January 26, 2014

Begin again

I was cleaning out my room just now. It was prompted by my failure to find my new camera charger, which led to my failure to ignore/postpone the fact/thought that my room is just one months old Dominos box in the closet away from my DC Den of Depression. Then, writing, even if to myself, made me feel better; I’m hoping that by starting to write again to myself again, I will feel better now, too.

Where did I leave off? I’d moved into the apartment I’m in now. I was deeply unhappy then, and I supposed I still am, but not as badly or as constantly (I think). I’m a little better at my job—no, I’m much better at my job now. Not great, but better. I’m still in an unhappy, unsatisfying, stale and stagnant relationship with this city and my job, and I can’t figure out if I am unable or unwilling to end it. Maybe it’s both, but with more inability than unwillingness.

I still have an awful habit of forgetting about food I put in the fridge. This is because of my sporadic grocery shopping habits. I need to change this, if not for me, then absolutely for my roommates.

So basically, everything is almost the same. This definitely needs to change.

January 2, 2013   72,507 notes
And this, too.

stfuconservatives:

ceasesilence:

fuckyeahneuroscience:

rhaithe:


typingfrantically:


Let me talk to you about books.
Specifically, one book. This book.
This book should be a best seller. This book should be required reading for graduating from high school. Before you get that diploma, you read this book.
This book deals with debunking “Neurosexism,” which is a very fancy term for all of that evolutionary psychology bullshit that people spill about those “brain differences” between boys and girls.
This book debunks such myths as:
Boys are better at math than girls
Women make crappy lawyers/business CEOs/etc, as their brains are not cut out for aggression.
Men make crappy counselors/primary school teachers/primary parents/etc, as their brains are not cut out for empathy.
MEN ARE BUILT FOR GOING OUT AND HUNTING WHILE WOMEN ARE BUILT FOR STAYING HOME AND BABYMAKING IT’S NOT SEXISM IT’S JUST BIOLOGY
And many other such myths.
Furthermore, this book covers topics such as: 
Neurosexism and gender perceptions in multiple races (as this is not a singularly white experience, just as the western world isn’t a singularly white experience)
Sex discrimination in the workplace, and how women are (or, more often, are not) allowed to behave
How science is used (badly) to support many of these claims
Experiences of trans* people, both through interviews and empirical studies.
AND FINALLY - It is all brilliantly researched, cited, compiled - and it’s easy to read! Cordelia Fine actually manages to be funny while writing this, which I think is important, because it makes all of this information infinitely accessible.
Delusions of Gender has reinforced what Oberlin taught me: The gender binary is stupid and arbitrary, and dangerous. And it is a self-perpetuating bias that needs to be addressed to be overcome.


So adding this to my to-read list.



I haven’t read this myself so I can’t give an educated recommendation but looks like something I’d want to have on my never-ending ‘to-read’ list.


Haven’t read it but it looks good.

Adding to my 2013 “books to read” list for sure.

And this, too.

stfuconservatives:

ceasesilence:

fuckyeahneuroscience:

rhaithe:

typingfrantically:

Let me talk to you about books.

Specifically, one book. This book.

This book should be a best seller. This book should be required reading for graduating from high school. Before you get that diploma, you read this book.

This book deals with debunking “Neurosexism,” which is a very fancy term for all of that evolutionary psychology bullshit that people spill about those “brain differences” between boys and girls.

This book debunks such myths as:

  • Boys are better at math than girls
  • Women make crappy lawyers/business CEOs/etc, as their brains are not cut out for aggression.
  • Men make crappy counselors/primary school teachers/primary parents/etc, as their brains are not cut out for empathy.
  • MEN ARE BUILT FOR GOING OUT AND HUNTING WHILE WOMEN ARE BUILT FOR STAYING HOME AND BABYMAKING IT’S NOT SEXISM IT’S JUST BIOLOGY
  • And many other such myths.

Furthermore, this book covers topics such as: 

  • Neurosexism and gender perceptions in multiple races (as this is not a singularly white experience, just as the western world isn’t a singularly white experience)
  • Sex discrimination in the workplace, and how women are (or, more often, are not) allowed to behave
  • How science is used (badly) to support many of these claims
  • Experiences of trans* people, both through interviews and empirical studies.

AND FINALLY - It is all brilliantly researched, cited, compiled - and it’s easy to read! Cordelia Fine actually manages to be funny while writing this, which I think is important, because it makes all of this information infinitely accessible.

Delusions of Gender has reinforced what Oberlin taught me: The gender binary is stupid and arbitrary, and dangerous. And it is a self-perpetuating bias that needs to be addressed to be overcome.

So adding this to my to-read list.

I haven’t read this myself so I can’t give an educated recommendation but looks like something I’d want to have on my never-ending ‘to-read’ list.

Haven’t read it but it looks good.

Adding to my 2013 “books to read” list for sure.

(Source: chromaluv)

January 2, 2013   22,638 notes
I must read this!

stfuconservatives:

hieronyma:

muninandhugin:


cosmicyoruba:


sunisup:


I’m reading up on the Memoirs of a Geisha controversy, since I’d neither seen the movie nor read the book, and the more I read about it, the more pissed off I get.  Basically it went down like this:
Japanese woman tells white American man about her past life as a geisha.  White American man then writes a novel that sells itself as an accurate memoir of Japanese woman’s life, but instead falsifies a number of her life events, misrepresents her trade, and exoticises her culture.  He also names her as a source even though she specifically asked him to keep her anonymous.  Japanese woman gets death threats.  White American man becomes bestselling author.
Then Japanese woman gets fed up and writes her own memoir to set the record straight.  Meanwhile, white American man’s book gets adapted into a film that grosses $162 million and wins three Oscars.


This is why I can’t stand Memoirs of a Geisha and will side-eye anyone who claims that book as a favourite.


I’ll have to keep an eye out for her book.



WHAT!? Must read! I remember reading Golden’s, loving it, and not realizing that he was a scam. When I found out what he’d done, I threw a fit. What a victory for her to have written her own! Can’t wait to dig in!


I also read and loved “Memoirs of a Geisha” before finding out all of the extremely problematic issues with it, and I’m so excited to read her book.

I must read this!

stfuconservatives:

hieronyma:

muninandhugin:

cosmicyoruba:

sunisup:

I’m reading up on the Memoirs of a Geisha controversy, since I’d neither seen the movie nor read the book, and the more I read about it, the more pissed off I get.  Basically it went down like this:

Japanese woman tells white American man about her past life as a geisha.  White American man then writes a novel that sells itself as an accurate memoir of Japanese woman’s life, but instead falsifies a number of her life events, misrepresents her trade, and exoticises her culture.  He also names her as a source even though she specifically asked him to keep her anonymous.  Japanese woman gets death threats.  White American man becomes bestselling author.

Then Japanese woman gets fed up and writes her own memoir to set the record straight.  Meanwhile, white American man’s book gets adapted into a film that grosses $162 million and wins three Oscars.

This is why I can’t stand Memoirs of a Geisha and will side-eye anyone who claims that book as a favourite.

I’ll have to keep an eye out for her book.

WHAT!? Must read! I remember reading Golden’s, loving it, and not realizing that he was a scam. When I found out what he’d done, I threw a fit. What a victory for her to have written her own! Can’t wait to dig in!

I also read and loved “Memoirs of a Geisha” before finding out all of the extremely problematic issues with it, and I’m so excited to read her book.

November 16, 2012

Moving out

is very different from going away for school. Getting scared and sad.

November 15, 2012

The more you know

The theme for my 2B class this week is “food.” There was a silly short “food quiz” in the book that we did as a warmer, and during which my older, very Russian Russian student adamantly claimed that strawberries aren’t fruits.

"Yes, they are," the rest of the class said, after they’d whipped their heads around to gawk in unison.

"No. They are berries," Russian Student insisted.

"But berries are fruits—"

"No. Strawberries are berries."

"OK, well, I think most people consider them to be berries," I interjected. "So what are some yellow fruits?"

A student said bananas, because of course.

"No," said Russian Student. "Bananas are not fruit."

"Uhhhh………"

"They are grass."

At this point my class gently exploded. “But they grow on trees!” “They have seeds!”

"They’re grass! And watermelons are berries!"

"Where are you from?" a Korean students asked suspiciously.

When I’d taught this unit to a different 2B class before, a Japanese students insisted to me—quietly and privately—that pumpkins were melons because his electronic dictionary said so. He accepted the fact that my google search confirmed that they were in fact squashes. But today’s moment threw me into a minor existential crisis of sorts. One the one hand, everyone knows that bananas, strawberries, and watermelons are fruits. DUH. Everyone knows that! On the other hand, 600 years ago, everyone know that the earth was round and everything revolved around it. DUH! Everyone knew that!

So, I did a little intensive research. Here is what I found, and what I asked my co-teacher to relay to our class tomorrow:

1. Scientifically speaking, strawberries are not exactly fruits, but they are definitely not berries. They are “false fruits” or “accessory fruits” because the seeds of the flower are on the outside, and the strawberry does not grow from the seeds. Strawberries are engorged parts of the flower.

2. Berries are fruits.

3. The actual banana (i.e. the long yellow thing we eat) is technically a berry, but it is also still a fruit. The PLANT from which the fruit grows is technically not a tree, but an herb (not grass).

4. Watermelons are technically berries, and also fruits, because berries are fruits.

5. (Not part of our argument, but just interesting related tidbits) Other “true berries” include avocados, grapes, persimmons, tomatoes, and very possibly peppers.

I wasn’t wrong. Phew. All is right with the world again.

November 13, 2012   19,374 notes

If I look up “carrot” in the dictionary, most people will acknowledge I do not know all there is to know about carrots and if I truly want to understand carrots, I should probably pick up a horticultural text book. We know that legal and medical terms are going to be, at best, simplistically represented and know we need to find a lawyer or a doctor if we want to know more. Anyone deciding to base their argument on, say, a philosophical concept or term using the dictionary is going to be laughed at at best, or automatically lose whatever argument they’re trying to make at least.

Yet the minute we move into a social justice framework, the ultimate authority changes. We don’t need lived experience, we don’t need experts who have examined centuries of social disparities and discrimination, we don’t need societal context. We don’t need sociology or history – no, we have THE DICTIONARY! That ultimate tome of oracular insight, the last word on any debate!

It’s patently ridiculous and you can see that by applying it to any other field of knowledge. But the privileged will continually trot out simplistic, twitter-style dictionary definitions as if they are the last word and the ultimate authority. No-one would drag out the dictionary to debate science with a scientist. But they’re more than willing to trot out a dictionary definition of racism over any sociological analysis. A dictionary is not the ultimate authority - they’re a rough guide for you to discover the simple meaning of words you’ve never heard before – not an ultimate definition of what the word means and all its contexts.

Sparky at Womanist Musings. YES! (via flowerskss)

(Source: womanist-musings.com, via stfuconservatives)

November 3, 2012   102,787 notes
goldenheartedrose:

johnwatsonswindmachine:

nethilia:

murdorito:

ankankimatank:

dollymacabre:

mszombi:

fleurdulys:

The Irritating Gentleman - Berthold Woltze
1874

I know that feel, Painting Lady. 

My bus ride to and from work every day.

They never published the second picture, which was the one where she backhanded him in the fucking face for getting all up in her shit.

Oh great, good to know this has been a problem for HUNDREDS OF YEARS CAN WE PLEASE STOP DOING THIS ALREADY JUST FUCK OFF AND LEAVE ME ALONE

Everyone is overlooking something very significant in this picture, that I saw in two seconds, that adds a layer of super slime to his whole awful attitude. “The Irritating Gentleman” is a politeness.
She’s wearing all black in 1874. Black gloves, hat, cloak, and dress. In public. The whole nine yards. That’s not a fashion choice or a gothic thing. Back then when people wore all black like that, they were in mourning for someone who died. No one did mourning like the Victorians, that shit was an art form to them.
Someone in her family has died—she could even be a young widow. No one’s accompanying her either. With the carpet bag? She’s traveling alone while still in deep mourning. Look at the closeup. She’s got tears in her eyes. She is upset, devastated in a way that one is only when someone has died. And the guy’s still bothering her, like her problems are flippant bullshit and she needs to just smile or pay attention to him because ladies are supposed to be pleasing for men no matter what shit they’re going through. That’s not a look of “what an ass.” That’s a look of devastation that even in her pain, she’s expected to give people like him focus. She’s not mad. She’s hurt. And to add insult to injury? Everyone would be able to tell. It was a clear sign and still is in ways that someone is mourning, to dress in black crepe like that. He would know why she’s wearing all black, and he’s still demanding her attention.
What an insufferable dick.
At least I’m not the only one who saw this.

I’m reblogging myself to add some comments from my mom. She’s a docent at the Portland Art Museum, and I wanted to see her take on this painting, given her art/art history knowledge. She said: 
“Just looking at it I’d say she’s recently lost her parent(s). She’s traveling alone and is waiting in a station that would be considered too “rough” for a lady in high standing. The crates around her, even the behavior of the man would indicate she’s in a rough part of town. Also, there’s a tear on her face, so not only is she grieving a loss, she’s grieving a loss of position and safety in the world.”

Reblogging for that comment right there.

goldenheartedrose:

johnwatsonswindmachine:

nethilia:

murdorito:

ankankimatank:

dollymacabre:

mszombi:

fleurdulys:

The Irritating Gentleman - Berthold Woltze

1874

I know that feel, Painting Lady. 

My bus ride to and from work every day.

They never published the second picture, which was the one where she backhanded him in the fucking face for getting all up in her shit.

Oh great, good to know this has been a problem for HUNDREDS OF YEARS CAN WE PLEASE STOP DOING THIS ALREADY JUST FUCK OFF AND LEAVE ME ALONE

Everyone is overlooking something very significant in this picture, that I saw in two seconds, that adds a layer of super slime to his whole awful attitude. “The Irritating Gentleman” is a politeness.

She’s wearing all black in 1874. Black gloves, hat, cloak, and dress. In public. The whole nine yards. That’s not a fashion choice or a gothic thing. Back then when people wore all black like that, they were in mourning for someone who died. No one did mourning like the Victorians, that shit was an art form to them.

Someone in her family has died—she could even be a young widow. No one’s accompanying her either. With the carpet bag? She’s traveling alone while still in deep mourning. Look at the closeup. She’s got tears in her eyes. She is upset, devastated in a way that one is only when someone has died. And the guy’s still bothering her, like her problems are flippant bullshit and she needs to just smile or pay attention to him because ladies are supposed to be pleasing for men no matter what shit they’re going through. That’s not a look of “what an ass.” That’s a look of devastation that even in her pain, she’s expected to give people like him focus. She’s not mad. She’s hurt. And to add insult to injury? Everyone would be able to tell. It was a clear sign and still is in ways that someone is mourning, to dress in black crepe like that. He would know why she’s wearing all black, and he’s still demanding her attention.

What an insufferable dick.

At least I’m not the only one who saw this.

I’m reblogging myself to add some comments from my mom. She’s a docent at the Portland Art Museum, and I wanted to see her take on this painting, given her art/art history knowledge. She said: 

“Just looking at it I’d say she’s recently lost her parent(s). She’s traveling alone and is waiting in a station that would be considered too “rough” for a lady in high standing. The crates around her, even the behavior of the man would indicate she’s in a rough part of town. Also, there’s a tear on her face, so not only is she grieving a loss, she’s grieving a loss of position and safety in the world.”

Reblogging for that comment right there.

(via stfuconservatives)

November 3, 2012   692 notes

What America Needs Now: Clinton/Booker 2016

jezebelcom:

 

Fuck this election. We’re looking toward the future. Clinton/Booker 2016. Hillary for prez; she holds it down on a global level. Cory Booker for veep; he’ll save your grandma from a burning house and then invite you over to chill, while quoting Frederick Douglass. America needs this now more than ever: Something amazing to look forward to. Look at that image by the incomparable Jim Cooke. Don’t you feel better already? Clinton/Booker 2016. Pass it on. 

(via gawkercom)

November 1, 2012   1,336 notes
gawkercom:

Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who has spent the past several days working to clean up his Hurricane Sandy-damaged city, continues to be the coolest politician around. A lot of people think Barack Obama is cool because he exchanges Christmas cards with Beyoncé and plays basketball. And, relative to the staid, ancient, racist, sexist country club members who tend to populate U.S. politics, that is pretty cool! But as an individual case, President Obama is not cool—he is just not the kind of dusty old asshole we’ve come to expect from politics. (My colleagues Max Read and Mobutu Sese Seko have done a nice job of explaining this further here.)
Cory Booker, on the other hand, thus far seems to be the genuine article when it comes to coolness. He’s got a shaved head; he avoids dad jeans; he fights his own security detail to rush into burning buildings and save ladies. On top of all that, as you can see above, he personally tweets at probably stoned people who ask him to bring them munchies. Barack Obama, by contrast, makes awful “Romnesia” jokes on Twitter. 
It is not even a contest. Cory Booker is basically the only cool prominent politician and I can’t wait until he is our next black president.
—Cord

gawkercom:

Newark Mayor Cory Booker, who has spent the past several days working to clean up his Hurricane Sandy-damaged city, continues to be the coolest politician around. A lot of people think Barack Obama is cool because he exchanges Christmas cards with Beyoncé and plays basketball. And, relative to the staid, ancient, racist, sexist country club members who tend to populate U.S. politics, that is pretty cool! But as an individual case, President Obama is not cool—he is just not the kind of dusty old asshole we’ve come to expect from politics. (My colleagues Max Read and Mobutu Sese Seko have done a nice job of explaining this further here.)

Cory Booker, on the other hand, thus far seems to be the genuine article when it comes to coolness. He’s got a shaved head; he avoids dad jeans; he fights his own security detail to rush into burning buildings and save ladies. On top of all that, as you can see above, he personally tweets at probably stoned people who ask him to bring them munchies. Barack Obama, by contrast, makes awful “Romnesia” jokes on Twitter. 

It is not even a contest. Cory Booker is basically the only cool prominent politician and I can’t wait until he is our next black president.

—Cord

October 19, 2012

I came to the fully naked, cold, complete realization today that I am not good at my job. The other teachers around me are moving as far forward as one possibly can in this godawful circus, whereas I am stagnant, maybe even going backwards. I’m coming to terms with the fact that I need to quit at the end of November, even if I don’t have anything else to do or anywhere else to go (which I most likely won’t). I also need to figure out how to end this relationship with Boston. I basically need to figure out how to make my life a little less terrible.