’ve had one abortion scorning women who’ve had multiple abortions; or women who try desperately to follow the rules of the patriarchy saying ‘If you wear X, you’re asking for it.’ They understand the system sucks, but for whatever reason, they’re not comfortable rejecting it, so they list reasons why their situation is different.
my Most Catholic Aunt is pretty firmly anti-choice and anti-birth control, and we Don’t Talk About It. It’s definitely a religious position, and I think she also benefits from a pretty privileged life where she’s literally never had to think about What If and has never known anyone who has.
Her eldest daughter is pregnant now, and when they announced it she posted on facebook – “So happy that [husband] & I are going to be grandparents!!” and then went and CORRECTED herself in the comments to “I mean to say, we ARE grandparents!!!” and I….. went and lay down for a bit, because I cannot.
Privilege is such a huge part of it. I don’t think I’ve ever encountered an anti-choicer who wasn’t also privileged in some way. Even if it was just a relative privilege, it could be enough to allow them to ignore, simplify or misrepresent the issue.
Also, those with privilege are protected by the unnecessary stigma around abortion, where people who have experienced it are afraid to talk about it because of backlash. So the privileged person can tell themselves that they literally *don’t know anyone* who had an abortion when in reality they do, they just don’t know they know. It’s why initiatives like #ShoutYourAbortion and the X-Ile Project are so important.
I volunteer as a clinic escort at a small, not-busy Planned Parenthood, so it’s sometimes just me and 3 women with bloody-fetus signs standing around for hours. Every time a patient shows up there’s a brief flurry of activity, but that’s like twice an hour. To entertain ourselves, they take turns delivering ranting monologues on sexual politics to me, which I film to mock with my friends later. So that’s my source on this.
A lot of what they’ve told me seems to be based on the idea that having a child is *always* healing and fulfilling to a woman, and the only reason she would ever want to end a pregnancy is if she’s being pressured by someone or doesn’t have the support she needs. Quote: “Abortion is the best thing that ever happened- FOR MEN!” Men want abortion because it lets them have consequence free sex, but it’s never actually in a woman’s best interest, because women are made to love their babies from conception.
They told me to ask my father how many abortions he’s paid for, because then I’d understand his real motivation behind supporting his daughter in volunteering for baby killers. They also told me my mother must not love me because if I understood the bond between a mother and a child I would never support abortion. (Acknowledging that it’s possible for a mother not to love her daughter seems not in support of their thesis, but I’m just an unloved baby killer, what do I know?). They also told me that if you ever have sex with a man and use birth control then he doesn’t really respect you because he’s not committing to you, he’s using you for sex.
These are really fun videos we’re talking about here.
So my mom definitely doesn’t love me because she’s definitely pro-choice and so am I. Bummer. I’ll have to mention that to her when me and her other two daughters (also pro-choice) go to take care of her while she’s recovering from a hip replacement surgery.
This is truly my least favorite type of argument, in general– “you don’t really want that, you’ve been fooled!” Not just because it’s incredibly insulting, but because it’s so overwhelmingly incorrect. I’ve heard some really hard-line Catholics say things like “birth control is actually oppressing women, because it cheapens sex and makes them into whores, blah blah blah.” Oh yes, not having to constantly worry about unwanted pregnancy is such a foul experience! And yet somehow, upwards of 90% of *Catholic* women have been tragically coerced into this terrible fate! Like, I’m glad that you and your spouse get off on unprotected sex, but the vast, vast majority of women Just Do Not Feel That Way, and it’s not because they’re too stupid to know better.
I really do not understand this line of logic. I…..I don’t want kids. I prefer non-procreative sex. Why….just….what.
Whoah. I wonder if they just had really horrible experiences at the hands of men (statistically not unlikely) and this is their way of dealing with it??
Yes, I think so! When they say that no relationships that involve premarital sex can ever be respectful or positive for the woman, that’s really sad for them. I do have sympathy for the experiences that might have led them down this path, I just wish they had chosen a different response.
Eh, it seems to be a common party line these days. I’ve seen it in multiple places.
Like, I really think they believe that, not because of any experiences, but because it’s what they’ve been told. Just like the idea that having premarital sex is giving pieces of your heart away etc. etc.
I wonder how they’d cope with the fact that my mom’s Mother’s Day gift from me every year is a donation in her name to Planned Parenthood. And that this is a source of great satisfaction and delight to us both.
There are also women who have abortions in their teens, and later get (conservative Christian) religion and come to believe that the abortion has made them extra super sinful, and they have to atone by trying to prevent other women from making the choice they themselves were able to make. I feel for this group, because they are victims of a particularly vicious kind of brainwashing, but they are often the angriest and most implacable enemies of free choice (in pretty much anything) for women.
Oh that’s awful. They must be subject to some really awful brainwashing. I will *never* understand the mentality that goes from ‘I regret my personal decision’ to ‘and therefore NO-ONE should be allowed make that decision!’ I suppose they believe they have been ’empowered’ by their faith, but in fact it’s reinforcing a misogynistic message that women can’t be trusted to make decisions for themselves.
Maybe as more time passes, they will come around.
It would be pretty to think so, but my impression is that mostly they don’t. You’re right about the mysogyny in the message, though.
I have a friend who did this, even though her abortion was in her early 20’s and the pregnancy was from her abuser. She just felt SO GUILTY that she swung hardcore into pro-life. She’s since evened out a little, and is working on being a nurse midwife.
Just wanted to chime in and say, as the daughter of a pro-life mother who has increasingly identified as a feminist as she has aged (encouraged by me! and my brother! “hey mom, what you just described is what it means to live in a patriarchal society, etc etc.”)… it can be a trap to assume that all vocal pro-life women are either deluded, not in possession of “evidence”, or illogical. My mother is an evangelical who is largely socially liberal who lives largely in a socially conservative world (town and church). She is also a woman of deep religious faith.
All of this to say – she is staunchly pro-life. She genuinely believes that taking life is against God’s will – whether through the death penalty or abortion. She’s vocally pro-contraceptive use, and for more funding for the stuff that makes life better for women and children (Head Start! family and medical leave! both state and non-profit social support!). Her pro-life position is not an example of being misguided, it comes out of her faith and where her faith leads her. Sometimes this means voting for pro-life candidates, even when she rejects almost everything else they stand for (ugh, this one drives me crazy!). Occasionally it has meant she attended pro-life political events. Which are (per her description!) often full of wackos.
But I don’t think she needs evidence, or I need to “persuade her to do better” – there are religious folks out there whose faith is genuine, and however much we disagree with it, leads them to conclude that abortion is wrong and evil. That’s really hard for folks who come to a different conclusion to deal with! Myself included. And it’s really easy to write off their belief as the result of ignorance, or rigid dogmatism, or a lack of life experience, or whatever. But there are thoughtful, humane people out there who are pro-life, who often fall into the grey area your “P.S.” hints at…
Oh I fully accept that not all ‘pro-life’ people are hateful or terrible. That’s why I added the PS – I wanted to clarify that my problem is with women who are specifically anti-choice – as in it’s not enough for them to hold a personal objection to abortion and to be clear that they would never have one themselves; they are also compelled to try and take that choice away from other people. You didn’t mention if your mother is an active anti-choice campaigner (I suppose by voting in anti-choice candidates she is indirectly doing so) but if so I imagine that that would be a much more difficult thing to reconcile with than her simply having a personal belief that abortion is wrong – everyone is entitled to their own personal beliefs and choices. Either way, I don’t have a problem with people *personally* not being OK with abortion, it’s those that are actively *anti-choice* I have a problem with.
I was trying to be clear about that distinction, sorry if it didn’t come across that way.
Thanks for clarifying! I think what I’m stumbling towards is it’s not always a neat distinction between folks that are personally against abortion (or of the “legal, safe and rare” camp) and folks that are actively anti-choice… Especially when religious faith enters the picture.
And from my experience as among but not a part of the evangelical folks in my life, this isn’t due to being misguided, or illogical, or wanting to control women’s sexuality. It is genuinely due to a belief that it is wrong and hurtful to another human being (i.e., the fetus / child / embryo). I disagree with this belief, but it is truly held by many. And I think when it’s truly held it leads to a political point of view often at odds with what seems reasonable and compassionate and feminist.
Re: the people who oppose abortion because they believe an embryo or foetus is a human being – what I would like to see is a willingness on their part to engage with the issue beyond the full-stop of that statement, to really wrestle with the issue in an engaged, thoughtful way. It seems that many otherwise decent people have a thought process that goes: ‘abortion is wrong because an embryo/foetus is a human’ and then just sort of…stops there. It doesn’t tend to engage with the complex reasons people may choose abortion. It doesn’t engage with the unique physical reality of pregnancy. It doesn’t take the opportunity to examine the definition of ‘human’ from either a scientific or religious point of view. It doesn’t make the effort to come up with practical solutions other than denying choice. It suffers from a complacency that is built-in to the absolutism of the original statement. If I saw more evidence of people who oppose abortion engaging with the issue and trying to figure out solutions in a thoughtful and compassionate manner I might have more faith in them. But I haven’t seen much evidence of that so far.
Sorry if that seems critical (and none of the above is directed at your mother who (a) I don’t know and (b) sounds like a good, kind person (her pro-contraception stance is refreshing). I just am generally running low on tolerance these days for anti-abortionists who have little more to contribute to the discussion than ’embryos are human because my religion says so, therefore ban choice for everyone’
“engage with the issue beyond the full-stop of that statement, to really wrestle with the issue in an engaged, thoughtful way”
Here’s the thing, though: if you think that a fetus really is a human being, then in many ways that is, that SHOULD BE, a full-stop moment. The prohibition against killing other human beings is one of the deepest in our society. “Complex reasons” that don’t involve a direct threat to another’s life aren’t relevant. It’s a moral absolute, and it would be pretty damned hypocritical for the average Toast reader to pretend that she doesn’t hold to some moral absolutes of her own (indeed, for many of them this very issue evokes a moral absolute, the right of the woman to control her own body). You can be very sympathetic to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy, you can support her emotionally and financially, you can help her arrange an adoption after birth, while still believing that a supreme moral authority forbids that she have an abortion.
Now, if you ask me how many pro-life women are so for this reason and no other–no complications of misogyny, etc.–I’m going to say it’s a fairly small group. But, from my experience of being related to a lot of pro-life women, it is an important component of their beliefs even if there is lots of additional hateful crap layered on top of it. And it’s one that really deserves thoughtful consideration (*), because, for many of us, there are beliefs that guide us in the same way. If you’re going to reject the idea of moral absolutes that allow us to make judgments on and control others’ behaviors, you are kicking away the underpinnings of much of modern law, and you’ll need to be prepared to argue accordingly.
(*The idea that religious people haven’t considered what ‘human’ means in connection with the fetus is just…I’m going to be polite and call it deeply underinformed.)
Thing is, a moral absolute that is based wholly on religious thinking (i.e. the concept of a ‘soul) should not be used as an underpinning of modern law. I’m not saying someone who holds that opinion for themselves is stupid or thoughtless, I’m saying it’s not an opinion that can be objectively proved, and therefore must not be used as a basis for civic law.
Interestingly, the generally accepted legal and ethical prohibition against killing is not an absolute one anyway. In many contexts, it is interpreted as flexible or excusable e.g. when the nation is at war, when the death penalty is legal, when self-defense is cited as a legal defence, to give just a few examples. I’m not saying this is a good or bad thing, just that it’s a reality.
It’s not that I think religious people have *never* considered the meaning of what it is to be human in the context of pregnancy. I’m genuinely sorry if my tone was offensive. I was trying to explain that there doesn’t seem to be that many religious voices offering a genuinely engaged explication of these views while truly acknowledging the unique physical situation of pregnancy and the lived experience of the pregnant person. Maybe they are speaking, and the hateful voices drown them out. Which is a damn shame.
The heart of the matter is: people are going to believe different things privately for all sorts of reasons, and they’re absolutely entitled to. The problem is when unproved and unprovable religious beliefs are used as the basis for laws which impact others’ human rights. But I think we’re in agreement there.
This is why I no longer engage in “where life begins” conversations. Because Yo-Yo Ma is a full, real human being with obvious gifts and talents, but I have no obligation to give him any of my internal organs. I’m not legally obligated to give my *mother* any of my internal organs.
Yeah, that. Because people can be as nice, and thoughtful, and engaged in reality as can be, but at the end of the day, one side is saying I don’t have the right to control who uses my organs and body and for what purpose. Just, no. I’m not obligated to give these people, who wish to do violence to me, the time of fucking day no matter how nice they are.
Well that, and fetal personhood is a discussion that will never actually have a satisfactory answer, since it’s just as much metaphysical as it is scientific.
Well yes, that too. I think either way, those discussions only serve to turn attention away from what, to me, is the core of the discussion. Thoughtful, intelligent, considerate people arguing over the idea of fetal personhood gives the illusion of a reasonable discussion, is I guess what I’m saying. It’s super late for me though so I may need to come back to this.
I mean, I’ve contributed all I really have to say, other than re-telling the story of my mother’s miscarriage that could, apparently, have killed her under today’s abortion restrictions.
Your point reminds me very much of my favorite nun, Joan Chittister. She is a deeply religious woman, obviously, and a real feminist. And she makes a point about the difference between prolife and pro-birth.
“I do not believe that just because you’re opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.”
But no where does she say “I support abortion.” She’s just called for a broader conversation about life. I often wonder what kind of world we would live in if 75% of the anti-choice legislation, lobbyists, politicians, time, energy, campaigning, protests, and money went into education, into SNAP, into free lunch and breakfasts, into anti-poverty measures, into domestic violence protections, into GUN control. I think that by focusing on the things that make the world and our society a better place for women and children, there would be a better conversation about anti-abortion and pro-choice positions, but that’s not where we are. And I bet it could reduce abortion rates as well.
For additional reading, I found this personal essay touching & you might like it: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012…
Exactly. There *could* be an actual productive conversation about this issue between people of differing opinions, that centralises the voices of people with uteruses, but it’s a long way away in this age of anti-choice terrorism.
I’ve read that article, it’s great. That woman was essentially a compassionate person; I think that’s why she was able to break from the lies she’d been raised on. Compassion truly is one of the most powerful human qualities.
I have a lot of female family members who are very anti abortion. As others have mentioned, privilege plays a big role. When you come from a middle class, comfortable family and most of the people you know plan on getting married and having kids and (as far as you know), the only pregnancies you see around you in your life are people that are excited to be bringing a new life into the world, you’re just so distant from the lifestyles and experiences of people for whom it’s so very obvious that not all pregnancies should have to be carried to term.
I want to never have babies myself, but also I have friends that do social work so I know how awful the consequences can be of people having babies they don’t want and aren’t prepared to have. But if you spend your whole life in a comfortable upper middle class Christian bubble, you can choose not to see that stuff. Or if you do, it’s easy to frame it as the consequence of sinful people making bad decisions.
Yes, I really see it among people who have, as you put it, spent the their lives in a ‘comfortable upper-middle-class bubble’. And I know of at least one family where one of the women *has* had an abortion, but never felt like she could tell her female relatives because they all have neatly planned, privileged, by-the-book lives and just couldn’t conceive (ha) of a situation where a pregnancy could be unplanned and unwanted. And the sad thing is, this person is close to her family and the fact that she can’t safely share this makes her feel upset and resentful, as though she has something to be ashamed of and like she’s a failure compared to her ‘correctly-reproducing’ relatives. It makes me angry and sad for her.
My own mother (who is mildly pro-life) has told me to not tell her if I have an abortion. I readily agreed, but now I’ve realized that that means my mom will forever wonder if I’ve had one and just not told her, which makes me sad.
Guys I don’t know if I am just a sap today or what, but every single post on this tumblr for the last three days is so lovely: http://goodstuffhappenedtoday.tumblr.com/
It was the wolf & bear friendship that got me going, and I even checked the price on those Ecospheres (they start at 80 bucks which is beyond my means but I still want one mightily).
I think you introduced me to this webiste; ty, it is a nice place to go 🙂
You can probably buy/make your own ecosphere? I saw someone selling a pile of them in a garage sale this summer; they weren’t enclosed, but you could probably recreate this?
http://www.wikihow.com/Make-a-Marine-Ecosphere I don’t know where you’d get that stuff, but… good luck!
Also, diy kit from the ecosphere ppl: http://eco-sphere.com/cart2/catalog/product_info….
(I may be getting one of these; i cannot have plants because cats, but maybe I can have one of these!)
In keeping with “good stuff” I just posted a pic from My Dog, My Laundry, Myself (with a little self explanation behind the title)! Thanks for the lovely Tumblr link!
Aaaahhh the series of photos of different animals smelling flowers was exactly what I needed today.
The Witch is fabulous and everyone should see it, just don’t go in expecting a SUPER SCARY HORROR MOVIE. It is scary, but it’s actually a pretty thoughtful portrayal of the psycho-horrors of Puritan life and what it meant to be a woman/teenage girl in that time. Also I just finished reading The Witches last month so about 20 times during the movie I got really excited because I recognized something from Stacy Schiff’s research. 😀
THE WITCH. THE WIIIITTCHHH.
It had a delayed effect on me. The night I saw it, I went home and fell happily asleep, maybe because I was so dumbfounded by all the insanity (wouldst thou like a taste of butter??!!!!!! crow titty!!??!!!!!!), but the NEXT night I couldn’t sleep at all. It’s a straightforward portrayal of pure evil and it’s so poetic and horrifying and I pretty much haven’t stopped thinking about it for more than a few minutes at a time.
I’ve had a similar experience! At first I was like “yeah that was pretty good,” but the more I think about the more I’m like “It was AMAZING???? I must tell everyone about it????”
Okay, now you made me want to see it. 😀
Planning to see it this weekend. Soooo excited 🙂
I have finally managed to reset my IntenseDebate password but for some reason ended up changing my username so: formerly hipster rasputin, I am reborn on The [hyphen] Toast as hepcait! I live to comment another day.
And I did all this to say: you need to see The Witch in a major way.
I really needed the Sansa pic today after reading the BBC this morning.
Because THIS was the headline in the US news:
“New York woman recants gang rape claim” http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-3565682…
She was raped. Not only by five men, but by her father. She is eighteen years old.
But no, the headline and the bulk of the report is “Woman lies.” Lying woman are always liars, especially about everything but especially about rape, and this girl abused by her father out in public in front of an audience doesn’t get justice or protection or anything but more evil. Sorry for posting upsetting stuff, but I don’t know how to go through the day without screaming, it has me so incoherent.
This is actually a local story to me, and I’ve been following the coverage since the original reports, so I have some input….
The news media here are also spinning it as “everyone’s LYING!” but when you actually read what is happening, it turns out that the woman has actively said many times she does not want to cooperate with an investigation. And that is 100% her right to do. But given her decision not to cooperate, and given zero evidence (physical evidence, surveillance videos, etc – not just eyewitness statements) that allows the prosecutors to proceed, they don’t really have a choice. There are too many cases in this borough to bring one to trial that is guaranteed to go nowhere.
It’s really difficult to remember that legally these boys are innocent. They have not been convicted following a fair hearing. If no trial can proceed, the charges have to be dropped.
This can easily sound like the kind of thing of “we just don’t believe her and we don’t want to ruin these boys’ lives” but as a citizen of this borough and as someone who was proud to vote for Prosecutor Thompson, I really don’t think that’s what’s happening here. I think the office wants to do justice for her.
Thompson’s office has also offered the woman use of their supportive services (counseling, etc). Statements he has made lead me to believe he really thinks she’s been fucked over by her entire life, and he is hesitant to make it worse, and he doesn’t know what he can do. I think he and his office are trying to help her in the only way they can, and it really looks like a trial would not help.
Thank you so much for this information. The BBC story was the first I’d seen of it, and in light of your info I still think it’s rather irresponsible reporting.
I didn’t mean to imply that my reaction was focused on the denial of punishment for the young men. It was really just more that this young woman has already been through so much hell, with a monster of a father, and all that a worldly, well respected news organization can focus on is that she lied.
I know I was ignorant of a lot of nuance. And I’m so glad to hear she is getting some help.
It’s TERRIBLE journalism.
My dad is a retired reporter and I have great pride in the institution of journalism, what a free and informed press can and should accomplish, what the press can bring to light for the rest of us.
So I have ZERO TRUCK (and zero fucks) for bad journalism. At best it’s lazy, at worse it’s irresponsible, at worst it’s harmful.
Yes. And I think this falls under the category of actively harmful.
I feel so indescribably sad for this girl. Born into shitty circumstances, shuttled around in an apparently terrible foster home conditions and now abused by her biological father. I understand the problems with bringing criminal charges, but I still want to firebomb all the males in this story from space.
I really hope the prosecutor’s offers of help and counseling are legitimate and helpful.
Yes, exactly
I have no framework for processing how horrifying this is…
Watching the story unfold on local news when it first came to light was really horrifying. So sad, the initial reports of the gang rape. So sad, the reports the next day that the father tried to call 911 but the bodega guy wouldn’t let him use the phone. So sad to think about the parents and families of the 5 boys (they are all under 18) realizing that their sons had done this. And then, in the days/weeks that followed… to realize that all of that sadness was NOTHING next to the enormity of the entire situation.
My beloved TPM has a nicely-written post with a terrible headline! http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/brooklyn-gang-r…
Note that the URL says “charges dropped.” The title of the post is “Woman recants story accusing 5 Brooklyn teens of brutal gang rape.”
I feel like the real headline is “Kings County Prosecutor concedes with a heavy heart that there is no case to build to prosecute the original accusations, and moreover the victim in the case has stated repeatedly that she does not want to cooperate with any investigations, and we are all sad but there is nowhere else we can go with this.”
Or maybe just “Another sad day in our fucked-up world.”
Thanks for sharing that. It does seem like the prosecutor here is doing the best he can with a pile of awfulness. The quote from the one kid’s lawyer, though, that he can “finally go back to normalcy” and her suggestion that if there wasn’t a weapon, there wasn’t wrongdoing make me see red all over again.
Now excuse me, I’m going to go internet shopping for cute dresses for my friends’ kids until my blood pressure goes down.
I have finally managed to reset my IntenseDebate password but for some reason ended up changing my username so: formerly hipster rasputin, I am reborn on The [hyphen] Toast as hepcait! I live to comment another day.
Gee I wonder why deleted commenter associated Finn with Jar-Jar despite the fact that they are exactly *nothing* alike. WHAT COULD IT BE SURE IS A MYSTERY
Fellow Hamilton fans: You know the Washington Post’s annual Peeps diorama contest? Well, some friends of friends are entering a DELIGHTFUL Hamilpeep diorama. It is here and includes the immortal line, “Me? I’m the damn fool that microwaved him.”
(That link should be public, but just in case, here’s a Tweet, too.)
This is giving me life on a horrible morning.
SON OF A S’MORE.
i die.
AHHHHHHH
ALEXANDER HAMILPEEP
This is genius and I will be so mad if you don’t win.
Delightful is precisely the correct word for it. Well done!
this is perfect and amazing
Someone tagged me in a facebook post linking to that yesterday!!
Manly Guys Doing Manly Things says you shouldn’t see the Witch. I’ll trust her on that one.
NOPE this person is approximately 1,500% wrong and bored for all the wrong reasons.
OR Mallory. Probably Mallory.
Completely agree with this review. The Vvitch was not scary, and had terrible/no plotline. The acting was great, and those twins and Black Philip were AMAZING, but overall this was such a disappointment.
I’m gonna go ahead and be the one to say that I dislike the hypothetical question of whether I’d have sex with Donald Trump if he agreed to suspend his campaign.
1. It’s never going to be anything but a hypothetical.
2. It’s a needlessly, deeply unpleasant thing to consider.
3. It’s counterproductive to my personal efforts to unlearn my perception of my body as a commodity. I am genuinely glad for anyone who doesn’t have that particular concern, but many of us, far more than I’m comfortable with, do.
Thank you for this
I share your discomfort/disgust.
Ugh, number three. Yes, thank you for articulating this so succinctly.
That’s a good insight on thinking of your body as a commodity.
Similarly, Slate has an article up today about whether women find Donald Trump attractive, in which they called up a male evolutionary psychologist (???) for the answer. It was a joke, kind of, I know, but the whole thing felt very slimy. A combo of reducing female voters to their sexuality and reinforcing gender stereotypes and just sort of being gross in a way I can’t explain.
The fact that it was published shows a breakdown of the editorial process. It offends me as a journalist, a woman and an American.
I initially had the same reaction as you, especially 3, but then I decided that if a group of women doesn’t mind considering and discussing it publicly, for entertainment purposes, that’s cool too. I will be pissed if it’s expected for every woman to jump into the discussion.
Weaponizing female sexuality is a concept to which we all may have entirely different reactions that are all nevertheless correct for each of us, but it reminds me of the recent movie Chi-raq, and the Greek play it’s based on, and the real-life effort in Libya for the same purpose. There’s definitely room to discuss the real-world good and personal empowerment it’s ever accomplished, and I’m also onboard with drop-kicking into the sun the whole notion of my body as a commodity, as you said.
I don’t really mind the Lysistrata solution, actually, because it goes in the other direction – removing men’s access to something they take for granted, rather than offering something they didn’t necessarily ask for – and because it’s ultimately a relationship matter between essentially equal partners. My issue is with making a game out of encouraging women to think about whether they’d leverage their oppression to make a huge personal sacrifice for the public good.
That’s an excellent distinction — thanks for pointing it out.
Ugh, you guys, I’m so pissed that Lands End backtracked on the Gloria Steinem interview. I’ve spent hundreds there over the years (mostly on their fantastic kids’ winter gear) and was planning on spending thousands more … but instead I’ve had to write them a strongly worded letter informing them that they’ve now offended my values, and I’m going to have to find somewhere else to buy snowpants.
Wait, what?
http://jezebel.com/lands-end-apologizes-for-featu…
“Wait, what?”
That was basically my response.
Having only seen the headline, I had thought the issue was the recent “And when you’re young, you’re thinking, you know, where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie, or, you know …” bullshit.
But apparently not.
I hate Steinem like I hate all feminists who abuse trans women but I hate this decision by Land’s End more.
Yeah, I have spent much with them on basics and swimwear, but I’m done. Gloria Steinem isn’t my favorite person, but apologizing for an interview that had nothing to do with abortion because some jerks don’t want anyone to have any thoughts that differ from their own is despicable.
I sent them a nasty letter and so did a lot of other people I know.
Toast, this is totally unrelated, but: my husband has a second job interview tomorrow, which involves giving a presentation. It’s right before lunch time, and he wants to bring a platter of cookies with him for everyone to eat while he’s presenting. I’ve told him NO, DANGER, DO NOT, but he (is an engineer and) has a hard time listening to general “this is a bad idea” without evidence to back it up.
Does anyone recall something on Ask a Manager relating to this, or anything else that might be helpful? I’m having trouble finding. Or, conversely, does anyone else think the cookies are a good idea?
I’d say it falls under the same heading as “don’t send gifts to your interviewer” http://www.askamanager.org/2012/10/do-not-send-fr….
(As an engineer, I don’t think the engineer thing’s relevant here; just sounds like your husband needs to reframe it as “is this a good idea that I have evidence is a *good* thing to do?”)
Thanks, and agreed that “evidence FOR this” is perhaps more helpful than “evidence AGAINST this.” With the engineer comment, I just meant that his brain is highly analytical and fact-based, so I sometimes struggle with getting him to listen to reasoning that he sees as “just an opinion.”
I know AAM has addressed this, if not in an interview context – probably a first day of work thing? If that helps you find it…
What if you asked him to walk through the logistics? Like…”okay, you have your cookies, do you know that there will be a table to put them on? Will you have trash to throw away? That might look bad sitting on the table. What if they’ve also brought refreshments, which they might since it’s their office? Do you offer the cookies before setting up? Do you have enough hands to carry them and your materials and open doors without spilling?” If you can’t convince him that bringing cookies is a bit unprofessional in itself, the potential for awkwardness is high.
Yes, excellent points, thank you.
The cookies are an OBVIOUSLY TERRIBLE idea, and here is his motherfucking evidence: you, his wife, an intelligent person whose opinion he respects, are drawing on your knowledge and life experience and TELLING him it’s a terrible idea. JFC. Damn.
CORRECT, THANK YOU
CO. SIGNED.
Damn.
Yes, this. If you, the person who is obviously On The Team, says it is bad, it is bad.
It sounds an awful lot like, “Hey, I have some weird stuff on my resume and some bad qualities and I’m hoping you don’t notice them because I’m bringing in treats!” to me.
For reference, I am not a person who is directly responsible for hiring decisions, but I do attend interviews and my word has weight in who we hire. If someone did that in an interview with me I would consider it a massive red flag. But, I’m definitely in a different industry than your husband, based on that description.
This is partly what I’m afraid of! Particularly because it’s so untrue, and I’d hate for everyone to be so put off by the cookie thing that it overshadows his excellent qualifications/personality.
Yeah, I hear you. I also think it sounds very juvenile. If you’re an intern and have no previous job experience, maybe it looks good because you’re trying to impress people in a cute way, sure. But if you’re an experienced worker (as your husband sounds), your work accomplishments should speak for themselves. Literally sugarcoating them seems unprofessional.
if you’re an intern hoping to get a position fetching cookies, then by all means show how good you are at cookie-fetching! if you are applying for a job more senior than snack-getter, do not make a point that you can get snacks (what if they DO hire you and just expect you to get snacks all the time?)
I used to do hiring, albeit not in your husband’s field. We had a tremendous number of applicants, and one guy made a point of delivering his resume in person. He had come to the office and asked to speak to me personally, without an appointment.
I bet he read somewhere that this would show his sincere interest in the position, but to me it showed that he didn’t understand the normal rhythms of an office. I was busy working and here someone who doesn’t even work there wanted to interrupt my day.
It’s really best just to follow the normal procedure for hiring, unless your special idea to make yourself stand out is something that’s guaranteed to fit smoothly into the potential employer’s day and also shows his qualifications. The cookies don’t fit on either count.
I just tried telling him about these responses, and he said, “Well, that’s because you phrased the question in a negative way! Of course they’re going to agree with you!”
Gah.
Wow, is he always so dismissive of your opinions and thoughts? That’s really crappy 🙁
Well, no. And I definitely don’t mean to frame him as a bad guy here. (This whole cookie discussion has remained pretty lighthearted.) But we are both stubborn, and I can be very “You need to listen to me because BECAUSE,” and he’s “Well, I don’t HAVE to listen to you just because,” and then we get into a circle.
That’s good 🙂 I think I just have a hair trigger because of some stuff I’m helping a friend get through right now.
But yeah he definitely should not do this.
I appreciate the support! 🙂
I was going to suggest that you tell him to ask about this at Ask Metafilter, using his own words to make it clear what a great idea it is. Then he can really prove it to you when everybody validates him .
But then I remembered you need to wait a week or maybe more after you sign up at Metafilter before you can use that service. Maybe there’s some other location online that’s suitable for this sort of question?
Gross, husband! Enjoy being super unprofessional and wrong about stuff, I guess!
Do the cookies have something to do with his presentation? Is there something else he could use, fruit or some sweet inexpensive office swag like cool pens? It sounds like a charming idea but I’d mainly be worried about the minefield of dietary concerns. Some people might be amped to have the cookies but others might not be able to participate unless the cookies are sugarfree or glutenfree or dairyfree or nutfree or something.
Sadly, they do not. Plus, now he has actually ordered the cookies, so nothing can be done and it’s too late. (It is definitely not too late.) I told him I’d much rather pay for a bunch of cookies he doesn’t need than have him mess up his chances.
Oh, something can be done. I know a thing or two I’d do with those cookies!
Here to help with any cookie eating needs.
How about just making an opening joke about cookies instead? Something along the lives of “Good morning, thanks for having me. I considered baking cookies for all of you, since it’s right before lunch, but I want to make a good impression [chuckle]”
And then just eat the cost of the cookies and leave them at home. Maybe that’s enough to satisfy his cookie fixation?
I’m so sorry that you and your husband now have cookies with which nothing can be done, and how fortuitous that I happen to specialise in eliminating unwanted cookies and providing them with a loving home! Serendipity is a wonderful thing.
a) it’s like a weird bribe to bring cookies to a job interview. if you have to bribe someone to hire you, you probably need to give them something fancier than cookies. like a yacht or something.
b) product reps often bring me cookies, and I 100% do not listen to them and just eat the cookies while they talk, and then wonder if I should have another cookie, or try to wipe all the crumbs off myself without appearing to be a slob, etc.
c) unless he is interviewing for a position as a cookie baker, which I assume he is not, as that is not an especially engineery thing to do
Your a) and b) are exactly what I told him! Also, I kind of wish he was applying to be a cookie baker. Yum.
Cookies are a good way to get someone’s attention, like from across the room at a trade show or something. But if they have invited him to give a presentation, he already has their attention. There’s some logic!
I know an engineering grad student who brought cartons of coffee from a coffee shop to his early-morning interview for an industry job. He was sad that they didn’t actually take any coffee. I know he was just trying to be considerate and respectful, but I also doubt it came across that way to the interviewers. I couldn’t really explain why but it just seemed “wrong” to me as part of american corporate culture. One of my reasons was “what if every person they are interviewing today brought coffee to them” but in the end I think it just came across as a bribe, like someone else said.
Here is a reason: cookies *before* lunch are just a bad idea. You are hungry, so you eat a cookie, which is full of sugar and empty calories. Then your appetite for lunch is out of wack.
Just say no to cookies before lunch!
People eat when they’re bored; cookies are a distraction. Your husband isn’t boring (I hope!), and he probably doesn’t want distracted interviewers. The cookies are a sunk cost at this point; the company doesn’t know he’s bought them, so it’s not as though they’re expecting treats. As someone who’s often on the other side of the table, trust me: Gimmicks never make interviewees look good. If someone showed up with cookies, I would think, “Okay, anyone can order cookies; are you trying to distract me in hopes I’ll overlook something in your work?”
Yes, this 10000%
Well, this is just me (as a long time hiring manager), but:
1. It would WEIRD ME OUT if an interviewee tried to hand me some food during an interview.
2. If I’m in a meeting and there is food, I’m 100% about the food and 0% about what whoever us up front presenting is saying.
3. Why does this seem like a good idea? Like, what is the expected benefit?
Regarding #3, he’s genuinely just trying to do a nice thing. He’s figuring, “Hey, I get kind of antsy and hungry before lunch, and they probably do too, so I’ll bring cookies to make everyone happy!” There’s really no kind of weird coercion or trickery behind it, but I keep telling him it will look that way. He is being kind-hearted, albeit misguided.
Yeah, I guess I just meant: I’ve hired a lot (like, over a thousand) people over the years (software engineers, sysadmins, that sort of role), and I’d actively question the judgment of a person who thought this was appropriate. Which is not the foot you want to start off on. If there are any other candidates for this job, they just got a leg up.
I’m 100% sure your partner wants to be nice, but interviewers see all kinds of weird shit, and this would definitely put him in that “does odd/unprofessional things” group, which is not where he wants to be in an interview.
Bringing in cookies once you have the job, though, is welcome. It is a bonding-with-co-workers thing, not a “this might help me get the job” thing.
I am a recruiter, do hundreds of interviews. DO NOT BRING THE COOKIES, Battle_Swine’s husband! It is unprofessional and weird and that’s 100% not what you’re going for in any interview setting. We would most likely laugh at you as the door closed behind you at how awkward you made it.
Not quite the same, but “I sent chocolate to a hiring manager but haven’t heard back”: http://www.askamanager.org/2014/04/i-sent-chocola…
I think the the cookies *might* turn out fine, but I personally wouldn’t take the chance. I work in engineering and my coworkers love free food, but I’d find it weird coming from an interviewee. The power imbalance makes it different from a coworker bringing in snacks for the office. It would feel like a bribe or an attempt to impress but also like the candidate is focusing their energy on the wrong thing. It probably wouldn’t disqualify an otherwise strong candidate so it could all turn out fine, but it’s an unnecessary gamble.
I would find it weird but not un-charming and not think it reflected on his competence.
If he were a woman I’d say no no no no no not ever. Guy? Whatevs, as long as he’s willing to be “that cookie guy” forever.
Yet again, I have to talk about the People vs. OJ Simpson, because I am having a hard time watching it, week after week. Which isn’t to say I don’t think it’s well done — it’s just almost emotionally difficult to watch, for a couple of reasons.
One, I keep questioning every fact/scene/conversation as to whether or not it probably really happened — trying to find a balance between enjoying it as TV “based” on a true story, and also just learning more about the case, and that’s difficult to manage. And then I keep just getting FURIOUS about how certain things are handled or how they progressed — how quickly people seemed to forget two people were BRUTALLY MURDERED — that scene with Goldman’s family was a nice addition this week.
I’m excited to get more into the trial — it’s felt like, to me, the last two episodes have had a lot of filler, almost stretching out the story/most dramatic parts — granted, setting the scene and the air and the opinions is important, but it doesn’t create suspense for me, it creates an air of impatience?
I wouldn’t trust Donald Trump to suspend his campaign for sex. The man doesn’t have an honorable bone i his body.
or an honorable boner.
I’ll show myself out.
Bless you for posting that so I didn’t have to.
*applauds*
I knew there would be a joke in the replies and I was not disappointed. A+
I was going to say “he’d like to get his honorable bone in YOUR body,” but then I had to set myself on fire to clean off the filth I felt creep through my soul just thinking that.
Yup. Specially not that bone.
I had another Toastie dream last night! I lived in the Cocktail Hour. It was abstract and glorious.
Don’t feel like waiting for the OT, but I want to complain that my author tried to passive aggressively micromanage me, and it was rude (I got a second opinion that confirmed it was out of line), and I took a long and slow and detailed time to explain to her that if she does this not only to me, but to someone else in publishing process, it would be detrimental to her career. She wrote back that *I* was just feeling insecure. And I really want to scream, “NO, YOU WERE JUST AN ASSHOLE.” But I can’t. So I’ll tell you that today work is like ksljdffffuuuccckkskljadkjsf.
My work is very different but I just had to write a letter that, had I not exercised professional restraint, would have been a keysmash followed by a bitch please gif and the “u tried” star, so, solidarity.
It is slightly past my bedtime and my brain did not parse that you are working in the publishing industry in some capacity, and instead read that as you are a character in a novel who is not progressing in the direction your author wished you to go in (a common problem) and your author is getting passive aggressive with you and trying to write things into the story to force you back on track, and you’ve had to have a serious talk with her about how in that direction lies crappy, forced stories.
Then my brain caught up and I was a bit sad because I thought that was a very interesting topic of discussion, and I think this is a firm sign I need to go to bed.
(Your author sounds unpleasant, and you were very kind to explain things to her. I hope when she stops feeling so defensive she manages to take some of it in. I bet she DOES try to passively-aggressively manipulate her characters.)
ahahhaha! Your version is soooo much better!! UPDATE! We had a lovely chat & hopefully smoothed things over. We are of different generations and have different styles. She was just being a type-A & it seeped onto my desk and bumped elbows with my type-A style, and my fuck no spidey senses went up. Hooray for bedside manner 🙂
THANK YOU NICOLE for being a fellow spoiler-lover. I don’t get to see movies very often, but when I do, I find it far more relaxing and enjoyable to know either a) everything is going to be a-okay! or b) this goes poorly but now I won’t be surprised by it. I have read the spoilers for “The Witch” and will NOT be adding it to my must-see list. Nicole (and any other spoiler-lovers) out there — do you have a go-to source? I usually do themoviespoiler.com, which gets the job done but I find it very poorly written.
I only do it when I know I’m not going to watch the movie/see the film. For example: I read Outlander but didn’t like it much… so I read the wiki summaries for all the sequels. I am a big wuss, but I was curious, so I read all the Saw summaries too. And whenever there’s a new movie based on a Nicholas Sparks book I always look up who dies.
Hello fellow spoiler fan! Movies are much less stressful when they are spoiled. I usually read the Wikipedia entry.
Bless The Toast! This site was where I first learned that other people do this too, and could articulate the reasons why! My husband is a total stickler about not wanting to learn ANYTHING about a movie or book ahead of time. Too stressful!
I love and seek out spoilers too! Mostly on wikipedia and amazon/goodreads reviews for books. I don’t like suspense and would rather just know what’s going to happen.
*whispers* I usually look at the end of a book before I read it just to make sure everyone’s ok at the end.
What does the deleted commenter think makes Finn “a liar”?
He did lie to Rey about being with the Resistance a bunch of times. And he lied to Poe about why he was rescuing him, I guess. Oh, and he lied about knowing how to turn off Starkiller Base’s shields.
I don’t think those lies make him a bad character, and the deleted commenter is totally wrong about everything else, but Finn did lie a bunch and technically that does kind of make him a liar.
I mean, he does lie a fair amount in the movie — he’s not really rescuing Poe because it’s the right thing to do, but because he needs a pilot; he’s not actually with the Resistance; he doesn’t know how to disable the shields or even really intend to try, he just wants to get into the base to get to Rey. But dismissing that as “Well he’s a liar, so he’s no good” suggests either a child’s view of morality or a really, actively unsympathetic or unthoughtful reading of the film. (I actually like the idea of Finn as a guy who lies automatically under pressure — it registers to me as a very natural reaction to the highly authoritarian and punishment-focused setting he’s lived in his whole life, that his response to anyone asking him a question is to instantly tell them whatever he thinks they want to hear.)
I’m still working on the publishing stories…they are so enlightening.
But I don’t get this idea, “That novel is by a black/Asian/trans person so only black/Asian/trans people will read it.”
That is fundamentally messed up, to me as a reader. I read some books by people like me and some books by people different than me. Maybe I read the first ones because I feel comfortable and the second ones because I want to learn something, or to experience something new.
The audience for books is heavily determined by the marketing.
Like, if a good book is properly marketed, don’t people of various types read it? Are you telling me that gay people only read gay books and Mexican Americans only read Mexican American books? Sure, maybe they read more of those types, but I bet they read plenty of other books too.
Aggh, this comment is so disjointed. Sorry. But it makes me so frustrated to think that publishers treat the consumers as some sort of idiots who bumble into Barnes and Noble and actually follow those “Read This” recommendations, to the exclusion of everything else. After all, we are talking about READERS here. (I know there are various kinds of readers out there, but still…)
BRB, gotta change my to-read list to make sure it’s only novels about middle-aged white lesbian ladies. Top to-read slots will go to books with main characters who grew up in the south and moved to the urban north. Bonus points if main characters have kids. Extra bonus points if they used to have pets but all the pets died of old age and then they decided no more pets, it’s too sad. Bonus bonus points if….
Wait…. this might not work
That idea is flat-out ridiculous. I recall bookstore colleagues who liked to confine themselves to one genre (usually mystery), but even within that there is such a range of experience to represent. Some of the places I review for prefer to pair a critic and book with some demographic overlap to connect them, and as a result I’ve asked a few times at OTHER places if I should recuse myself from, say, reviewing a book by a trans author because maybe a trans critic can read into it more deeply. It has been heartening and also a boost to my original thinking to hear back that having a general-interest reader in the critic’s chair opens the book up to a general-interest readership! Because yep, that’s a real thing that exists. Publishers need to get their shit together and recognize that they’ll sell more books by simply dropping their assumptions.
Has this been posted yet? This is just bananas. Especially the “advice” at the end. I hope the Meg in the comments is the real “millennial” in question even though that seems too good to be true.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2014/02/to-th…
Ugghh. I just want to tell him to shut up and fuck off. Nobody cares what you think dude.
I cannot believe his ex-wife consoled him after the woman that he left her for broke up with him.
WHAAAA THA FAAA
Maybe not the worst but maybe the weirdest = Keep making your bed???????
Go Meg w/ “you’d immediately shut down and dissolve into an empty shell of yourself, laying lifeless on the couch for hours, like Kermit when the puppeteer had the day off.”
Seriously, if that’s not really her, it’s a wonderful piece of fiction writing.
It says on her Tumblr that it’s pop art, but I hope the real girl sees it! http://heyelaine.tumblr.com/
The only possible way I’d ever have sex with Donald Trump or Ted Cruz is if I had a vagina dentata.
I briefly considered “So, like… is there a way to untraceably poison your vagina, or… no, I feel like there’s no way to achieve this without also poisoning myself.”
One of those devices that doctor designed to reduce the rape rate for her African patients?
The Witch is great! Of course I called the end about five minuets in and my boyfriend hated me and threatened to never bring me to another movie again because I always do this, but I don’t care I’ll just curse him. It was fantastic and I loved it.
EDIT: I will say it was hard to hear the dialogue, maybe because I was in an old theater, or maybe because of the accents, but when I watch it again it will be in a quiet house, possibly with subtitles. I feel like I missed a lot of subtleties, but still good, so good.
Our theater was turned up so loud and I caught every word. At home with really good over-ear headphones would be magnificent.
Why can’t Netflix bring back Firefly* or Terriers or Fringe for another go instead of wasting all of this energy and cash on Full House?
*I would kill for a Jubal Early spinoff. That way they don’t need to finagle with all of the other actors who have now moved on to other things.
And if we’re going for a show where we show former TV teenagers who are now adults/parents, how about Freaks and Geeks? With the actors playing themselves 15-20 years later, which would be the mid-90s. I would watch the everloving shit out of that.
But it would cost a billionty dollars to make since everyone is all famous and busy now.
DUDE I WOULD SO WATCH THAT.
It could open with the “Welp, here I am.” scene for maximum Dave happiness
That abortion clinic piece was infuriating/heartbreaking/just ugh.
But this was particularly disturbing: “At the mouth of the parking lot, Kansas Coalition for Life protesters record each visitor’s license plate number and time of entry and track which car belongs to each staff member.”
Can the clinic workers not get injunctions/restraining order for stalking? I know the US has some weird 1st amendment regulations about protesting/harassing people at abortion clinics, but this seems like it would qualify for protective orders and it makes me sick that it doesn’t.
Probably not. License plates are visible to all & sundry, there’s no crime in looking at one or writing it down, even if the person doing it has obviously nefarious intent.
In an political environment more protective of reproductive rights, the rights of clinic workers to travel to and from work without this kind of harrassment would be respected. Then they WOULD be able to complain, and probably see results.
Side note that the receptionist at my clinic was followed/tailed/stalked for months by someone actually later convicted of anti-abortion terrorism (TRUE!). He followed her all over town. He thought she was a physician, because she drives a Cadillac. FFS.
I mean I guess I get the license plates, but recording detailed info about movements seems like it shouldn’t be legal. I just wish there were more tangible legal protections in place.
That’s awful for your receptionist, but I’m glad she’s okay and I hope that he’s is in jail/not in a position to hurt anyone.
Oh he is tooooooooooooootally in jail and will be for many years! We only found out he had stalked the receptionist years after it actually happened and it was just this gut-freezing moment of horror for all of us there to learn about it.
The whole thing is ridiculous. If it weren’t so scary, and didn’t obviously have such real-life repercussions, it would be laughable. Of COURSE letting people watch you record their license plates and their comings/goings is designed to intimidate. To terrorize. These people are very well acquainted with the fine legal line they are walking, and they are very comfortable where they are, and have complete confidence that law enforcement will not do anything about it. Yup. That’s great.
A letter to Land’s End’s CEO praising the interview with Steinem and the donations to the UN fund for Women’s Equality, and saying that I do buy lots of their stuff and I wish they could do better would have more traction than angry tweeting about I will NEVER buy from you AGAIN, right?
http://jezebel.com/lands-end-apologizes-for-featu…
(They make such good librarian clothes! And I just found out they don’t belong to Sears any more!)
Holy shit, the comments section on that article is even worse than you’d expect.
Some of it reminds me of when people were gleefully mocking Kim Davis for her clothes and hair. Um, guys? Wasn’t the bad thing about this woman actually her horrible bigoted views?
Dang yeah, reminds me why I never go to that site anymore.
Team #nojez 4lyfe.
IDK if the Link Roundup is the right place for Dad news but the Toast definitely is, so: I just remembered Steely Dan and have now found my jam for the day. And realized how many of these songs I recognize/like/treasure from my childhood??
OMG I LOVE Steely Dan! Peg! Rikki Don’t Lose That Number! Deacon Blues! Kid Charlemagne!
It’s also definitely something I acquired from my dad. I have so many fond memories of listening to those songs on road trips out to visit family on the east coast.
And the music really stands the test of time, and as I’ve listened to it as I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to appreciate the musicality of it, as well as just how subtle and challenging it is, what they do. There’s something just perfectly jaded to it that no other musician has ever been able to quite capture, for me. Like, how sometimes they’re putting on this play of smarminess, but are actually critiquing smarminess in a way that, in the hands of less talented artists, would just be annoying and trashy. If that makes any sense.
Totally. I’m a sucker for that slightly drugged-out, dusty and jaded 70s sound. And yes, Dad road trip music! Crosby, Stills and Nash, Jackson Browne and Joe Jackson are also on that list for me.
Anyone up for a bad-ass new Under Armour ad?
I wasn’t sure whether I liked The Witch but I have been thinking about it all the time since I saw it, so I think I will count it as a success. I didn’t love the ending — I wanted it to stay a bit more ambiguous — but the rest of it was so cool and beautiful and creepy and painful.
One spoilery thing in a reply, and then one outside for those of you who care about this sort of thing: A dog dies, fairly gruesomely.
I called it on that fucking goat though. We have a blanket policy here that we don’t keep animals with horns. Even when they’re not actually the devil, they are still too dangerous.
I wanted them to do more with the bunny and/or crow as far as familiars go.
Totally. Unsettlingly bold and calm bunny??? Strangely alarming!
And they couldn’t trap it and couldn’t shoot it! And they were going to starve! I seriously thought they were going to have to start drinking that goat blood milk or something, and every time another kid died I kept thinking, one less mouth to feed! But it never mattered, I am with Mallory on feeling let down in that regard.
Oh thanks for the heads up on the dog. I will close my eyes.
That was great, I really enjoyed reading it. Especially the ending!
YES. I hated Anakin worse than Jar Jar. No matter how hard I tried to like him (because he's mfing DARTH VADER) I just. could. not.
I grew up in Oakland as a third generation Korean American, and agree completely. We're living at a powerful confluence of hyphenated histories, whose uniqueness and potential benefit should not be taken for granted.