Raspberry Lime Ricki

Moving

2010-09-12T16:08:00.001-05:00

I will now be posting at this address. See you there!

Emmys Fashion

2010-08-30T16:21:00.004-05:00

My loving sister sent me this link this morning, and herewith are my comments. The numbers correspond to the number of the photo in the slideshow.

1. Heidi Klum be looking skinny.

2. January Jones needs hair and makeup (and maybe jewelry) to stand up to that dress. Which is quite a dress. Which is not to say I like it. Or that I don't. I'm undecided on the dress. But from the neck down, it's, "I'm an edgy TV star at a glamorous event!" and from the neck up (facial expression included), it's "What? I brushed my hair, didn't I? What more do I need to do for a simple run to the grocery store?"

3. Peggy looks slim! The dress is fine. It would look better on a taller woman but it's inoffensive.

6. I love the color of Kyra Sedgwick's gown.

7. Anna Paquin . . . that is . . . You know what that is? Much like January Jones, it is a lack of commitment to a look, only on her, the lack of commitment is all in the garment. What did they do, run out of metal coins? Her boobs are ready to go to war against Troy; the rest of her is still being pinned in preparation for a fashion student's "Draping 101" class. If you're going to go for a look, particularly a crazy one, GO FOR IT.

8. Tina Fey looks about as good as she ever does on the red carpet. It's like she's embarrassed that she's good-looking.

9. I was going to leave Neil Patrick Harris and his partner alone, because, boys, who cares? But I'm sort of bothered by the term "expectant father." Isn't only a pregnant woman "expectant"? Couldn't they be "expecting a child" rather than "expectant"? But as a note, I hope the sperm came from Neil Patrick Harris. We need more of him running around.

10. Sofia Vergara looks awesome! I think the haters who accuse her of pageant-ness are jealous of those curves.

11. Julie Bowen . . . is usually so pretty. What is going on here? Does her stylist secretly hate her? I hate every moment of that look.

12. I'm not so huge a fan of Claire Danes's look. I mean, the dress is pretty and she looks fine, but she looks like every pretty blonde Hollywood extra ever. She doesn't really look like *her*.

13. When I first glanced at the photo of Lea Michele I thought she was Penelope Cruz. And I thought, "Well, Penelope Cruz always looks awesome, of course." So good job, Lea Michele! The bangs look okay to me.

14. Eva Longoria Parker needs some lipstick.

15. Jennifer Westfeldt (the girl lucky enough to be with Jon Hamm) is blonder than she used to be. Which is also contributing to a certain generic-ness. But she does have the night's best accessory.

16. I don't know who Nina Dobrev is but damn is she itty-bitty. Like the dress, though.

17. I thought Edie Falco was Helen Mirren at first. I need to keep reminding myself that these are the Emmys, not the Oscars. She looks nice, but she, too, could do with a little lipstick.

18. Oh no! I hate Christina Hendrick's dress! I love her so much! How could she go out looking like Dolly Parton in a nightgown circa 1974? (Which is a look Dolly Parton could rock. But only Dolly Parton.)

22. Kate Gosselin gets to go to these things? What is the world coming to?

23. I like Toni Colette's dress, but seriously, what is with hair and makeup tonight? Are hair and makeup artists on a strike?

24. Juliana Marguiles looks frickin' tiny. Like, out of proportion tiny. Is she leaning towards the camera?

26. SUE SYLVESTER LOOKS MAD HOT.

27. Keri Russel looks nice but . . . she knows she's at an awards ceremony and not her sister's bridal shower, right?

28. Wanda Sykes has much bigger boobs than I thought.

29. Julia Louis-Dreyfus looks unfortunate. I hate flat hair on her. I hope she hasn't been listening to Patti Stanger.

30. I have seen the dress Dianna Agron is wearing before. I can't place it. She's looked better; it's a little too much look for a small girl like her. She remains gorgeous, though.

31. Kelly Osborne has lost a massive amount of weight since the last time I paid attention, which, admittedly, was probably a few years ago. But she always styles herself to look older than she is, I feel.

32. Cheryl Hines - LIPSTICK. The dress is nice, though.

33. What is going on with Lauren Graham? She's so pretty! That dress sucks! Maybe she shares a stylist with Julie Bowen. Maybe said stylist was made fun of a lot in high school for being ugly and not wearing normal clothes, so now she gets her revenge on pretty actresses by making them look HORRENDOUS.

34. Jewel looks awful. The whole thing is just unfortunate.

35. Carrie Preston looks awesome. Do you know she's married to Ben Linus in real life? Do you know I once saw Ben Linus on stage? Ask me all about it some time.

43. Seriously, Rita Wilson (Tom Hanks's wife) has been doing this for a while. Doesn't she know better?

44. I love Julia Ormond's dress and color.

47. Padma Lakshmi looks awesome!

48. I hate Emily Deschanel's bangs. I'm not sure how I feel about the dress.

51. Jayma Mays looks awesome! Her hair looks great!

55. I think Santana looks a lot more pageanty than Sofia Vergara. Especially with those bangs.

57. You know, the thing is, that's not even a very good Mad-Men-esque dress. And furthermore, even if it were a better version of itself, it's what Joan Harris nee Holloway would wear to work. On a Saturday. Not what she'd wear to a fancy event. We've seen Joan get dressier than that for a night of clubbing with her lesbian roommate. So not
only is it not a nice dress, and not a fancy enough dress, it misses the point of the early '60s lifestyle that people who like Mad Men fetishize, the point of being more formal and glamorous than we ever are in daily life.

58. That's nicer than I've ever seen Jenna Ushkowitz look on a red carpet.

I am now perhaps recognizing that my extreme dislike of the makeup on display might not be the fault of these ladies or of their make-up artists. It might just be that they do these red carpets in the blazing California sun and that's what's washing everyone out. But I stand by the rest of my opinions.

What Ideal?

2010-08-17T17:45:00.002-05:00

I was just forwarded this by someone and boy am I annoyed. I'm sure other people have covered this territory but here goes my line-by-line annoyance anyway:

1. "The default family arrangement in many cultures, modern as well as ancient, has been polygamy, not monogamy." False. False, false, and false. Of course polygamy is not the default, in any culture. In many cultures it is acceptable under certain circumstances - like if you are the sultan, or like if you are already married but then your older brother dies, leaving a childless widow who would otherwise have no place to be, or there are places where a woman will (sometimes) marry two brothers so that their father's land doesn't have to be split, but it's never the default, and it's never the default for good reasons. One is that you have to be rich to be polygamous; you have to have plenty of extra income to support the extra wives and especially the extra children. And I know people say that in older, agrarian societies, children were economic helps, not economic burdens, but that's sort of bullshit. In agrarian societies, your
child could be an economic help AT THE VERY EARLIEST by age five and probably more realistically by age seven, and even then, their economic help probably doesn't even break even with their economic burden until (for boys) 15 or 16 and (for girls) when they get married and bring in a bride price. Which is only any good if you don't have sons who will have to pay for brides. And of course, reverse it for societies that have dowries. Which are already societies where children are economic burdens, not economic helps. Because if children are economic burdens, you demand money from a woman's family to support her and her children (dowry); if children are economic helps, you have to pay to get the woman and her reproductive labor (bride price). And pregnant women are of limited economic help and significant economic burden. So only the rich in a society that supports polygamy can actually afford to do it, and there is no such
thing as a society where everyone is rich. The concept of "rich" doesn't exist without "poor." Second, where polygamy - and specifically polygyny, which is much more widely practiced than
polyandry - is the "default," as in the fundamentalist Mormon circles depicted on "Big Love," you have to either exile a large number of young boys, import a large number of young girls, or both. And that's really problematic and unsustainable, especially the first part. So it's never the "default," in any society.

2. "The default mode of child-rearing is often communal, rather than two parents nurturing their biological children." That's true, but problematic. The nuclear family as we know it is very much a modern invention, but what one means by "communal" needs to be teased out. First of all, it's rather unusual for two adult persons to live with no other adult persons - in many societies, you live with either the husband's, or, less frequently, the wife's, family of origin - along with siblings and cousins and whatnot. This arrangement has its pros and cons, and when the cons get to be too much, frequently, one or another brother moves out and establishes his own household. But it needs to be complicated further because it's not like all of human history before 1945 was a monolith. It's not like heterosexual marriages or child-rearing practices are a monolith now. And it's not like we don't rear our children communally now; we just consider such things unnatural or abnormal or not what we're "really" doing. What are we doing, after all, when sure, we are the idealized heterosexual family with the mom at home and the dad at work, but the kid goes to preschool, and his/her "rearing" is assisted by the teachers there, and on Mondays and Wednesdays, Grandma comes over for a few hours, also assisting in the rearing, and there's a babysitter across the street who comes over Saturday nights, and then, when the kid is five, the kid is in school for 30 hours a week, being partially "reared" by teachers, principals, classroom aides, lunch ladies, and even the state, which mandates what the child will learn and when. I mean, we have communal rearing now, is my point, but we don't call it that. And we treat many forms of it - like day care and nannies - like they are the marks of bad parents who are refusing to enact this bizarre ideal. And going back, child-rearing has been handled in many different ways by many different cultures across time, just as now, but across those times parents have not been subject to this impossible-to-achieve ideal of being "reared" exclusively by the biological parents of said child. Which is not to say they didn't have their problems. But talking about a single default mode and the nubby concept of "communal" child-rearing is misleading or at least
not particularly thoughtful. Also, "communal" child-rearing sounds better to me - and t0 many people - than the nuclear ideal.

3. "If “natural” is defined to mean “congruent with our biological instincts,” it’s arguably one of the more unnatural arrangements imaginable. In crudely Darwinian terms, it cuts against both the male impulse toward promiscuity and the female interest in mating with the highest-status male available." There is some evidence that this is not true. I mean, some scientists support the notion that men need to "spread their seed" and women need to gold-dig, but others disagree, finding this explanation rather self-serving and culturally, rather than scientifically, mandated. Jared Diamond, one of my favorite guys in the whole wide world, has written really interesting stuff about that, but his major point is that human reproduction (EVEN FOR MEN) is not a numbers game; it's a raise-them-to-adulthood game, and that doesn't necessarily fit with this notion of men spreading their seed, because they still need to be sure that their children make it to adulthood. He does say that for some relatively small percentage of males in any given society (say 5-10%), that is best served by sleeping with married women whose husbands (if adequately tricked) are better suited to supporting those children, but it's not a good strategy for most men. For the most part, since it's impossible to tell when a woman is ovulating without major equipment and attention to detail (and even then . . .), it's evolutionarily best to stick with one woman for a while, to make sure you get her pregnant and nobody else does, and then hang around to make sure your kids make it into adulthood. Furthermore, precisely because humans don't know when ovulation is happening, and can and do want sex even when it's not (which is NOT THE NORM for mammals), sex isn't mostly about reproduction for humans; it's mostly a bonding experience to keep adults attached to each other so they'll be willing to raise those kids together. He says that what we actually do IS the most "natural" for the way we are built - we are mostly monogamous, with some instances of cheating, some instances of polygamy, and some instances of serial monogamy.

4. "This ideal holds up the commitment to lifelong fidelity and support by two sexually different human beings — a commitment that involves the mutual surrender, arguably, of their reproductive self-interest — as a uniquely admirable kind of relationship." This is so much nonsense. Why is the ideal so much more ideal because the two adults are sexually different? If a heterosexual marriage does, in fact, involve the mutual surrender of reproductive self-interest
(which, as I've argued above, I think is not true), how much MORE SO does the same commitment by two people of the same sex? Yes, committing to one another for a lifetime is admirable, I suppose, although, let's be serious, there are things that are more admirable,
like for instance being a doctor for cancer-ridden children or something. I also feel - and this is a sidenote - that there are certain people who think when they get married, "Oh no! I'll never have sex with anyone else ever again!" and then there are people who feel, "Thank God I never have to go through the effort of enticing anyone else to have sex with me." Both of those people might, in the end, turn out to be wrong. But I think these are just very different perspectives on marriage and not everyone things they are surrendering anything when they make a lifelong commitment to one other person. Anyway, total nonsense.

5. "It holds up the domestic life that can be created only by such unions, in which children grow up in intimate contact with both of their biological parents, as a uniquely admirable approach to
child-rearing." Leaving aside that this is a rather rose-colored view of families, and does not translate to most people's realities, even if they have, on the face of it, an "ideal" nuclear family, why is it "uniquely admirable"? Why is it better than when children do have an entire community they can rely on, rather than the two people out of whose loins they've sprung? Why is it better than living in a larger family household where, in addition to whatever "intimate contact" you have with your parents, you also have grandparents and aunts and uncles deeply invested in your life? Conversely, why is it so much better to have both of your parents - who, after all, have their own relationship with each other, which, good or bad, may take precedence
over their relationship with you - than to have one parent, soley and exclusively invested in a relationship with you? I'm not saying all these other arrangements don't have their problems; I'm saying, so does this "ideal" nuclear family, and that none of them are more admirable than the others. It's admirable when a child is well-loved, well-respected, and becomes a benefit to society as an adult. It's unadmirable when a child is neglected, disrespected, and turns into a
burden on society. Most children fall in the middle, and that's fine. Also, I think he thinks that because something is "unique," it is therefore "admirable." That's not really true.

6. "The point of this ideal is not that other relationships have no value, or that only nuclear families can rear children successfully. Rather, it’s that lifelong heterosexual monogamy at its best can offer something distinctive and remarkable — a microcosm of civilization, and an organic connection between human generations — that makes it worthy of distinctive recognition and support." Really? Really? Heterosexual marriage is a "microcosm of civilization," but he's not saying no other relationships or families are valuable? That's bullshit. I'm sorry, but if you're going to say something, say it and mean it; don't say it and then pretend to back out of it. This is the NYT equivalent of "No offense, but . . ." Also, what does it even
mean to be a microcosm of civilization? More nonsense.

7. "Again, this is not how many cultures approach marriage. It’s a particularly Western understanding, derived from Jewish and Christian beliefs about the order of creation, and supplemented by later ideas about romantic love, the rights of children, and the equality of the
sexes." Again, he's eliding many things without being thoughtful about it. Let's start with, for many centuries, Judaism wasn't considered a full participant in Western civilization. Second, Jews and Christians had VERY different ideas about marriage, so you can't lump them together. Third, these older forms of marriage were not "supplemented" by ideas about romantic love and children's and women's rights; those ideas RADICALLY changed what was considered "traditional" marriages at the times that these ideas were introduced. Romantic love was the same-sex marriage of its day, the thing that was going to destroy traditional marriage forever (and, if one looks at what one meant by marriage before romantic love in marriage became
so idealized, it did, in fact, destroy it). So were ideas about equality of the sexes, which, for heaven's sake, Ross Douthat should be aware of, since those days were, oh, yesterday.

8. "Or at least, it was the Western understanding. Lately, it has come to co-exist with a less idealistic, more accommodating approach, defined by no-fault divorce, frequent out-of-wedlock births, and serial monogamy." Look, he obviously hasn't read a single word by Stephanie Coontz, the leading authority on marriage history. I have read many words by her, and enjoyed all of them. But what it all boils down to is, there is no time and place when the "traditional" marriage/family of our imagination actually existed. Okay, maybe there was a decade, the 1950s, sort of, but even then it was not for everyone and it was always already going to be
short-lived, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction. It has always co-existed with less idealistic forms, albeit more or less accommodatingly.

9. "If this newer order completely vanquishes the older marital ideal, then gay marriage will become not only acceptable but morally necessary." It has already done so. Gay marriage is morally necessary as long as straight marriage exists.

10. "But if we just accept this shift, we’re giving up on one of the great ideas of Western civilization: the celebration of lifelong heterosexual monogamy as a unique and indispensable estate. That ideal is still worth honoring, and still worth striving to preserve. And preserving it ultimately requires some public acknowledgment that heterosexual unions and gay relationships are different: similar in emotional commitment, but distinct both in their challenges and their
potential fruit." Why, why, why is heterosexual marriage "one of the great ideas of Western civilization"? Why is it worth honoring, why is it worth striving to preserve? And preserve what, the marriages or the ideal? The marriages aren't going anywhere, or, at least, their departure is not being particularly hastened by same-sex couples. In fact, one could argue that the gay population's desire to imitate heterosexual lifelong romantically oriented marriage IS preserving it far better than heterosexual couples are doing it. And why be so concerned about preserving an ideal that's not being lived up to anyway? What is so ideal about it? I mean, I support preserving the ideal that a person ought not commit murder, because I see why that is beneficial, even if people are still murdered. But I don't see what's beneficial about the ideal of a heteronormative nuclear family - or at least what's more beneficial than myriad other arrangements. Nor do I see how allowing same-sex couples to marry will take anything away
from opposite-sex couples, in support or honor or anything. Also, ALL relationships are distinct. Yes, same-sex couples as a whole deal with a different set of issues than opposite-sex couples, although a lot of them come from living in an environment where one type of couple is thought more worthy and a better example of the awesomeness of Western civilization than the other. Ugly couples have a different set of issues than attractive couples, and both of these couples
differ from couples in which one partner is attractive and the other ugly. Wealthy couples have different issues than poor issues, and I bet that it's along those lines that one will find the most fractious differences. Okay? Acknowledged? Can we shut up now?

Random, Passing Thought

2010-08-02T15:17:00.001-05:00

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/16/AR2010071606839.html?hpid=artslot

There's a line in this article that's bothering me - I want a tankless water heater SO THAT I can take longer hot showers.

More Zoe Cuteness

2010-07-29T20:04:00.004-05:00

1. She now sings "Summer Nights" from Grease, which she refers to as "Tell Me More," but the best part is, she does the male vs. female voices. She goes up high (to the extent that a person with such a naturally high voice can) for the girls' parts and then down low, with her lips all smushed up, for the boys' parts.

2. She has added "Show you" to her "Come here" and hand gesture.

3. Whenever I ask her, "What did you do today?", no matter what we actually did, she says, "Ani, Akes (Alex), and Vanessa." Ani and Alex are her buddies and Vanessa is their mommy - my buddy. Yesterday, she also started talking about Ani's face-painting - which in fact happened over a month ago, but was very traumatizing for Zoe. She mentioned that Ani (who is older than Zoe; she just turned four) got her face painted, that they looked at it in the mirror, that it was flowers, and that it hurt Ani. I have been trying to convince her for this entire month that it did not, in fact, hurt Ani, and that Ani wanted her face to be painted, but I don't think I'm getting anywhere.

4. She calls (and has called for many months now) her magna-doodle-thing her "idea." Which is a good name for it.

5. She's full of complimentary speech lately. When Jason finishes vacuuming, she says, "Good job, Daddy," or "Nice job cleaning." She also tells me I've done a good job of various things - putting on her diaper, preparing her Cheerios and milk. She follows up suggested (by me or her) activities with "That'd be fun," or "Let's do that." When she mentions seeing Daddy, she always includes the phrase, "So happy to see you."

6. When she was missing Daddy the last few days, she spoke about sharing a pop with him. "We'll see Daddy tomorrow, Zoe." "See him? Share pop? Share green pop with Daddy?"

7. She played Curious George games on the computer with her Zeyda on Monday, and then on Wednesday, asked to play again. "Play Zeyda? Curious George on computer? Play nicely?" She also observed that Esmerelda and Quasimodo on the cover of her Hunchback of Notre Dame book were "sharing nicely."

8. She identified a coloring book picture of Esmerelda as me. :-) She also, about a month or so ago, identified the picture of Snow White on the cover of a coloring book as Grandma Lisa.

9. She LOVES the over-the-top girly things that her grandfather and her Zii Tara (her Zii Tara who chose Zii because it felt more gender-neutral) buy her.

10. She continues to say of various clothing items, "Oh, cute," and "Beau-ful dress!" She and I shared an Elle magazine today; quite a momentous occasion. She expressed extremely strong opinions on various items of clothing, good and bad, and not always but sometimes in agreement with my opinions. (In other words, she was neither agreeing with me blindly nor just saying "No" for the sake of it.) She also pointed to a drawing of a woman in a hair ad and said, "Beau-ful woman."

10a. Aunt Kate tells me that when she had Zoe helping her pick out an outfit for work, Zoe rejected a skirt of hers that I, also, do not like.

11. She does say "No" a lot now, in this very dramatic fashion, a very long, "Noooo!" with her head bent forward and her lips in a big pout.

12. When she likes something you've suggested, she says, "Oh, yeeeeaaaaah," or "Ummmmmmm . . . . sure!"

13. All the dancing and jumping she does is so damn cute I can't even explain.

14. She says, "Good girl" to dogs (even male dogs) and humans.

15. Friday night, when we got in to Newark at 1:30 in the morning, she was asleep on my shoulder. When we tried to put her in the car seat, she wailed and wailed and wailed for about five minutes, and then suddenly looked up and said, "I see moon?" Then she jabbered happily for the whole way home about the moon and other things she could see. (Then she jumped on the beds when we got home, and stayed up until 3-f-ing-30 in the morning. Which means so did I. One day, I'll be sad when all she does is sleep all day and not hang out with me, right?)

16. This is a little sweet and a little sad - a few times this weekend, she's thrown absolute fits at being put in the car. When I finally get her in, I put my hand on her cheek to comfort her. This is having an increasingly quick effect. She even sometimes holds my hand there, to keep it in place. The first time I noticed she really liked it was when I did try to take my hand away, and she grabbed it and put it back. Then I noticed when she got nervous on the Ferris wheel on Saturday (she does not really like rides yet) that she was holding her own hand to her cheek to comfort herself.

17. She's using the words "gibbous" and "crescent" to describe the moon. Not always accurately, but still, that's awesome.

18. When we disagree on a point - like whether the moon is gibbous or crescent, or whether the shirt is orange or purple, or whether Sparky is a boy or a girl, she is quite adamant in her opinions and does not back down. You say willful and stubborn, I say strong-minded and confident.

19. She LOVED her first sight of the ocean. She was cautious at first, but very, very interested, and soon was having a ball, splashing around, pointing at the waves and shouting, "You! You! You!" and being tossed up and down over the waves by her Aunt Kate. Also she enjoyed throwing sand on her Aunt Kate.

20. I knew she was a Jersey girl at heart - she ate better pizza in Ocean City than I've ever seen her eat anything before, and she was very eager for it even before she got her share. Also, she has a shirt that says "Jersey Girls don't pump gas!" and she insisted on keeping her "Jersey Girl" shirt on for quite a while. (She also insisted on keeping this casino bead necklace on much of the last few days.)

21. For a not-yet-two-year-old, she's really doing well with "Please," "Thank you" (or "Thanks") and "Your welcome." I think I've even heard an "Excuse me."

22. Of course she's got the concept of "My turn!" and "For Zoe!" pretty down, too. And she's started being picky about what foods are in what location on her plate.

23. Even when she's watching a movie or something, she looks so intent and interested. I rarely see that slack-jawed absorbing-mindless-media look in her face; she's always studying, responding, and commenting on what she sees.

I could go on all night. What am I supposed to do? She is the cutest, sweetest, smartest, most awesome baby ever.

Zoe Went Peepee in the Potty!

2010-07-12T19:18:00.002-05:00

She's such a big girl!

Now, some will accuse me of trying to claim that she's potty-trained now at 22 months old. No such thing. Also, some will be expecting me to really push potty-training on her now. Also not happening.

The truth is, I really wasn't expecting this. She's always been "interested" in the potty and so we bought a potty chair and a potty insert. She prefers the insert so she can sit in the same place Mommy sits; the potty chair I think she just considers a regular chair. So especially lately, she's been very insistent on sitting on the potty insert and the truth is that I hate this activity because it means I have to sit on the floor in the bathroom for up to half an hour (at which point I lose patience and drag her out, as I did this afternoon) and it's not pleasant or comfortable but I can't leave her because a) she might fall, and b) she definitely will pull out all of the toilet paper and shove it in the toilet. So tonight she made a stinky and I went to change her and once she was clean, she asked to sit on the potty. So I let her. And lo and behold, not five minutes later - PEEPEE!

So now I will make these unpleasant trips to the bathroom more frequently to give her lots more opportunities. But we're not officially "potty-training" yet.

Want more cute Zoe things? How about these:

- She lies back on the couch arm and demands kissing. Best. Game. Ever!
- She puts my hands on her cheeks and says, "So happy!"
- She has started wishing us "Congratulations" all the time.
- Today at Old Navy, she chatted with the mannequins, hugged the toddler-sized mannequin, tried to touch the "daddy" mannequin, petted the doggie mannequin, and danced to the music in the store. So cute.
- She takes my books and "reads" them, repeating "ajah book" as she does so and then sometimes making up what the book says and reading it in a very "story-telling" kind of voice.
- She gives me this big grin and says, "Precious!"

In general, she continues to be the most awesome creature ever.

Retro

2010-07-07T09:16:00.002-05:00

Well, it's finally happened. My own coming-of-age years are now retro fashion. I'm not even thirty! And yet, as we all know, the famous "It's a dress!" "Says who?" "Calvin Klein." "It looks like underwear. Go put something on over it." "Duh, I was just going to!" dress from Clueless is being reissued by Calvin Klein. And this month's Elle features fashion inspired by Kurt Cobain & Courtney Love, Empire Records, and Reality Bites. On the one hand, I feel very, very old. On the other hand - I can wear flannel shirts and Doc Martens this winter, right? This can't be one of those "If you were the right age for the trend the first time, you're too old the second time" things, because it's the opposite of revealing. Right? It's entirely possible I still HAVE my Doc Martens.

Zoeisms

2010-07-02T18:20:00.002-05:00

She also can't pronounce "smile" and "spider" quite right, so she says "sigh-mile" and "sigh-pider."

Glee Wishlist, Season 2

2010-06-29T10:35:00.003-05:00

I thought since they gave me so much of what I wanted the first time I printed something like this, I'd try again!

1. The song-to-story ratio in The Power of Madonna was perfect. Can we have more episodes like that?

2. Could we have a couple of episodes that are going to be Artie-centric, or at least giving him a good B-plot, open with a dream sequence of him dancing?

3. Somehow, Idina Menzel and Kristen Chenowith need to meet and share a duet of some kind.

4. Jessalyn Gilsig needs some reason to still be involved. And her sister. Couldn't the red-headed monster children want to start, like, a junior Glee Club or something? Maybe led by Puck and Quinn?

5. Please either drop the jocks picking on gleeks thing or explain it better. Of the 12 members of Glee Club, five are now or have been Cheerios, and five are now or have been football players. Even as it stands now, there are two Cheerios and four jocks - half the club. Also, we only ever see Kurt and Finn get harassed. And Finn is the captain. Are Puck and Mike and Matt getting harassed? If so, why don't we see it?

6. Can we see Rachel's dads already? How are they the stage fathers we've been set up to expect, when they never show up to her performances, can't help her out with a Lady Gaga outfit, and don't even appear when she finds her birth mother?

The truth is, that's all I've really got, because I've mostly given up on coherent plots or consistent characterization, so if each episode is just a series of excuses to introduce song and dance numbers, that's fine with me. Let's just also look for excuses to get Puck out of his shirts. Thanks!

Zoeisms

2010-06-29T10:27:00.003-05:00

This is just a brief collection of things Zoe says that are sort of like the real thing but not quite.

"Walloh" - water (as in, "Wash hands in walloh?" or "Walloh evevyvere!" as a description of the "walloh park")

"Piece of fire" - pacifier

"banana" - booger. I don't know where she got this from but I guess it explains her aversion to bananas.

"pocket" - female genitals. I don't know where she got this. We taught her the anatomically correct term as all the progressive parenting guides told us to. But it's a pretty good one.

"Quinn crying," "tiny baby" - the "Bohemian Rhapsody" segment of the last episode of Glee, in which scenes of the rival glee club performing "Bohemian Rhapsody" are intercut with scenes of Quinn giving birth. She requests this more often than she requested "Single Ladies."

I didn't include a really cute thing she does, where she initiates some face-holding and snuggling and says, very soft and sweet, "So much," which is shorthand for "I love you so much" and "so happy."

Best. Baby. Ever.

Awesome Things Zoe Does

2010-06-08T19:09:00.003-05:00

And for a little light-heartedness . . .

1. The day we came back from NJ, she started this game with me wherein she stands on her little bench/stool thing, and I sit in front of her, facing away from her, and she insists I take down my hair, and then she plays with my hair, pats my shoulders, and sometimes has me tilt my head back for a kiss, first to one side, then the other. And today during this game she kept hugging me and saying, "My toy!" And when she does the kissing thing, she giggles a lot in between. (She also wanted us to touch our teeth together but gave that up quickly because it kind of hurts.)

2. Today she walked up to the library on her own, moved her little chair over to where the light switches are, and turned them on herself.

3. She flirts. When we were in Baltimore, we went to the Inner Harbor, and there was a little boy there, maybe 6 mos older than Zoe. Zoe walked right over to him with her chin tucked, her head to the side, making eye contact and smiling coyly. Then she FLIPPED HER HAIR! Where does a 21-month-old child learn to flip her hair? Probably Glee.

4. She also selects outfits. Tuesday when I was back home for less than 36 hours, we went to Old Navy. Zoe kept pulling stuff (in the Toddlers section) off the rack and going, "Oh, cute!" and "Beautiful dress!" and "Jeans!" and handing them to me. Then we went home and I washed all her stuff. She pulled out this floaty patterned tank top that I'd gotten her and the shorts she'd picked out and wanted to put them on. BUT she also wanted her capri-length black leggings on UNDER the shorts. And she had to select a different color headband. Ridiculous.

These last two items, by the way, indicate that I am in SERIOUS TROUBLE with this one and that it will all start well before she reaches thirteen. In fact, it has started already.

5. She grabs my hand and says, "Come, Mommy," and then leads me to where she wants me to go. (She does this to people who are not me, too.)

6. She responds favorably and instantly to pretty young girls with brown hair. We had over a potential babysitter last week, a thirteen-year-old girl from across the street. The doorbell rang, which made her nervous, but then this girl walked in and she was immediately like, "Come! Blocks!" and started babbling about her toys and such. Then this week, Aunt Kate (who is herself a pretty young brunette) had a friend come by, whom Zoe had met maybe once, and Zoe took to her instantly and absolutely. It's adorable.

7. She's fearlessly bossy. A couple of weeks ago, we were at the playground with Aunt Kerri, and a group of pre-schoolers zoomed in. In imitation of me, she started hollering, "Watch out!" at them. (I was yelling because they were about to ram right into the large, heavy swing Zoe was swinging on.) Then when the four- and five-year-old boys were doing something of which Zoe apparently disapproved, she walked right into the middle of a knot of them and yelled, "Stop it!" She also didn't like the way the boy (a few months older than Zoe) was treating his dog and kept instructing him to "Stop it!"

8. She sings songs. Sometimes she sings children's songs, like the alphabet song or Twinkle, Twinkle. She also has a few little ditties that are sort of made up. She likes "Tonight" from West Side Story (which she knows from Glee). Her favorite right now is Bad Romance by Lady Gaga (and she prefers the real music video to the Glee version). But she actually sings all of it. The nonsense syllables in the beginning are one thing, but she goes, "Bad Romance," and "I want your ugly, I want your disease," and "Love . . . love, love, love" with all the right intonations and everything. It is awesome.

9. She's noticing and commenting on people's emotions, and most of the time she's responding appropriately - like if she sees me crying (which she's had occasion to do these past few weeks), she gives me hugs, pats my hair, and asks, "What happened?"

10. A few times, I've given her a pad and pen, and she scribbles away, all hunched over and focused, and then every once in a while she'll look up and go, "Genius? Genius."

11. She sits herself down - on a step or a bench or something - and leans slightly forward and clasps her hands in her lap, making herself look completely darling. Then she invites me to sit down next to her ("Come, Mommy. Sit down right here."). Then she smiles at me and says, "Feels good!"

12. When she is upset, usually about being told "No," she flings herself down on her knees with her face to the floor and wails piteously. Occasionally she pauses mid-wail and looks up to see if you are feeling very sorry for her. But whatever you do, you shouldn't laugh when she does this, because then she really starts wailing.

Well, that's all I'll write about right now. The girl is full-time adorable; it's hard to get it all in.

Mackie

2010-06-06T20:27:00.002-05:00

My stepfather passed away one week ago today.

My first inclination was not to write about it at all. I don't intend to go into much right now. Especially not the anger, not the recounting of what an asshole various of his doctors were, etc. Basically, not the stuff I spent the week talking about.

I think it's been hard to define who he was to me. He was not my father. I have a father; it's not the same. And this wasn't a situation in which my father was gone and I needed a surrogate. My father was and is fully present in my life. In fact, he's been fully present all week, at the funeral director's office, at the wake, at the funeral, offering rides to various parties and making phone calls when needed. And, just as I have another father, he had another daughter. I knew I wasn't the same to him as she was. But he was more than, like, my mom's husband. She and he got married when I was five, and they dated for at least a year before that (I think). So he's been in my life for all but the narrowest slice of my ability to remember anything at all, and not just in my life, but in my house, as a parent.

I've tried to explain it like, "He's an uncle who lived with me." That level of love, that level of authority. It's not a bad explanation, but, you know, uncles come in different flavors. So to be more specific, he was like a really involved uncle who also lived with me. Whatever that means.

He did not come across to many as the warm and snuggly type. Well, apparently the priest who did the funeral thought he did. He described him as a man with "a kind word for everyone." Afterwards, my sister and I sniggered at that. If he had them, we didn't hear them. Sarcastic, funny words were more his style. But he was also capable of enormous caring and concern. He was the one who hugged me while I cried at my college graduation. And when my daughter was born, he was as tender and loving and protective as I've ever seen anyone. Her first Christmas, he kept walking us out to our car, hovering, with his arms sort of forming a bubble around me, just in case I slipped or she fell or something.

And he was a really good stepdad. My father was also a good stepdad to my stepsister, but in their situation, her father was pretty much absent from the daily parenting realm, so it wasn't a tiptoe act. It's not an easy balance to strike in a situation like mine, to be the parent in household but not the father of one of the children, to wield authority and to love and influence without stepping on the actual father's toes. And to love his own daughter just a little bit more without making his stepdaughter feel unloved, left out or jealous. Whether by accident or intention, he struck the balance perfectly.

There are so many things to say about him because he was such an interesting person, but everyone knows the other things - his music, his trucks, his beer, his taste in movies and TV, his love of travel, his love of a greasy spoon, his adoration of and devotion to my mother. These are the things I know. These are the things I will always remember.

DANGER!

2010-04-29T19:46:00.002-05:00

I was reading a couple of things today about product recalls for babies and how they've gotten out of hand and I just wanted to add something of my own experience. We bought Zoe a little cloth book with a little ball dangling from it on a string. On each page you were supposed to do something with the ball - make it stick to velcro, hide it in a pocket, and, on one page, "throw" it through a little cloth basketball hoop, etc. It was recalled. Of course. Why? Because theoretically, if the baby put the ball through the hoop in such a way that the book was around the baby's neck, the baby could strangle him- or herself.

Theoretically.

This had not happened, of course. And let me tell you, theory doesn't always translate to reality. The truth is, if a baby was at a high enough stage in development to get the ball into the hoop at all, the then baby's neck was very likely already too big to fit inside the loop that such an act would create. In fact, if the baby was out of the womb, the baby's neck was very likely already too big to fit inside the loop that such an act would create. And I say this as a parent of a very tiny child. Furthermore, while it would take some degree of coordination to get the ball into the hoop, and also a great deal of emotional/mental development to be interested in such an activity, it would take an even greater degree of coordination to do this while the book was around one's neck. I suspect there are plenty of elementary school students who couldn't manage it, even if the string was large enough to fit around their necks.

But what's the point? That yet another product was ridiculously recalled for no apparent reason? Who cares? My point is this - even though I thought the recall was ridiculous, and couldn't actually bring myself to return it, I sort of stopped letting her play with it. I mean, I didn't snatch it out of her hands or anything, but I didn't bring it along on car trips; I didn't choose to show it to her if I was trying to distract her, and I didn't keep it with her most-played-with toys. So she sort of forgot about it and I let that happen. And I really, really didn't think she could choke herself with it. I just thought, but what if I'm wrong, and something happens, and then the reaction is, "Well, it was recalled. What kind of a parent lets their child play with something that's already been shown to be dangerous?" And a part of me wasn't really thinking at all, I was just reacting emotionally to a toy now branded DANGEROUS. My point is, community standards have their effects on even parents who are actively trying to resist them, and for better or worse (mostly worse) mass media largely constitutes our community. So all these recalls, and the culture of control and blame surrounding them, make a person paranoid. I mean, the fact is, as unlikely as it is that a child would be harmed by this book, crazy things sometimes happen. But instead of seeing a world in which crazy things sometimes happen, we see a world where some parent, some corporation, some school wasn't responsible enough. And it's making us all crazy even when we have our blinders off.

Exciting Zoe Development

2010-04-29T08:38:00.002-05:00

So I don't know if this behavior is on a chart or anything, but this week I have noticed a sharp increase in Zoe's ability and desire to imitate what others are doing around her. At Gymnastics, during circle time, for the first time, she followed the teacher when the teacher banged on the floor (for Thunder!) and stopped when she said "Freeze!" Then when the teacher brought out sticks for the kids to bang together, Zoe banged them in the manner the teacher was demonstrating - together, end-to-end, on the floor. At Hebrew School yesterday, she imitated the dance moves to "Not By Might," holding her hands up to her mouth for "the children sing" and raising her hands above her head when we sang "will rise" just like everyone else was doing. This doesn't sound like much, I guess, but I thought it was pretty cool to see, especially since she's been going to Gymnastics and Hebrew School for over a year and it was just like watching switch turn on.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Women

2010-04-29T08:06:00.002-05:00

I was very interested to find this column on the NY Times' web site. Overall, I really like it. I hadn't heard of Ben Roethlisberger before, but the fact that I haven't heard of something is hardly evidence of anything at all. I've fallen woefully behind on current events coverage of late. But I like reading columns about how behavior like his is wholly unacceptable and should be considered unacceptable by the community at large, including by major corporations, and if I were in the market for athletic shoes, well, I certainly wouldn't be buying Nikes now.

But I find the inclusion of Tiger Woods in this article a bit puzzling. Ben Roethlisberger has sexually assaulted and raped women (ALLEGEDLY). Kobe Bryant, who is also name-checked, raped a woman (ALLEGEDLY). Tiger Woods didn't rape anybody as far as I am aware. He committed many, many acts of adultery, which is certainly disrespectful of his wife, and certainly seems to indicate a certain sense of entitlement. But isn't rape a whole 'nother ball game? Adultery is bad, yes, but isn't rape, like, a million times worse? I mean, okay, technically, Kobe Bryant was also committing adultery when he raped (ALLEGEDLY) that girl, but it's not the adultery we care about, right? It's the rape. So is it really fair to conflate them the way columnist Timothy Egan does?

I don't say this because I want to protect poor widdle Tiger. I say it because distinctions are important.

The Price of Motherhood

2010-04-24T06:10:00.004-05:00

I read this terrific book a couple of weeks ago, The Price of Motherhood by Ann Crittenden. I had intended to blog about it when it was still fresh in my mind, but one of the prices of motherhood is that that is a distant dream. (Although I guess I should be grateful that the fact that I am still f-ing breastfeeding this child means that I have time - during feedings - to read.) Another price of motherhood is that nothing, I mean nothing, stays "fresh" in your mind. Motherhood is like having the door to the refrigerator that is your mind always open. When I started reading articles earlier this year with studies "proving" that motherhood does not, in fact, make you more stupid, I started laughing. I suppose it doesn't actually make you more stupid. It's just like that device used in "Harrison Bergeron," where smart people have to wear a device that sends blasts of horrible, thought-interupting noises into your head every five minutes, so you can never complete a really good thought.

But I have some time now, assuming my daughter stays asleep for another little bit, and Jason already went downstairs and I don't think he knows I'm up, so there's no one for me to take care of at the moment and maybe I can get this entry written already.

It was a really terrific book and made me very angry at several points. Fortunately, it also reminded me that, while, apparently, most men are evil, the men I know personally, like my husband and my father, are not. I guess it's a good thing I already know them, because otherwise, after reading this book, I'd be starting a radical lesbian feminist army the intention of which would be to kill all men for having proved to be not only useless but damaging for several thousand years now.

"Oh, don't be silly, Ricki. Most men are not evil." Oh, really? And I quote: ". . . income earned or controlled by mothers is more likely to be spent on children than income controlled by fathers. " Crittenden cites an article done for the Population Council and International Center for Research on Women. "Economists now believe that mothers are so much more likely than fathers to invest in children's health and education that the surest way to promote economic growth in poor countries is to educate and empower girls." There, she's citing a working paper from Lawrence H. Summers, written for the World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. (Oddly, he's the guy who stepped down as president of Harvard because he said that thing about women not being good at math. His name keeps coming up in my readings, for things other than that, and it becomes increasingly clear to me that that quote about women was taken way out of context and that's not really what he meant at all. But don't worry; he's doing okay. He's currently the director of the National Economic Council.)

I'm going to quote a couple of paragraphs in full:

"Studies conducted on five continents have found that children are distinctly better off when the mother possesses enough income and authority in the family to make investing in children a priority. As one survey put it, there is 'considerable empirical evidence, across diverse cultures and income groups,' that women have a higher propensity than men 'to spend on goods that benefit children and enhance their capacities.' (from Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Developing Countries) Even more provocative is the considerable evidence that children's welfare is enhanced not just when mothers have their 'own money' but when no man is able to challenge maternal priorities. Two researchers summarize this potentioal dynamite in the dry language of social science: 'Evidence is growing that the internal distribution of resources in female-headed households is more child-oriented than in male-headed households.' (from 'Gender, Adjustment and Macroeconomics,' in World Development 23) In other words, matriarchy, the original family arrangement, may turn out to be the optimal one after all.

Reserachers in Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, and the Indian subcontinent have all found that when mothers are educated and have some control over the family income, children are healthier, get more schooling, and will eventually have a greater earning capacity, with all that implies for economic prosperity. The sad truth is that quite a bit of income in the hands of men seems to find its way into bars and the pockets of cigarette companies, among other fleeing pleasures (from World Bank, Toward Gender Equality: The Role of Public Policy). 'It is widely perceived,' one report ("Understanding How Resources Are Allocated Within Households") notes, 'and supported by a mass of case study material that, relative to women, men spend more of the income under their own control for their own consumption. Alcohol, cigarettes, status consumer goods, even 'female companionship' are noted in the literature.' "

Crittenden follows with several stories from across the developing world indicated that in female-headed households, all members of the household eat more and eat better, and that much more of the money in female-headed households goes towards things that will benefit the whole household.

"But, Ricki," you say, "this is a developing world problem. The men in these countries do not have the sophistication to be good fathers like the ones in ours." Okay. I will admit that, again, the men I know personally do not behave like this. Jason gets just as big a rush buying Zoe toys as he does buying himself toys, and his latest toy is equally used by both of them. My father spent lavishly on his children's education. My stepfather has a few spendy hobbies but we were all well-nourished and well-educated. Even my uncle, who has no children of his own and, if he wanted to, could spend all his money on toys and pleasures for himself, instead invests in his extended family. The children of his brother and his cousin benefit from his money.

But increasingly I see that my own family is the exception, not the rule.

It was hard for me to decide which chapter pissed me off the most, the chapter I quoted above about the degree to which money in a female-controlled household was allocated to the household whereas money in a male-controlled household was allocated to the head male, or the one about child support in this country. Which, it seems, men don't want to pay. For instance, she tells the story of the changing of the law in 1992 in California so that, basically, mothers would be awarded more in child support. And men protested. Actually, men's second wives protested, which I guess is understandable, but the men stood around doing nothing. Except, you know, not paying up. And it's not just California, it's everywhere. Men apparently do everything they can to lower their child support payments and to pay as little as the can get away with, legally, and then, when that fails, to simply not pay. And I just don't know how men justify this to themselves. I know in their heads, the money is not going to their children, but to their ex-wives, who, by virtue of not sleeping with them anymore (or possibly more legitimate reasons than that) are heinous bitches who don't deserve it. But, dude, that kind of emotional reaction should be what you work to tamp down because you know deep in your heart that your CHILDREN, of whom you are the FATHER, need your financial support and frankly, deserve to be living the same lifestyle you are. But it's not just that vaguely shameful emotional reaction that, as adults, they work to suppress; it's the basis of entire political movements. Men - even wealthy men who can easily afford to pay for their children - ORGANIZE POLITICALLY in order to not pay for their children. It's so disgusting I can't handle it. (Of course, I do know men like this, who I will not mention here, because it's not nice. But fortunately, the men most directly concerned with my life are not like this.)

One of the more interesting stories related to this was a story in which an economics professor was asked to be an expert witness for a divorce case for a lower-middle-class family, and turned over to her class the assignment of figuring out how to fairly allocate resources after the divorce. One thing they learned is that, even if resources are fairly allocated, everyone's standard of living drops rather dramatically. They decided that everyone should have the same standard of living post-divorce, and that to make that happen, the husband would have to turn over 3/5 of his income to his ex-wife and THEIR four children. And the point, I believe, is not so much that the husband and wife should share the financial burden of a divorce equally (which, without children, is debatable - and I mean sincerely that I can see both sides of an argument about that) but that the CHILDREN should not suffer disproportionately financially when they will already be suffering in other ways. The students were shocked to learn that all their economic wrangling over who should get what was for naught - the court decided that the husband should get to keep most of his income and that the mother who was being left with sole custody of FOUR CHILDREN, including an infant, could get by on $15,000 a year. It's one of those cases where what you learned in kindergarten about fairness is more useful and morally supportable than how adults who run things do it.

Which brings me to the next point. Not only are men evil, but the government is evil, too. The total lack of support for the job of taking care of children is astounding. It's almost overwhelming to get into a rant about it now, but seriously. Judges routinely sneer at stay-at-home moms in divorce cases, arguing that they should simply get jobs, but a) employers don't like looking at "blanks" in your resume caused by you doing the work of motherhood, and b) there's no or limited government-sponsored, affordable child care. Unless you're in the military. And I don't want to be the kind of person who's all, "Why do our troops deserve this kind of support but not the rest of us," because I think that if you volunteer to be in the military, to train your body the way they do, to put yourself in physical danger the way they do, and to put your life in the hands of the government, letting them tell you where to live and for how long and what use your skills will be put to, then the government damn well better make the deal as sweet as possible for you. I'm all for extra goodies for military personnel. But I bring up the military's excellent day care system because it proves that it's doable - training day care workers and subsidizing day care so that everyone who's able and wants to work in fields other than child care can, and everyone who wants to work in the field of child care can be well-trained and reasonably paid. It can happen; that it doesn't happen in the non-military world is evidence that the government doesn't really give a shit about children. Or mothers.

Reading about France and Sweden really made me sick. In France you get a YEAR of paid leave. And if you're a single mother, you get all kinds of subsidies for nannies and stuff. AND government-sponsored FREE day care starts when the kid is THREE. In Sweden, the workday is being cut back to resemble the school day, and both mothers and fathers get A FULL YEAR. PAID. They live in this dreamland. It's unbelievable. And, yes, I know they pay a lot of taxes. It doesn't matter. It's so worth it. My husband had to argue with his company for them to allow him to take ONE UNPAID DAY (in addition to five paid days) to stay home with me. "We really frown on you taking unpaid vacation time," they said. "Unless it's for something really important." "The birth of my first child?" he said. "Well . . . if you must, you must." Honestly.

All of this really made me want to do something. Start a political organization. I mean, I already want to; I just don't know how. But I'm still stuck on this idea of, like, a Real Family Values coalition, which would fight for things like government-subsidized day care, and enforcement of child support payments and equity in divorce, and all the other things I like, like more playgrounds and gay marriage and stuff. How do I do this?

Push-Ups

2010-04-15T07:15:00.002-05:00

I still cannot do a push-up. Actually, now it's worse. Before I could maybe manage one or two. Now I really cannot do a push-up.

And the thing is, it's not even a strength issue. That is, it is a strength issue, but before we can even get to strength we have to deal with my total lack of propioception (Jason taught me that word. It means an awareness of one's own body in space. He claims all species have it. I claim I do not.) and coordination. So by the time I've figured out if my legs are properly aligned and my back is straight and I'm trying to engage my abs and not arch and put my hands where they're supposed to be and what the hell do I do with my toes?, I've collapsed.

A lot of my workout problems come down to coordination. Here's what happened. I was disgusted with myself yesterday because all week I have promised myself I would accomplish something during the day, then we go downstairs and I make us eggs, and then I turn on the TV and watch endless episodes of My Name is Earl off the Netflix Instant Queue and nothing happens. So I made a new daily schedule, which included me waking up with Jason's alarm at 5:30 to go do an elliptical workout.

I did not wake up at 5:30. Jason claims he tried to wake me. I have no memory of this. Instead I woke up at 5:50, when he did, and attempted to get downstairs, but he waylaid me with concerns about the time and my hearing Zoe, and then Zoe woke up and needed a feeding in order to go back to sleep (because I am still f-ing breastfeeding this child), so by the time that was done it was, like, 6:05. So I decided that I would see if Netflix Instant Queue had any workout videos and do one in the library.

Well, surprisingly, the Netflix Instant Queue workout video availability is pretty limited. I did not expect that, because really, wouldn't you think it would take no skin off of anyone's back to offer the workout video this way? I mean, really, Neena and Veena - it would kill you? So I chose the Crunch Boot Camp something or other from the limited menu. And although not too many of the exercises were too difficult for me strength-wise (I mean, difficult enough that the were a workout, but not so difficult that I couldn't do them), they were all too difficult for me coordination-wise. And these moves should not be difficult. I mean, there was marching. Okay, I can march. But then there was marching to the side. Ooh, tricky. And then you march to the side and then forward and back. Oh, no. I can't handle that many instructions. I get confused.

And it doesn't help that I still don't know left from right.

More Thoughts on TV

2010-04-06T19:30:00.002-05:00

As an avid watcher of such silly programming as "Parenthood" and "10 Things I Hate About You" - and yes, I am referring to the television shows and not the movies on which they are based - I have to ask a question. How have we decided, as a culture, that the natural and acceptable reaction of a father to his teenage daughter entering the world of dating is that of a jealous boyfriend? Why do we not regard that reaction as vaguely sick and problematic, or at least wholly inappropriate, instead?

As a note, we do tend to see mothers who view their sons' dating this way as wholly inappropriate and maybe a little sick. Is it that we are more judgmental about mothers? Or more judgmental about teenage girls' dating lives? Or both?

Television

2010-04-01T11:38:00.002-05:00

For my second, very important post, I would like to discuss . . . television. ("Daddy! Mote! Watch TV! George!" is something else Zoe can say.)

Anyway, Glee is coming back in April. I had a wishlist all worked out in my head but from what I hear, my first item might be taken care of. It was . . .

1. Idina Menzel comes on as Rachel's surrogate mother. I hear that she's actually coming on, and that's probably the role she's playing. I mean, I try not to read spoilers but I hear rumors sometimes and that's one I hear. I have been rooting for this since the first episode, continuing my highly prescient abilities to predict plotlines on teen television. For example, my sister and I were rooting for a Joey-Pacey pairing before the theme song played on the first episode of Dawson's Creek. And then, when promos were running for the summer show that ran in between Dawson's Creek seasons, American something-or-other, sponsored by Coke, showing a father saying, "You can't be with him!" to his daughter, I immediately said, "Because she's your sister!" Yup, that's why he was saying it.

(On a completely separate note, I feel weird about the term "surrogate mother" if it is both the woman's egg and her womb that brought the baby into the world. I mean, in that case, isn't she just "mother" or even "biological mother"?)

So here's hoping the rest of my wish list comes true:

2. Kurt and Finn as stepbrothers! Come on, it'd be awesome! At least let us flirt with the possiblity.

3. More songs per episode. I love the show, I do. But mainly I love that my daughter loves the dance numbers. And we watch them. All the time. All 13 episodes still exist on my Tivo so we can play them whenever she says, "Watch TV! Glee!" But that means that, when an episode like Mattress has only 2 song performances (I'm not counting the song Smile that plays over the concluding montage because there's no dancing and therefore it is not interesting to my daughter), I am keeping 60 minutes of HD Tivo space for only less than five minutes of song. So what would be great for me personally is if we could have at least one song for every two commercial breaks in each episode. Thank you.

And since you're doing this for me personally, I'd like more of those songs to be from musicals, or rock classics, or, you know, songs I know. Thanks.

4. Pick a writing team and go with it. You can't have both the sappy, over-emotional stuff and the funny bulimia pamphlets. You need a tone. So I say you choose the funny team and ditch the melodramatic one. Like, the show is great when we've got Emma Pillsbury telling Rachel Berry that her lack of gag reflex will turn out to be a gift. The show is not great when Sue Sylvester has a Down's Syndrome-having sister. And actually, while I mean that as a synechdoche, I actually have major problems with that particular character development. I mean, aside from being annoyingly sappy, which is the writing team I think they should ditch, it was a bad choice. The brilliance of Sue as a character is her over-the-top evilness. But she only works as a cartoon villain type. If she's human, capable of sympathy, capable of taking good care of her Down's Syndrome-having sister in a loving manner, then the horrible things she says to Quinn about her pregnancy, to Will about his failures, etc., etc., come from a human and therefore sound like horrible things to say, rather than hysterical things to hear.

5. Keep the writing tight. One moment that's been sticking in my craw is when Kurt, initially excited by the idea of a makeover, refuses to work on Rachel because . . . she dresses badly? Who else would you do a makeover on?

6. No more episodes in which the kids start off feeling like losers because they're in Glee Club, and then end up recommitting to Glee Club because it means so much to them. If they already figured that out last episode, we won't really be charmed by them doing it again in the next episode.

7. On the other hand, we could use a little more characterization for the minor characters. That episode where the football players chose Glee over football? Made no sense. We have no idea why they would. But Finn chose football. Even though he had chosen Glee in the two episodes prior. Which speaks to number 5. But I'd like to hear just a little bit more about Brittany, Santana, and the two football players whose names I don't know. Like, I'd like to know their names.

8. It would be awesome if Rachel and Quinn joined forces for some reason.

And that is all I have to say about Glee.

But I'd like to say a few words about Lost.

I don't know where it's all going. I don't. But it seems to me that, just as the show asked me to believe Dr. Jack Shepherd was the most awesome awesome to ever awesome (which I didn't and still don't), the show is now asking me to accept its dichotomy of Jacob=Good and Esau=Bad. But didn't Jacob, through Richard and Ben, arrange for the genocide of the Dharma Initiative? Maybe the show will do a good job of accounting for this. I hope so.

And that is all I have to say about TV.

Bragging

2010-04-01T10:58:00.002-05:00

Today will be a day of many posts, if Zoe stays asleep a little bit longer.

First, and most important, babycenter.com claims that Zoe should be between 10-50 vocabulary words as of this week. Haha! She surpassed the 50-word mark months ago. I can't even count the number of words she's got now, but it's got to be over 100. Plus, she strings words together. "Thank you, Mama," or "Thank you, Daddy," or whomsoever deserves thanks. "No, uppie down!" "Come on!" "Hang on!" "I see water!" And so on. My baby is a genius!

Breast-Feeding

2010-03-12T11:44:00.002-06:00

God, I want to stop breast-feeding.

I cannot stop breast-feeding.

She's almost 19 months old, for fuck's sake. When people hear I'm still breast-feeding, their reaction has gone from "Good for you!" to ". . . Really? Still?"

I have not really developed another way to get her to sleep, though. I know that's bad. I know that, starting at about four months old, I was supposed to start putting her down in her crib (hah!) when she just looked drowsy so that she would learn to fall asleep on her own. I did not. Bad Mommy.

She bites me. She does it for fun. She clamps her teeth down on my breast and then pulls my nipple through them. When I cry out in pain, she laughs. I can't take it any more.

But she loves breast-feeding! She hums! She looks deep into my eyes. She says "Mama" in this sweet, grateful little voice. She just looks so damn satisfied doing it. How can I take it away from her?

What am I, supposed to do this forever? SHE'S 19 MONTHS OLD!

But she's doing so well! She's so strong, and so smart, and so happy! What if this is all due to the fact that I still breastfeed her and let her sleep in my bed? What if, when I stop, she just shuts down?

That's ridiculous. Also, this is ruining my life. I can't be separated from her for that long, because she might need to latch on. We can't go out at night. I can't get up early to work out; who knows when she'll need a breast-feeding?

She bites me. And she pinches me. And she doesn't eat much of anything else because she knows she's just going to get breast milk so why should she? I must stop doing this.

I can't stop doing this.

I don't know what to do.

BOOKS ZOE OWNS

2010-02-21T14:58:00.001-06:00

Zoe’s books (alphabetical by author or illustrator or publisher where appropriate)

A Little Golden Book (publisher) -

My First Book of the Planets

Old Mother Goose and Other Nursery Rhymes

American Girl (publisher) -

The Samantha Series

Barefoot Books (publisher) -

The Faerie’s Gift, told by Tanya Robyn Batt and illustrated by Nicoletta Ceccoli

Baby’s First Book by Clare Beaton

One Moose, Twenty Mice by Clare Beaton

Playtime Rhymes for Little People by Clare Beaton

Zoe and Her Zebra by Clare Beaton

I Spy the Sun in the Sky by Stella Blackstone, illustrated by Nicoletta Ceccoli

The Barefoot Book of Fairy Tales, told by Malachy Doyle and illustrated by Nicoletta Ceccoli

The Adventures of Odysseus, told by Hugh Lupton and Daniel Morden, illustrated by Christina Balit

Cleo and Caspar by Caroline Mockford

Cleo the Cat by Caroline Mockford

Cleo’s Alphabet Book by Caroline Mockford

Cleo’s Color Book by Caroline Mockford

Cleo’s Counting Book by Caroline Mockford

Come Here, Cleo! by Caroline Mockford

What’s This? A Seed’s Story by Caroline Mockford

The Barefoot Book of Classic Poems, illustrated by Jackie Morris

Shakespeare’s Storybook: Folk Tales that Inspired the Bard, told by Patrick Ryan and James Mayhew

The Story of Divaali told by Jatinder Verma and illustrated by Nilesh Mistry

Graeme Base -

Animalia

Ludwig Bemelmans -

Madeline

Stan and Jan Berenstain -

The Berenstain Bears books (all of them - thanks, Lisa!)

Stella Blackstone -

Bear in a Square

Bob Books Pals from Scholastic (publisher) -

Bump!

Cat and Mouse

Max and the Tom Cats

Willy’s Wish

Sandra Boynton -

Belly Button Book!

The Going to Bed Book

Let’s Dance, Little Pookie!

Philadelphia Chickens Book & CD

Sandra Boynton’s Greatest Hits, Volume 1, which includes the following titles:

A to Z

Blue Hat, Green Hat

Doggies

Moo, Baa, La La La!

Sandra Boynton’s Greatest Hits, Volume 2, which includes the following titles:

But Not the Hippopotamus

The Going to Bed Book

Horns to Toes and In Between

Opposites

Snuggle Puppy

What’s Wrong, Little Pookie?

Jan Brett -

On Noah’s Ark

Marcia Brown -

Stone Soup

Margaret Wise Brown -

Goodnight, Moon

The Runaway Bunny

The Important Book

Tricia Brown -

The City by the Bay

Eric Carle (illustrator, usually author) -

Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?

Polar Bear, Polar Bear, What Do You Hear?

The Very Busy Spider

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

Tomie dePaola -

Strega Nona

Rosie Dickins -

The Story of Rome

Disney (publishers) -

Baby’s Book of Winnie the Pooh

First Look and Find: Mickey Mouse Clubhouse

The Nursery Rhymes of Winnie the Pooh

DK (publishers) -

My First Hanukkah Board Book

Barbara Douglass -

Good as New

P.D. Eastman -

Are You My Mother?

Ian Falconer -

Olivia

Matthew van Fleet -

Cat

Debra Frasier -

On the Day You Were Born

Don Freeman -

Corduroy

A Pocket for Corduroy

Adam Gamble -

Good Night, San Francisco

Jim Gill -

A Soup Opera

Phoebe Gilman -

Something for Nothing

Nikki Giovanni -

Rosa

Green Start (publisher) -

In the Garden

One Tree

Maia Haag -

My Very Own Name

Doug Hansen (illustrator) -

Mother Goose in California

Happy Baby (publishers) -

B is for Bear

Animals, Colors, Words (a trilogy)

Piers Harper -

Little Rabbit

A. Herman -

The Littlest Pumpkin

Amy Hest -

The Purple Coat

Where’s My Hug?

Hinkler Books (publisher) -

Baby’s First Sounds

Mary Ann Hoberman and Nadine Bernard Westcott (editor and illustrator) -

The Eensy-Weensy Spider

I Know an Old Woman Who Swallowed a Fly

Dave Horowitz -

Five Little Gefiltes

I Can Read! (publisher) -

Sammy the Seal

Steve Jenkins & Robin Page -

What Do You Do with a Tail Like This?

Kar-Ben (publisher) -

The Colors of My Jewish Year

Lawrence and Karen Kushner -

Where is God?

Munro Leaf -

The Story of Ferdinand

Maj Lindman -

Flicka, Ricka, Dicka and the Big Red Hen

Snipp, Snapp, Snurr and the Reindeer

Mercer Mayer -

Just Me and My Babysitter

When I Get Bigger

Sam McBratney -

Guess How Much I Love You

Nikki McClure -

Welcome

Miriam Moss -

Don’t Forget I Love You

The Snow Bear

Stuart J. Murphy -

The Greatest Gymnast of All

Noddy (character) -

Noddy’s Perfect Job (#1)

Noddy Lends a Hand (#3)

Norton (publisher) -

The Norton Anthology of Children’s Literature

Laura Numeroff -

If You Take a Mouse to the Movies

Mouse Cookies and More: A Treasury, which includes the following titles:

If You Give a Mouse a Cookie

If You Give a Pig a Pancake

If You Give a Moose a Muffin

If You Take a Mouse to School

Paragon Publishing -

The Princess and the Pea

Leslie Patricelli -

Yummy YUCKY

Marcus Pfister -

The Rainbow Fish

Picture Me (publisher) -

On Halloween

Beatrix Potter -

The Peter Rabbit & Friends Treasury, which includes the titles:

The Tale of Peter Rabbit and Benjamin Bunny

The Tale of Tom Kitten and Jemima Puddle-Duck

The Tale of Samuel Whiskers

The Tailor of Gloucester

The Tale of The Flopsy Bunnies and Mrs Tittlemouse

The Tale of Mrs Tiggy-Winkle and Mr Jeremy Fisher

The Tale of Mr Tod

The Tale of Two Bad Mice and Johnny Town-Mouse

Pudgy (publisher) -

Wheels on the Bus

Margaret and H. A. Rey -

The Complete Adventures of Curious George (a) which includes the following titles:

Curious George

Curious George Takes a Job

Curious George Rides a Bike

Curious George Gets a Metal

Curious George Flies a Kite

Curious George Learns the Alphabet

Curious George Goes to the Hospital

Curious George and the Firefighters (p)

Curious George at the Aquarium (p)

Merry Christmas, Curious George

The New Adventures of Curious George (p) which includes the following titles:

Curious George Goes to a Chocolate Factory

Curious George and the Puppies

Curious George Makes Pancakes

Curious George Feeds the Animals

Curious George Goes to a Movie

Curious George and the Hot Air Balloon

Curious George in the Snow

Curious George’s Dream

A Treasury of Curious George which includes the following titles:

Curious George Takes a Train

Curious George Visits a Toy Store

Curious George and the Dump Truck

Curious George and the Birthday Surprise

Curious George Goes Camping

Curious George Goes to a Costume Party

Curious George Visits the Library

Curious George in the Big City

Michael Rosen and Helen Oxenbury -

We’re Going on a Bear Hunt

Susan Goldman Rubin -

Counting with Wayne Thiebaud

Cynthia Rylant -

The Relatives Came

Robert Sabuda (illustrator) -

Alice in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll

The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum

David Saltzman -

The Jester Has Lost His Jingle

Sandy Eisenberg Sasso -

But God Remembered: Stories of Women from Creation to the Promised Land

What is God’s Name?

Richard Scarry -

Richard Scarry’s Best Word Book Ever

Betty Ann Schwartz -

What Makes a Rainbow?

Maurice Sendak -

In the Night Kitchen

Where the Wild Things Are

Sesame Street Book (publisher) -

Big Bird and Little Bird’s Big & Little Book

Dr. Seuss -

The Foot Book

Horton Hears a Who

Oh, the Places You’ll Go

Your Favorite Seuss, which includes the following titles:

And to Think that I Saw it on Mulberry Street

McElligot’s Pool

If I Ran the Zoo

Horton Hears a Who!

The Cat in the Hat

How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

Yertle the Turtle

Happy Birthday to You!

Green Eggs and Ham

The Sneetches

Dr. Seuss’s Sleep Book

The Lorax

Oh, the Places You’ll Go!

David Shannon -

No, David!

Shel Silverstein -

Falling Up

The Giving Tree

A Light in the Attic

The Missing Piece

The Missing Piece Meets the Big O

Where the Sidewalk Ends

Esphyr Slobodkina -

Caps for Sale

David Small -

Imogene’s Antlers

June Sobel -

Shiver Me Letters: A Pirate ABC

Mandy Stanley -

Lettice: The Flying Rabbit

Marlo Thomas, et al -

Free to Be . . . You and Me - 35th Anniversary Edition

Kay Thompson -

Eloise: the Absolutely Essential 50th Anniversary Edition

Michael O. Tunnel -

Halloween Pie

Judith Viorst -

Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Tamson Weston -

Hey, Pancakes!

David Wiesner -

The Three Pigs

Karma Wilson -

Bear Wants More

Dan Yaccarino (illustrator) -

Five Little Pumpkins

Jane Yolen and Mark Teague -

How Do Dinosaurs Eat Their Food?

How Do Dinosaurs Get Well Soon?

Amy Young -

Belinda Begins Ballet

Harry Potter

2010-02-11T08:34:00.003-06:00

(Warning: I will be discussing all seven books, so if you haven't finished them, don't keep reading.)

I just read all seven Harry Potter books for the second time. (That is to say, I have only read all seven in sequence one other time. I'm sure I've read some of the earlier books more than twice. I'm also sure I have only read 6 & 7 twice, and maybe 5, too.) Gosh, they are good books. Even now, I'm having trouble getting interested in any other books; I just want to read them all over again.

This was the first time I read the books as a parent, and that gave me one new dimension to appreciate - namely, that I really love the values portrayed in the books, and I really want Zoe and any future children to learn them. This may come as a surprise to those ultra-Christian groups who think Harry Potter is the devil, but the moral universe in the Harry Potter books is exactly the one I want for my kids. One of the ideas I like the best is the idea that your choices make you who you are, and make your life; it's not fate or destiny or anything like that. Dumbledore shows Harry over and over again that a) the Sorting Hat placed him in Gryffindor NOT because of some innately Gryffindorian traits he possesses (or at least not only because of them) but because he asks to be placed there as opposed to Slytherin. The asking, the wanting to be in the "good" house rather than the "bad" house is the key, and b) while Voldemort believed the prophecy about a boy who could defeat him, it wasn't the prophecy, but his belief in it, and the actions and reactions he set in motion by believing it, that result in a Harry Potter fully committed to Voldemort's death. Dumbledore emphasizes that Harry gets to choose the part he plays in this prophecy as well; he could easily choose not to pursue the man who murdered his parents. But he won't, and it's his choice, not the prophecy, that makes him the person who will kill Voldemort.

The other is that it all comes down to love. At first I was dismissive of this lesson, because it sounds so gooey. But the way it plays out in the books, love has very real effects, both magical and non-magical. Because Harry's mother died to save him, Harry lived. Because Harry loves his parents (even though he doesn't know them), he is, in the end, determined to vanquish Voldemort. And while Voldemort thinks he can rule through fear, he ends up losing nearly all of his followers to love. Snape leaves him because he loves Harry's mother more than he fears Voldemort. Narcissa Malfoy betrays him because she loves her son more than she fears Voldemort. Regulus Black (and I think I'm reading Kreacher's story right) loves Kreacher more than he fears the Dark Lord, so he betrays him. The only Death Eater we are shown would never betray Voldemort is the one who loves him more than she fears him - Bellatrix LeStrange. And it's not just a sort of "love is all around, all you need is love, what the world needs now is love, sweet love" message. It's that love - genuine love - is a greater motivator than just about anything else, and has more power in people's lives than anything else - and that it should be so. I definitely want my children to be motivated by love more than anything else.

But naturally there are things that are sticking in my craw a bit. The first point, which is small, is, how did Peter Pettigrew get into Gryffindor? Even before he becomes a Death Eater, he displays only Slytherian qualities, if he could be said to display any qualities at all. Until Deathly Hallows, I had written it off as, maybe he was in Slytherin but hung out with the Marauders because they were the most popular boys in school, but one of Snape's memories in DH makes it clear he was in Slytherin. How? Another of Snape's memories has Dumbledore musing that perhaps children are Sorted too early, but I don't know if I buy that, at 11, Pettigrew was more inclined to bravery or loyalty than he was at 15. (Also, a nitpick. In Book 1, Hagrid says that there wasn't a wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. At that point, he doesn't know Pettigrew went bad. But he thinks Sirius Black did.)

I also think I would have liked it if J. K. Rowling had done more to make Ginny Harry's equal and counterpart. Not that Ginny is not a strong character, but she continually has to take a back seat, both in terms of presence in the novels and in terms of participation in the action. She's still in the car, if you will, but she never gets to drive the way Ron and Hermione occasionally do. Or even read the map. I would have liked it if she did. Or if she could have been given her own car - if, instead of saying, as all heroes must say in these stories, "No, don't come with me on my quest, because if Bad Dude knows I lurve you, you'll be in danger," Harry had said, "Go to Hogwarts; your mother will flip if four of her children drop out, and anyway, you'll lead the DA there with Snape in charge and me, Ron and Hermione gone." He could have said that, and then J. K. Rowling would not have needed to change the structure of anything, and it would have sat better with me. I mean, I hate the trope of the Hero parting from is Lurve because if the Bad Guy knows . . . Like, come on. The Bad Guy always knows. Also, Ginny is in major danger regardless of her romance with Harry. Every of-age wizard in her family except for Percy is in the Order of the Phoenix, and Percy's in the ministry. She has enough targets drawn on her back; Harry's really doesn't make much of a difference. Also, Harry quite inaccurately states that Voldemort, in the form of his diary, already went after Ginny just for being his best friend's sister. I could be wrong, but I thought Malfoy gave the diary to Arthur Weasley's daughter to trip up Arthur Weasley, not to Harry Potter's best friend's sister to trip up Harry. That Tom Riddle-who-would-become-Voldemort was delighted to have Harry in his sights was incidental; it wasn't WHY Ginny was targeted. Further proving my point that Ginny already had non-Harry-related targets on her back. But I'm not blaming J. K. Rowling for that; I think it's pretty standard genre stuff that the hero has to keep his love away from him.

Finally, I am unsatisfied with the way wizards and Muggles interact. I first started being very bothered by this in Order of the Phoenix. In OP, Harry practices magic at home, even though he is a) underage, and b) in front of a Muggle, thus breaking two statutes - the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery and the International Statute of Secrecy. As he did the spell to get rid of the soul-sucking dementors, thus saving his cousin from their evil kiss, everyone assures him that he'll get off, as there is a provision in the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery for extraordinary, life-threatening circumstances. Indeed, because the Decree has "Reasonable" in the title, I'd have to imagine that their are provisions for all sorts of things. But no one mentions any provisions under the International Statute of Secrecy which could let him. And I have to wonder, given that many, many wizards and witches are apparently born to Muggles, and many wizards and witches marry Muggles, isn't there a provision in the Internation Statute of Secrecy for Muggles who obviously already know that magic is real? Like, say, a wizard's cousin, who was there when the owl delivered him his Hogwarts letter? Are we to believe that, had Voldemort not arisen, thus necessitating their departure for Australia, when Hermione came of age, she would not have been allowed to do magic in her parents' house? If a person marries a Muggle, can they not do magic in front of their spouse? That doesn't make any sense. And yet no one mentions it.

But this led me to further speculation about Muggle and wizard interaction. On the one hand, we see adult wizards and witches totally ill-equipped to occupy Muggle space. They don't know how to dress like Muggles; they don't know how to use Muggle money; they can't cope with simple Muggle electronics. Furthermore, the education system for wizards - Hogwarts - does not prepare witches and wizards for jobs or associations outside the wizard world. They don't take Economics or English Literature. They take Charms and Potions. (Well, I'm sure those skilled at Potions could find a market for their skills in the Muggle world. But then they'd be breaking the International Statute of Secrecy.) This would suggest a total break between the Muggle world and the wizard world.

And yet. Hogsmeade is the only all-wizard community in England. Given the behavior suggesting such a total break, wouldn't all wizards want to live in all-wizard communities? This is allegedly addressed by the claim in Deathly Hallows that a lot of towns attract a large number of wizards, like Godric's Hollow. And things happen like wizard homes being concealed from Muggle vision in these areas. But that doesn't really satisfy me. I mean, what do the wizards do if they want to pick up some groceries? And where do they pick up wizarding things like Chocolate frogs and extra eye of newt? Surely they don't travel from all over England to go to Diagon Alley every week? Even with Apparation (which the whole family can't do anyway) that's kind of a pain in the ass.

Furthermore, given how many wizards come from Muggle families or marry Muggles, how can so many of them remain so ignorant of the basics of Muggle life? Don't they have to deal with their in-laws? Like, let's assume that Hermione brought her parents back from Australia after Voldemort was gone and restored their memories and everything. Doesn't Ron therefore hang out with her parents a lot? Don't the senior Weasleys see their in-laws? And doesn't this happen with frequency across the wizarding world? Not all families are the Blacks, blasting people off their family trees for associating with Muggles.

And given that this must happen all the time, how could the adults remain in such a fog about Muggle ways, and Muggle dressing, etc.? It doesn't really fit.

But then taking the near-total separation of wizard and Muggle communities as a given, where do wizards and/or witches even meet Muggles to marry?

I understand how these inconsistencies functioned in the story. Placing wizards in non-wizard communities gives that sense of this magical universe existing right within the regular one - it could be your neighbor! It could be you! And it allows J. K. Rowling to create this magical world as part of our world, rather than as a whole separate universe. And then all the adult wizards and witches not knowing how to operate in the Muggle world is funny. It's especially funny given the targeted age range of the books - it's all stuff that the child readers of this series know how to do perfectly well. Nothing is funnier to a certain age group than knowing better than grown-ups. So fine. But it's still bugging me.

I also wish she'd done a little more with the epilogue. What happens to Harry after he defeats Voldemort? Does he become an Auror? Does he ever become Minister of Magic? Does Dolores Umbridge get fired? What happens to the Ministry? Do the laws making life hard for werewolves, etc., get repealed? Is the banking still done with goblins? How does Mrs. Weasley do after losing one son and gaining one back? How does George do? Who raises Teddy? Where do they all live and what do they all do for a living? I want so much more. But I guess she couldn't write a whole extra novel. It just would have been nice to see how some of the themes of the story played out, vis a vis how the Ministry handled the things it handled badly before the return of Voldemort.

Bill Maher

2010-02-09T10:51:00.002-06:00

I find this man just infuriating. I think the problem is that I like a good 85% of what he has to say - but the other 15% is just maddening. I Tivo'd one of his comedy specials and I know it's very old news and he's done plenty of other things to make me mad since then, but my goodness did this special infuriate me.

And it does hurt the most that I like most of the stuff he does. For this particular comedy special, he (or his team) created a series of posters that were designed to look like the government posters created around World War II, but which pertain to the current (and my God, it's still the current war seven years after this special) war. Like a poster of a giant SUV sporting American flags with the tag line, "Empty gestures don't win wars!" It's part of his rant about how the government never really asked us to do anything for this war the way they did around WWII, and his rant about how driving these gas guzzlers funds terrorism more than, say, marijuana.

I mean, he's in the middle of this perfectly agreeable rant about why on earth is lying about who gave you a blow job worse than any other lie a president could make, which is obviously very old news and was even in 2003 but with which I heartily agree, but then he has to say, "It just backs up my case that this is a feminized country, because obviously the worst thing anyone can ever do in America is get a blow job!" Excuse me?! Excuse me?! Why does this have to become about "feminized"? And, fuck you very much, major feminist organizations, like NOW, stood by Clinton during the sex scandals. They actually took heat for this from those conservative women who belong to groups that sound like they might be feminist for 30 seconds until you read what they actually believe in. Whereas most of the people screaming for Clinton's resignation were men. Who, as it has turned out, were getting plenty of their own illicit blow jobs.

And then he gets even worse. He blames women for terrorism because women, all of them, insist on diamonds, knowing that a) terrorists use them to launder money, and b) terrible things happen surrounding the mining of diamonds in Africa. He says, and I quote, "I know women hate to hear that because women think about diamonds the way men think about sex, the way leeches think about blood." Nice. Very nice. It is shocking to me that Bill Maher gets women to have sex with him at all. He says he told a woman friend about the atrocities committed in the name of mining diamonds, who he describes as "only about the nicest person I've ever met, but she is a woman." I hope that this woman is no longer friends with him.

He starts talking about how you can say things about men that you can't say about women, like if you go on a daytime talk show, you can say "Women are really smarter than men," and you'll get applause, but you can't say "Men are smarter than women." But he says, "I know it's the national law here in America that women are more evolved than men, but if that's true, then how come they're still so impressed by shiny objects?" Can you imagine saying that about another group in America?

He claims that he realizes that not all women fit his description of feminine, but then goes on to say, "For lack of a better term, I would say that feminine values are now the values of America. Sensitivity is more important than truth. Feelings are more important than facts. Commitment is more important than individuality. Children are more important than people. Safety is more important than fun!" And I'd like to take these items one by one.

When he says "Sensitivity is more important than truth," he's, I believe, referring to "political correctness" and not calling a spade a spade because it's not "polite," and while that was a terrific point to make back in, oh, 1996, I feel that the anti-pcers - him included - have turned into assholes. They don't want to call a spade a spade, they want to call a spade a fucking retarded n-word kyke pussy spade, and then they want to complain that anyone who's offended is too sensitive and is also - while not at all throwing them in jail or in anyway excercising governmental power over them - destroying their freedom of speech. And yes, being sensitive is more worthy a value than being an asshole.

"Feelings are more important than facts." When I think of 2003, and who was making feelings more important than facts, I think of the president and the president's administration, nearly all of whom were men. And their feelings were, FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, BILL, I'M NOT ANTI-MAN JUST BECAUSE I'M TALKING ABOUT THEM THIS WAY, masculine feelings - revenge, violence, wanting to punch something.

"Commitment is more important than individuality"? Since when? I don't know what the fuck he's talking about here; I think this country could use a good dose of not being quite so obsessed with individuality.

"Children are more important than people" is quite a lot to unpack. First of all, why, in Bill Maher's view, and in many (single, childless) men's views, are children only women's concern? Don't you people have something to do with children? And if you continue to posit that children are only women's concerns, then don't talk to me about a father's right not to have his baby aborted, or whatever the hell else father's rights groups are up in arms about. Until you stop assigning "children" to "women," STFU. Then, I guess a lot of people feel that a lot of American society is designed around children, and unfairly. Look at our movies, look at what can and can't be shown or said on television, blah blah blah. And I believe, in this regard, he's got a point. But when you look at other measures - like that old people can get single-payer, government sponsored health care and social security and children can't - we're not very child-centered at all. And I think paying for health care and keeping people out of poverty is more significant than where and when curses can be said on television.

I have nothing on "Safety is more important than fun!" I aim to be a Free Range Parent; I agree with him on that score. But I hate agreeing with him; it just makes me mad!

And he can't make this distinction between actual women and "feminine values" when he immediately afterwards goes into a rant about wives and women and how awful it is to be a woman. He claims that, as the last unmarried man among his friends, their wives don't want them hanging out with him because he's "like an escaped slave. I bring news of freedom." Like, fuck you very much, being a married MAN is exactly like being a slave. He makes fun of the notion that married men live longer, essentially saying, sure, they live long lives of quiet desperation. But married men don't only live longer than single men, they do better in all realms of physical and mental health. Oddly enough, the same is not true for women; married women only do better than single women healthwise if they describe themselves as happily married. And a lot fewer women describe themselves as happily married than men.

Then he picks up on examples of oppressed men that I think are actually about oppressed women. Like hot, smart women in sitcoms being married to dumb schlubs. Now, I have long wondered why men are not more offended by being depicted as dumb schlubs all the time, and apparently, Bill Maher is, and fine. But what does it say about society that hot, smart women can't do any better than dumb schlubs? Or that hot, smart women still need a marriage so badly, in order to be considered socially acceptable, that they are willing to marry dumb schlubs? Or that schlubby, fat men can work in show business with no problem, they can even get their own sitcoms, but women had better be earth-shatteringly gorgeous if they want to show their faces on any screen anywhere?

Then he has the nerve to suggest that women wouldn't get breast implants if they stopped making men apologize for being men. That makes no sense at all. He says men don't care about big boobs, they just care about new sex partners. He points out that Hugh Grant had Elizabeth Hurley at home but still went to a less attractive prostitute. I think he's missing something. Women aren't looking to be paid $50 to fuck Hugh Grant in the backseat of a car. Women - the kind of women who are likely to get breast implants, anyway - are looking to marry Hugh Grant. But the whole thing is offensive and nonsensical either way.

He makes a big joke of a couples counselor on a daytime talk show suggesting exploring "mutual fantasties." He claims women and men have no mutual fantasies. "Yours bore us, and ours offend you." I begin to suspect that Bill Maher a) doesn't actually know a lot of women, and b) doesn't have very good sex.

But the thing that really kills me is that he conflates "women getting their egos stroked on daytime tv" with "women having actual power." Here's how you know you have actual power - no one needs to pat your back and say you're really the smarter one on daytime television. Sure, it might be a popular, if trite and untrue, statement to say "If women ran the world, there wouldn't be any wars." But if women actually ran the world, you wouldn't need to say that. It's only because women continue to really, really not run the world that there's any call for saying that.

And for those of you who only give a shit when I'm writing about Zoe, I will have you know that she agrees with this entire post, although she does not feel that Bill Maher's other 85% is funny enough to watch, when we could be watching babies dance to "Single Ladies" on You Tube instead.

Just Say "No"?

2010-02-04T09:44:00.003-06:00

This got me thinking this week. (Warning: Rambling to follow.) Now, I'm not saying I'm in favor of high heels for babies, partially because, ew, wrong, and partially because, knowing I have roughly the same coordination as a toddler, and knowing how well I walk in heels, I foresee disaster. But I feel like there's this attitude in the media I consume which responds to just about all of this nonsense with, "But where are the parents? Why can't they just say no?" And I notice that, for the most part, the people writing these posts are not themselves parents.

Now, I don't want to come across as one of those, "Say no to my precious princess? Never!" parents (although she's nearly 18 months old, still breastfeeding, and still sleeping in my f-ing bed, so I clearly do have a problem saying no to my precious princess). But I don't think these writers appreciate just how difficult saying no all the time is.

There are thousands of things that reasonable parents don't want their kids to have that are being marketed, aggressively, to children. Baby high heels. Makeovers for seven-year-olds. Thongs in size 2T. "Breakfast" "cereals" that are basically globs of high-fructose corn syrup held together with sawdust. Staying tuned for the next 22-minute advertisement for a line of licensed-character products. BRATZ dolls. Video games the point of which is killing women dressed like BRATZ dolls. Disney princesses.* $130 blue jeans as worn by Taylor Swift or some such person. And on and on and on. And the people marketing these things have spent billions of dollars insuring that your precious princes and princesses will not shut up about these products for more than 20 seconds a day. They call it the "Nag Factor"; it's been a wildly successful marketing ploy.

You, as a parent, do not have billions of dollars to promote your agenda of steamed broccoli and nice, non-gender-specific, developementally oriented wooden toys from Sweden. You also don't want your entire relationship with your kids to be defined by the word "No." That may sound self-serving, but all of the parenting stuff I've been reading recently suggests that this is true for all ages. At the toddler stage, you are advised to design your home environment so that you don't have to say "No" all the time, because your child will tune it out if it's all they ever hear, and also to try to only say "No" if the thing they're doing is actually dangerous, as opposed to just annoying or messy. With older children, the advise to pick your battles and respect your kids' choices to the extent possible is pretty prevalent right now. Furthermore, it's more than just self-serving to not have a constant litany of "No" and "But Mo-om!" in your house. It develops trust and it means your kids are more likely to listen to you when you really, really need them to. Also, it's one thing to say, "No, I won't be buying you the toy you want above all others" on an average Tuesday, but every parent wants to see that look of joy and delight on Christmas morning, a Chanukah evening, or a birthday that they can produce by getting their child what they wanted most in their dearest, deepest heart.

So you might, as a parent, decide that high heels are fine for your three-year-old, just to keep the peace, even though you think it's atrocious that a three-year-old should be taught to strive for that particular image. But one of the posters said that this is one area where the government should not shoulder the responsibilities that fairly belong to the parents, and I think that's not necessarily the right way to think about this. I mean, yes, if toddler high heels were the only objectionable thing being advertised, then fine, leave the burden on the parents. But it's not, not by a long shot, and there are things governments can do to ease the burden of saying "No" all the time on parents. Like not allowing for the kind of aggressive marketing aimed at children. They got rid of Joe Camel; can't they get rid of other stuff, as well? Lucky Charms aren't much better for your children than cigarettes. And there's a lot more that I'm sure can be done to control the kinds of messages and products being marketed to children, and that the government can do, and indeed, only the government can do.

It might not be a bad idea for parents to do something, too, but I have a feeling that their would be too much to hope that any parents' group wouldn't fracture for lack of agreement about what, exactly, is bad for children. Like, there's a parents' group that evidently got a warning label put on the original Sesame Street DVDs stating that these were not for children because it depicted children, like, biking around their neighborhoods unsupervised and such. I would clearly not agree with that. Or I'm sure there would be parents' groups that frowned on frank discussions of sex in media aimed at the tween set. I wouldn't. But plenty of parents I'm sure would be fine with Lucky Charms, and I sometimes feel like a wingnut with my objection to Grand Theft Auto. You'd have to have several associations of parents, each with their own set of problems with children's stuff, giving their various certifications and boycotts. I don't know how that would work, really. But it's a thought.

Okay, here's where I'm going to ramble a bit, so if you prefer more coherent posts, stop reading now. First of all, with the sexualization of kids at younger and younger ages. I buy some of Zoe's clothes at Gymboree, which makes pretty high-quality and cute stuff for children.** But I've had a big problem with how very gendered their clothing is, even the stuff for newborns. And it's one thing to have, you know, a monkey for the boys and a monkey with a PINK BOW for girls even for the 0-3 month set because gosh, don't you know, girls just like pink, it's nothing to do with socialization at all, but then I noticed something that really bugged me. Zoe already had a pair of shorts from the girl side, and they were pretty short, but I didn't care, I mean, she was a baby, what difference does it make? But then, we had a bit of a clothing emergency at the mall - namely, she peed all over her clothes while I was changing her. So we ran - nakey - into the Gymboree and over to their sales racks. Well, I already had most of the stuff on the girl side so I went to the boy side and got her an adorable t-shirt with an elephant on it and blue shorts. When I put the shorts on her, I realized that the boy shorts were about three inches longer than the girl shorts. And then that just struck me as wrong. Why do girls who are not even a year old yet need to show off their legs more than boys? Why can't they produce basically the same shape shorts for the same shape bodies - baby-shaped bodies? That's just weird, I'm sorry, but it is.

Second, not for nothing, but every time I read posts about the discipline parents ought to be giving children and aren't, I notice a theme. I notice that most of the people writing do not have children. And I notice that there are a lot of stories along the lines of, "If I ever behaved like that, my mother would put a stop to it so fast it would make your head spin." But I don't hear, "When my child behaved like that, I put a stop to it immediately; you never saw my children behave like that." It's easy to think of your mom as whatever it is you think moms are supposed to be, but until and unless you have children (and sometimes not even then), you don't realize that your mom had to put effort into that stance, and may remember the incidences in question in a far different light. You may remember that, that time you screamed for a cookie in the supermarket, your mother took you right out of the supermarket and sent you to your room, but what you don't remember is that she was very frustrated and upset and embarrassed by the first fifteen minutes of you shouting for that cookie, and that because she had to take you out of the store, all she had to give you for lunch the next day was a weeks-old pear and some crackers. You may not remember that, in fact, you screamed for cookies EVERY TIME you went to the supermarket, which resulted in her having to rearrange her life to go to the supermarket without you, which was enormously trying and difficult. You know, The Daily Show had a great routine recently where they were trying to figure out what Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, and Bill O'Reilly were talking about when they kept on about a purer, simpler time in America and eventually realized that these men were referring to their own childhoods. And one's own childhood is always experienced differently than the adults who are experiencing the exact same time, because duh. That is all.

Finally- and I'll keep this short because God knows it touches on everything - why are we so willing in this country to absolve the government of responsibility for everything? Oh, that's not for the government, that's for parents (and a lot falls into that category, including figuring out affordable education and health care). Oh, that's not for government, that's for corporations to police themselves on (and they do such a good job of policing themselves). Oh, that's not for the federal government, that's for the state governments, who aren't going to deal with it either. Excuse me, but what do we have a government for? The United States is not exactly fending off invasions every moment of the day; we can let the government spend money and time on something other than the military. And if the government is not there in order to use its resources - resources it has because of the very collectivity of its nature - to make the lives of its citizens better and easier, and to police the organizations (like corporations) who don't have its citizens' best interest at heart, then what exactly is government for? To give 24-hour news channels something to do?

Okay, I'll stop. God knows I could go on. And on. But I'm sure I'll have the opportunity to do so in other posts.

*My mother-in-law found a Disney-princess-themed kitchen set at a garage sale which I find hilarious because if you turn the pages in the "cookbook," you hear things like "Ariel, why don't you make that delicious apple pie the prince likes so much!" I'm serious. All else aside, why are princesses baking their own pies?

**Actually, as I was linking this, I saw their new Daisies collection and omg so cute. Clearly Zoe will be sporting some of those pieces this spring.

Rainbow Fish

2010-01-29T08:08:00.002-06:00

Zoe has the book Rainbow Fish, by Mark Pfister. It's a very popular book. I think it came out when my brother was young because I remember him having it, although I have no memory of reading it to him, possibly because I was expected to read The Lorax full time. But Zoe loves fish (just like her namesake Grandma Sally (sniff)) so she sometimes asks that it be read to her. I have to say, I sort of hate it. It's one of those Important Message books, which I don't object to on principle, although they do tend to be less fun to read than books without Important Messages. But I'm not sure I like the Message. The book has Rainbow Fish, with very shiny, pretty scales, feeling superior to the other fish and unable to make friends. When another fish asks Rainbow Fish for one of his pretty, shiny scales, Rainbow Fish says no. So no one wants to be his friend. Then he goes to the magical octopus or whoever and the magical octopus tells him to share his scales and then he'll have friends. So he gives all his scales away and then people want to be friends with him.

I understand, it's bad to feel superior to other people, especially when your only claim to superiority is not really your fault (like your looks). And I understand it's good to have friends, and it's good to share. But I feel like the underlying messages here are also, "People will only want to be your friends if you give them stuff," and, "In order to make friends, you have to give away what makes you unique." I don't really like either of those messages.

Maybe I'm nuts. This is a very popular book, and so far the only other person I know who doesn't like it is Jason, who thinks it's perfectly fine to feel superior to other people.

Clarification

2010-01-25T07:36:00.002-06:00

I just want to clarify what I said to my sister-in-law regarding same-sex marriage and the state. I do want them to get married without the approval of the government, and mainly it is for, yes, selfish and superficial reasons, like, I want to celebrate their commitment to each other now, and I want to be able to refer to her fiancee as her wife or her spouse or whatever they are going to use now instead of whenever either California or Illinois gets off its ass.

But also, I do not believe that what the state grants is the "true" marriage. She said she thinks sometimes about having a "fake" wedding, but, in my opinion, the commitment you make in front of your family, and your friends, and your God or god(s) if you believe in them, and to each other in a ceremony with meaning to you is the real marriage. The state merely agrees to register you as married for their own purposes. I am sure there are many, many human beings in the world who have signed a state marriage license whose relationship is not anywhere near as real as the one my sister-in-law and her fiancee share. In fact, I think the same-sex marriage movement should change its rhetoric from "The state won't let us get married" to "The state refuses to recognize our marriage."

I do realize that I get to feel that way - that the marriage is the "real" part and the state license is the "fake" part - because I have the extraordinary privilege of having both. I really do get that and I don't expect my sister-in-law to accept the state's lack of recognition for her relationship lying down. I also don't expect her to have a wedding ceremony because I have a different opinion than she does on this topic. I just wanted to clarify that my position is not, "Fuck marriage," and "I want to see my daughter in a twirly dress." Or at least it's not entirely that.

More Stuff I Forgot

2010-01-22T14:24:00.002-06:00

The other word she says that isn't a real word is "Yoo-wah!" which she seems to employ as a sort of war cry. I also forgot splish-splash and choo-choo on the original list. She also identifies Noddy, a British children's book character, by name.

Things Zoe Does That Are Cute

2010-01-20T13:34:00.002-06:00

First of all, I think we can add "Don't touch!" and "Thank you!" to the list. And I think we may have successfully changed "Shit" to "Shoot." Which could be a whole post in and of itself, about how I don't want to be the kind of mother who cares if my daughter uses curse words, but I also don't want to be the kind of mother that gets a reputation in the kindergarten for teaching her daughter to curse. But that's neither here nor there.

And now, for posterity . . .

Zoe makes out with me. I'm serious. She puts her mouth on mine for several seconds at a time, and sometimes moves her head back and forth. It's pretty funny.

Zoe plays "Mine!" It seemed that it would be foolish of me, when I noticed that during a play date she was grabbing things out of the other children's hands and saying, "Me!" to first teach her that it's "Mine," not "Me," and second, to engage her in a game wherein she grabs a book or something of mine and says, "Mine!" so I grab it back and say "Mine!" and we do this for a little while. But I think it was not foolish. For one thing, I did not encourage her to do this with her friends here; at that point, I instructed her to share. For another, she now almost exclusively does this as a game with me, and means to do it as a game. She sort of wants the book, but mostly she wants to grab it back and forth with me. How do I know? Because she keeps doing it - once she has the book, she again declares "Mine," and then holds it so that I can easily grab it back. And she's almost entirely stopped doing this with objects we genuinely don't want her to have, like the remote, because it doesn't produce the game - if she grabs it and says, "Mine!" we grab it back and say, "No, it isn't," and put it out of her reach.

Zoe loves her sleeping Daddy. When Daddy is asleep, Zoe climbs on top of him and gives him lots of kisses. Sometimes, she gives his arm or back or head long, gentle pats and says "Nice!" Sometimes she cuddles up into his arm and rests her head on her shoulder. Okay, so sometimes she starts smacking him and pulling at the hair on his head, arms, and legs. But the other stuff is pretty adorable.

Zoe reads like we do. She'll take a book, either one of hers or one of mine, and sit on the chair or couch, not on our laps, like a big girl, open it, and start "reading" - babbling and pointing to the words like she knows. Or she'll just silently examine the pages and flip through them carefully - even if it's one of my books, with no pictures. If she does this in bed, she'll also pull the covers up over her legs and make herself extra-comfy against the pillows.

Zoe blows raspberries on our bellies. She's been doing this for a long time now, maybe eight or nine months. It's even cuter now because she says "Belly!" and then does it.

Zoe announces when she's going to hurt me. You may have read in my previous post that she says "Oof" and "Ow." It should be noted that she does not say these things when she is hurt. She does these things when she's about to hurt me. She says "Ow!" when she's about to pinch me or pull my hair, and "Oof" when she's about to jump on top of me. Let it never be said the girl doesn't understand context.

Zoe likes to help. As I said before, she likes to wipe up her messes. She also likes to sweep and swiffer (but not vacuum, understandably). And she likes to do things for us that we ordinarily do for her. Like brush our teeth or our hair. Or feed us. I can barely get through a meal these days without her grabbing my fork and directing my food into my mouth. Oh, and she also helps make the bed by tucking the sheets in. And, as many of you know, she helped me cook for Thanksgiving by throwing spinach in the pot and then stirring it with the wooden spoon. She also helpfully shouts "No!" and "Down!" at Beaches.

Zoe likes to call her "Uh Mo." This whole week, she's been picking up the phone, handing it to us, and demanding "Uh Mo." Today when we called him, she then snatched the phone from me and walked around with it up to her ear, telling him very important things that, sadly, only she understands.

Zoe remembers. Yesterday when we went to the doctor's office, she started screaming the minute we entered the room. Then again when Jay (the guy who gives the shots) entered the room. It was awful. But, less awfully and more adorably, last week at Hebrew School, we went outside to say hello to Dr. Levin, who is the mother of one of my kids. While we were out there, a doggie passed by and Zoe got very excited and made many comments about the presence of a doggie. Later, when we went out to walk to our car, we passed by the same spot, where there was no longer a doggie, but she pointed to the spot and said "Doggie!" and went through her usual panting and woofing routine.

Well, that's just a smattering of adorable things she does. I'll try to keep updating this.

And Another!

2010-01-19T15:37:00.001-06:00

I forgot the fake-sleeping sound she makes that I can't possibly transcribe but you all know what I mean - the fake light snoring you make to "pretend" you're asleep.

Already an Addenda!

2010-01-19T15:17:00.002-06:00

I forgot about "Whee!" and "A-Boom!"

Also, I think she says "Swish!" which is what I say when I successfully throw her diaper into the garbage can in the garage, and "Catch!" I'm not positive about "Catch!" because I don't recall that either Jason or I say it to her much, but she is using it in the appropriate context. That is, she says it when she's about to throw something at one of us. So that counts, right?

Does it count if she makes the same sound in the same context, even it it's not a word we recognize? Like, she hands me a book and says, "En." It's always very clear, but I don't know what it means, except that clearly it means, "Read me this book now." But none of those words sound like "En," and she knows the word "book."

Words Zoe says (as of 1/18)

2010-01-18T15:35:00.003-06:00

Words Zoe says (1/16/2010)

Family:

Mama

Daddy

Grandma

Papa

Beaches

Uncle Mark (Uh Mo)

Miscellaneous:

Yes

Peekaboo

booboo

Hi/Hey

Bye

Uh-oh

Uppie

Wow/Whoa

Yay

Oof

Ta-da!

(sniff) (for a flower)

Mis! (Kiss)

One-two

Animal/Sounds:

Doggie

(pant)

Woof-woof

Millie (cat)

Meow

Sssnake

Hoppy (What a bunny does)

quack-quack

neigh

Mouse

Owl

Whoo (sound an owl makes)

Moo (sound a cow makes)

Hippo

Bear

ooh-ooh ah-ah (monkey)

Fish

Other:

Baby

Oh! (cuddling a baby)

Nice

Light

Shit

Empty

Book

Down (dog command)

What’s/Who’s this?

Mine

See?

Manny

Body Parts/Clothes:

Shoe

Hat

Belly

Eye

Nose

Mouth

Elbow

Toe

Ear

Watch

Elbow

Toe

Breast

Food:

Eggs

Juice

Apple

Banana

A Date (with a restaurant and a movie review)

2010-01-10T18:32:00.003-06:00

Jason and I went on a date yesterday! Hooray!

Jason found it odd and disconcerting to be out without Zoe. I found it delightful. I of course love her to death and enjoy every moment we spend together, yadda yadda yadda. But it was nice to eat at a restaurant without picking up forks off of the floor one dozen times, or begging her to stay in her high chair and then relenting and eating most of my meal with her on my lap, while Jason shovels down his food so that he can take her. And it was nice to sit and watch a whole movie, beginning to end, in the dark, cuddling with Jason and no one else.

We ate at a new restaurant called The Lucky Monk, the concept of which is home-brewed Trappist-monk-style beers and burgers. I thought it was pretty good. You can choose a lot of different toppings for your burgers. I myself enjoy a fried egg on top of my burger. And we got white truffle-parmesan fries. Delicious. The "thin pour" was very reasonably priced and quite a lot of beer for the price and name.

Avatar was exactly what I expected. It looked absolutely breathtaking. The plot was utterly forgetable. The one pleasant surprise was that I though Giovanni Ribisi did a really excellent job with his corporate asshole role. But I mainly remember him as Phoebe's brother on Friends; maybe his performance wasn't a surprise to people who have seen a lot more of his movies.

I wish I had more to say on these topics but it was just a very pleasant time. Burgers, beer, big-budget movie. A good date!

A Little of This, A Little of That

2010-01-07T18:11:00.002-06:00

First of all, I have made a comprehensive list of all the books Zoe already has. As soon as I figure out how to make that widely available, either through here or through our Mobile Me gallery, I will.

Second of all, I want to reassure the none of you who read my last post about not being an adequate girl that I feel a little better now. The hairdresser I went to the other day said she can't blow out her own hair either. So I feel better about my girl skills, although not so confident in her hairdressing skills.

And finally, while I was doing some cleaning up, I saw that I had started a blog when I started trying to get pregnant and there were some interesting posts in there, at least to me, so I'm republishing them here:

December 7, 2007:

I'm trying to get pregnant. I feel like that should start a blog wherein I am 46, not 26, and there's something more to "trying" than "having sex with my husband." But none of that is true. At this point, there's no reason to suspect that the traditional method of trying to get pregnant won't work. Ptooie. (For those of you who are not Jewish, I just spit on my hand to ward off the evil eye.)

This is my second month of trying. Last month, I was absolutely convinced that I'd get pregnant right away. I woke up every morning for a week feeling very hot and slightly nauseous. It meant nothing. In fact, I was probably getting excited about non-existent symptoms. My period was due the day before Thanksgiving, which seemed so exciting to me, to be able to tell my family over Thanksgiving weekend. When it didn't happen, I was more upset than I really should have been. Most people don't get pregnant their first month. So I'm trying not to get all excited this month.

This is also the end of my first quarter of my last year as a grad student. I attend UChicago's Divinity School, and I'll be finishing my MA in June. And then I'm done. I'm not applying to the Ph.d program. I'm simultaneously massively relieved by this, and a little bit edgy.

Not applying for the Ph.d program means that this year, I can be supremely relaxed. No begging for professors' affection. No writing sample to worry about. And I can just enjoy my classes without really being concerned about the grade I'm going to get for them. It's blissful.

On the other hand, I feel like kind of a sellout. And this, of course, speaks to my ambiguity on the staying-at-home-to-raise-kids thing. Plus, I know I can't be a stay-at-home-mom forever, and I'm afraid I won't be good at anything. I was going to say, "anything else," but that's assuming I'm a good graduate student, which I'm evidently not.

So these are the themes this blog will be exploring! Hooray!

December 8, 2007:

I am feeling terribly nauseous again this morning.

It doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't mean anything.

It doesn't mean anything.

December 20, 2007:

I don't have my period yet. It was due Wednesday.

But guys, it doesn't mean anything. I know that. I'm regular like clockwork, but one day is hardly . . .

I'm not excited.

I'm not excited.

I'm not anticipating sly hints and winks at my grandparents this weekend.

Or taking the pregnancy test Sunday morning when my friends are all there.

Because it doesn't mean anything. My period will probably come while I'm out this afternoon.

December 28, 2007:

I took a pregnancy test last week. It came up positive. I'm going to see the doctor today.

Well, that's not true. I'm going to see a lab technician, who will do a more sophisticated (I hope) version of the pee-on-a-stick drugstore test, and probably charge me out the ears for it, and then my insurance probably won't cover it for one reason or another.

But who cares? I (maybe) am pregnant!

So that's interesting. For those of you a little slow on the uptake, or reading this many years in the future, I was, in fact, pregnant, and that pregnancy became Zoe.

Fail

2010-01-01T11:00:00.003-06:00

Sometime, somewhere, they gave classes on being a girl. And I was absent. Like the day they taught right and left.

I can't do my hair. Both of my sisters are excellent at hair. I can't seem to manage it. How do I get to the back of my head, and how do I do it without burning my hand on the curling iron? What do I do with the pieces I've already "done"? What product should I use, how much, and at what point in the process? And where are all my hair products, anyway? I swear I used to have some hairspray somewhere.

I have always been a bit of a failure at being a girl. Growing up, it was the thing my stepmother and stepsister were good at, not me. I was good at school. When I was in college, I got a job at Aveda, and my family kind of laughed at me. "You?" was the general consensus. "What are you doing working at Aveda?"

I think working there helped me a little. I learned how to apply eye shadow. I started washing, moisturizing, toning, and exfoliating my face regularly. I kept my nails polished and neat instead of biting them because customers would see my hands when I showed them our products. I used to marvel when I got ready to go to work that I could go from looking like me to looking like a girl who wouldn't have talked to me in high school in the space of about ten minutes.

But I never mastered hair styling. Even when I was working there, if a customer needed help with hair products that went beyond the hair product descriptions printed on little cards on the shelf, I went and found another salesgirl. And I remain totally hopeless now.

It's the new year, and so I'm feeling a little reflective. I've always been sort of nerdy, scruffy. And, in high school at least, that meant scorning the other kind of girl, the kind of girl who blow-dried her hair to perfection even when she was just putting it up in a ponytail. And I went to college with a bunch of other nerds. That meant that, while I was not nearly the most fashionable person in the room at any point, I was also rarely the scruffiest. But I'm a grown-up now, and I'm feeling a bit torn about the whole thing.

On the practical level, I can't really look like a fashion plate every day. I have a 16-month-old. If I don't have someone else in the house to watch her, in some other location, I can't turn on the blow-dryer, because it'll scare her, or the curling iron, because she'll find a way to burn herself on it. My clothes will be covered in drool, snot, or spilled food ten minutes after I put them on.

But on another level, I'm feeling a little low due to my scruffiness (which is part and parcel with my weight). Growing up, it was okay with me that I wasn't good at the girl stuff, because I was good at the school stuff. But I'm not in school, and I only have a small, part-time job. So the scruffiness is both worse than it usually is and more bothersome to me because I have little else to feel like I'm doing well.

That sounds too depressing. Let's reframe it. Maybe it's just the only thing I feel I'm not doing well. I do my job (pretty) well and I like it. My house looks pretty nice. It needs a lot more decor, but I'm fine with taking that slowly. I may not be in school, but I read an awful lot. I am a good cook and I'm getting better. My daughter is doing just great. I try to keep myself from resting too much of my self-esteem on how she's doing. It's dangerous for me and for her. But for now, I suppose I can take a little bit of maternal pride in the fact that I have the most wonderful, adorable, beautiful, smart, curious, and capable child in the whole wide world. :-) It's just my hair. I'm sure I'll figure out a way to manage it in the next few months.

Happy New Year!

The Experts

2009-12-20T06:37:00.002-06:00

Zoe mainly drinks from sippy cups or her thermos (when she isn't drinking from me). The sippy cups are hard to spill; the thermos is easy to spill. So she spends a lot of time upending her thermos and deliberately spilling all over the place. The general consensus among the parenting experts I read is that, at Zoe's age, it's no good telling her not to spill or putting her in time-out for spilling or something, but it is important to teach her that her actions have consequences and that she should bear at least some of the responsibility for those consequences - i.e., have her help clean up. So I get out a rag and show her (while doing most of it my self) how to wipe up the spill. Zoe is very enthused about helping and takes up the cloth and swipes it all over the place. She likes this activity so much that she immediately spills more milk so that she can clean it up again.

I wonder if the experts have children.

I'm Back

2009-12-15T14:19:00.002-06:00

I've decided to start blogging again, and hopefully I'll have the time to do so regularly.

Most of the time I will be blogging about Zoe things, since that comprises 99% of my time and energy, but today, just for fun, I will blog about something else.

I turned on the Rachel Maddow show last night, which I Tivo and try to watch every day, although I am not frequently successful at it. The first thing I heard was that Senate Democrats have decided not to extend Medicare to people under 55 after all. The tiny, miniscule nothing of a move they were going to make toward a public option, they've decided not push through. And folks, I think I have fucking had it.

Democrats have a supermajority in the Senate, right? Barack Obama got elected with elevendy trillion percent of the vote? He brought in huge Democrat majorities to federal and state governments? This all happened, right? Then why the fuck can the Democrats not get shit done? The extreme right wing of the Republican party held the government for eight years, and even without the enormous popularity and huge majorities, even with the fact that nobody even liked them, they managed to get shit done all the time!

So I'm done. I'm starting a new party. It will be called the Get Shit Done Party. Okay, maybe not. Maybe it will be called the Backbone Party. And we will support things that are actually quite popular in Real America, as opposed to the America that exists in the heads of politicians and television news outlets, like single-payer government health care, pouring money into schools, public spaces and infrastructure projects, and opting not to go to war whenever such an option is available.

And when we SWEEP the 2012 election, it will because we will promise this: to GET SHIT DONE. Here's how it will work. We will announce three policy initiatives a month. Congress then has that month to get all three things DONE. At the end of the month, if Congress is still quibbling about corporations want this and abortion that and for godsakes look out for the scary scary socialism, then we will issue an Executive Order and that's all.

Who's with me?

Update - More Fashion Designers Going Low Rent

2007-04-10T19:28:00.000-05:00

And now a bunch of big names are designing for the GAP
.

The Problem with Project Runway

2007-04-08T14:06:00.000-05:00

I'm a Project Runway fan. I think it was the first reality show I ever watched. The rest of the world was nuts over American Idol, but I’m tone-deaf, and musically challenged, so I didn’t care. (Apparently, those traits also make me the perfect contestant for American Idol. But that is neither here nor there.) But I do like fashion. I wanted to be a fashion designer when I was a kid. (I say this, it should be noted, in a Gap hoodie I got on clearance, gray sweatpants from Old Navy, and a $7 cotton tank top. If I were not in front of my computer, but instead actually leaving my house, the sweatpants would be replaced by jeans, also from Old Navy.) Unfortunately for the credibility of this show, and for my own personal enjoyment of it, thus far, none of the winners have really . . . done anything. Perhaps that isn’t fair. Chloe Dao, the season 2 winner, has apparently expanded her Houston-based business. Jay McCarroll showed a collection at the spring 07 New York Fashion Week, and has allegedly sold some of those pieces to Urban Outfitters, though I’ve seen neither hide nor hair of them, AND I’VE BEEN LOOKING, JAY. I’VE BEEN LOOKING! And Jeffrey Sebelia, the one who arguably had the most sophisticated fashion aesthetic of the three, is . . . designing costumes for the Bratz movies. I guess all of these would be considered successes in the world of fashion. But the show seemed to promise something more. They say that they’re looking for America’s next great fashion designer. The final contest is a show at New York’s Fashion Week. Those are the designers they’re supposed to be able to compete against at the end of all this; that is the fashion world to which they are supposed to belong. None of them seem to be going in that direction.

The problem is not with the designers. They are all – the losers as well as the winners – using this show for their own ends to the best of their ability. The problem is with the design and premise of the show. They seem to be selling this show on the idea that they will uncover genuine, but undiscovered, talents in the fashion industry, who, given this exposure and money will rise to the top. It’s a similar premise to American Idol – find ordinary people with talent but not yet fame, and give them the latter. And however badly American Idol discovers talent, it does seem to give fame effectively, and to give the kind of fame that is effective. Kelly Clarkson is doing great. Clay Aiken is doing okay, too. I’m sure there are other American Idol people selling records, but since I am the uncoolest kid in the world, so much so that I wouldn’t hear of hot new musical talent unless it came to my house and downloaded it onto my iPod, I don’t know the famous American Idol people, either. Be that as it may, Kelly Clarkson can make money off of her American Idol fame because the demographic for her music and the demographic for the show are one and the same. The problem with Project Runway is that the demographic for the show is totally different from the demographic for high fashion.

I don’t say this because I believe the very wealthy and/or already famous don’t watch TV. They might. But they’re not the ones who text in their votes for fan favorite; they’re not the ones who blog obsessively about it, and they are not the ones who would squeal with girlish delight if they saw Tim Gunn on the streets. (Not that I would! Don’t run away, Tim! I just want to touch you!) The target demographic for high fashion includes those to whom earning one’s fame from a reality show on a cable TV channel would be a descent, not an ascent. In fact, for a lot of purchasers of high fashion, being required to work for a living at all, even if it did entail $11 million per movie, would be a descent, not an ascent. So buying something designed by that guy on the tee-vee isn’t going to be exciting, and might even be embarrassing, to the target demographic for high fashion, whereas buying something designed by that guy on the tee-vee would be thrilling for Bravo’s target demographic. (Which includes me! Jay! Where the f@#* are the clothes I want?)

Jay McCarroll is actually responding to this well, by selling to Urban Outfitters, assuming that his clothing arrives sometime soon. But it’s a little too little, a little too late. He won two years ago. We’re over it. (Well, not me. But I take a long time to get over things.) Plus, his man-of-the-people, fashion-is-for-everyone schtick rings less maverick now that Stella McCartney did a collection for H&M andProenza Schouler is designing for Target.

Chloe Dao is also doing the best thing she can. She already had a pretty good business in Houston, catering to the elite and semi-elite of Texas, who are sufficiently removed from New York and L.A. that they might get a little thrill out of buying from that girl on the tee-vee, but whether they do or not, she already had a following and has used her prize money to expand the business she already had.

Jeffrey Sebelia is probably the most hurt by this. His demographic, before the show, was the same as the demographic for high fashion, or at least the subset of it that included rock stars and those who wanted to spend a whole lot of money to look bad-ass. Being a winner on this show has probably hurt him more than it has helped him, because his demographic is precisely the demographic that might sneer at buying clothing from the winner of a contest sponsored by Macy’s. He could pull a Jay if he wanted, but despite his punk aesthetic, I think he is too committed to some level of luxury in his clothing to go that route. It’s really a shame.

There are two solutions to this problem. One is to go the high-fashion route. Stop holding open auditions. Instead, approach the designers that are already on their way up, those who, if they won, would be best able to benefit and to benefit the way you want them to benefit, by funding fashion lines that would show at major fashion weeks and sell to the ultra elite. Go after the kids who were #1 in their class at Parson's or FIT, or the designers who already have labels that are winning acclaim but haven't exploded yet, or the designers working for major labels, and considered rising stars at their current workplaces, who are looking to break out on their own, or the designers who have sold to places like 30 Vandam, a store featured in episode 2, season 1, which finds fledgling talent and gives them a little exposure, just like Project Runway says it wants to do. Then restructure the show. Make it feel more like a behind-the-scenes documentary at a fashion boot-camp school than an episodic competitive reality show. Emphasize the challenges that focus a designer's energy, that inspire, or that respond to real high-fashion situations. A party dress for a Hilton? Fine. Taking photos around New York? Great. Doing mini-collections? Awesome. What about assigning an inspiration, sort of like you did with "envy"? That can work. But drop the garbage, and the dogs, and of course, the "What? Macy's IS high fashion" nonsense.

Or (and this is more likely), go more populist. Forget New York’s Fashion Week; have the final show be at the corporate sponsor’s venue. I may not like Macy’s or consider it a fashion haven, but I can afford it, and if I could get that skirt Jay McCarroll showed in his final collection (the deep olive one, with the polka dots – Jay, just call me! Please!) there, that’d be awesome. Keep the dogs, the garbage, the pageant queens and figure skaters, and go even kookier than that if you want. Also, have one of the final prizes be the production of the final collection, so that viewers can directly get what they like so much and Bravo can make cash of off it. If you go the populist route, then the format of the show can remain more or less the same. In fact, you can dispense with the pretensions to high fashion. More Barbies, less couture.

And if you, Bravo, use any of these ideas, you need to pay me. And get me that skirt.

Defending Weight Watchers

2007-03-19T16:00:00.000-05:00

I will confess now that I have not read Susie Orbach’s Fat is a Feminist Issue. But I came upon an interview with Susie Orbach in Marie Claire last week. And now that I have confessed that while I have not read a seminal book in body-issue feminism, I have read the latest Marie Claire, let me defend myself by saying that I read the Marie Claire at the hairdresser’s, and not even my hairdresser’s, but my husband’s hairdresser’s. The fact that I went with him to his hairdresser’s for the specific purpose of reading women’s magazines I forbid myself from buying at the grocery store is neither here nor there.

I was a bit bothered by this interview. It seems that Susie Orbach is on the verge of a class-action suit against Weight Watchers. I think her reasoning is a little bit unfair.

I should note that I started the Weight Watchers program about two and a half months ago, and while I have my complaints, I am happy overall, especially since I just hit my 10% goal (losing 10% of your original weight) this week. (I got a keychain. It’s very exciting. But the pro-Weight Watchers feelings in this column are not because of the keychain. I read this interview before that.)

In the interview, she claims that dieting is bad for people because it assigns an emotional force towards certain “forbidden” foods, whose appeal is then enhanced. She also claims that we need to reclaim our ability to tell when we are “hungry” and what we are hungry for, and to eat that. And to stop when we’re done.

It’s not so much that I think she’s wrong. I do think that, in general, when a specific thing is forbidden, it becomes more appealing. I also think it would be lovely if one could simply eat when one feels this primal thing called “hunger,” and could identify what the body wants to eat at that moment, and then . . . stop. But I think that, in her first point, she’s not really researching how Weight Watchers itself works, nor is she acknowledging that the foods that are forbidden by a lot of diets are in fact responsible for making us gain more weight than we ought to, nor that their deliciousness might make them just as if not more appealing than their forbiddenness. And the whole "eat when you're hungry and then stop" thing? A pipe dream rivalled in ridiculousness only by my plans to become dictator of this country and set everything to rights (See my forthcoming column, "America Once I've Taken Over").

Weight Watchers, for those of you who don’t know, has two plans, the flex plan and the core plan. The flex plan – or “points” plan, is the most widely known and commonly used. It’s the one in which one has a daily budget of food points one is permitted – and required – to use, based on one’s height, weight, age, and general daily activity. Every food item in the world (ideally, though in practice this is still a work in progress) has a points value. So you can eat any food at all, but only as much as you have points that day. Weight Watchers does stress that you should eat lots of fruits, veggies, and lean proteins, but it doesn’t tell you that you must. For instance, before I was on this diet, I used to make this great homemade macaroni and cheese. It turns out that one serving of it is 22 points. I get 27 points a day right now, and I’m pretty big. So the point is, I can have the mac and cheese. I just can only have five more points that day. An apple, a yogurt, and 10 carrot sticks with 1 tbsp of hummus, for instance. (I’ve been forbidding myself this mac and cheese, but now that I look at it, I could survive the day on an apple, yogurt, and 10 carrot sticks with 1 tbsp of hummus, if I got macaroni and cheese at the end of that day. Hmm . . .) In addition to the daily allowance – which, remember, is both permitted and required – you get 35 extra points a week, to use at your discretion. Like, let’s say, you want that macaroni and cheese, but you can’t survive the rest of the day on an apple, yogurt, and 10 carrot sticks with 1 tbsp of hummus. You then dip in to that extra 35.

The core plan I don’t know much about. Basically, it’s a list of foods you can have, and you can have any amount, but you have to assess how hungry you are and try to only eat when you’re a 2 or 3 on a scale of 10 in terms of fullness. And you, too, have 35 flex points, for the weeks you can’t live without something not on the list.*

In any even, it sounds like Weight Watchers is precisely trying to address some of the issues Susie Orbach raises about diets. One plan focuses on not forbidding any given food as such, and the other plan focuses on teaching you when you’re hungry and when you’re full, and while being on either plan is sort of mutually exclusive, using the strategies from each plan is not, and you can switch between them at will.

She claims that diet companies depend upon recidivism for their clientele, and that companies should take social responsibility for their products. Certainly, diet companies do make scads of money because people go off of them only to gain weight again. But it seems unfair to accuse a product of no longer working if one is no longer using it. If I complained that my Dove soap was not bringing out my Real Beauty, and it turned out my Dove soap had been sitting under my sink for weeks, unused, would the company really be responsible for that? But Susie Orbach claims that diets do promise to make you the size you want to be, the effects of which ought to last.

I also agree with urging corporations to be socially responsible. But I think diet companies do not currently need to use underhanded tricks to get us to gain weight again, and I think the corporations that need to take responsibility for their this are the food-producing companies, not the diet companies. Once we stop getting trans fats and hydrogenated corn syrup and various other hidden, bad-for-you things in our typical and common foods, perhaps then Weight Watchers and their ilk will be forced to look for strategies that do make people lose and gain, lose and gain in an endless cycle. But for now, the food companies have got that covered.

Evolution seems to have that covered, too. From everything I’ve read, one of the biggest problems with food and diet is that we do not live the way our bodies are designed to live. We (we first-worlders, we middle- and upper-class Americans and Brits and the like, I mean) live in a world of abundance and extreme variety, but we were designed for cyclical abundance and then scarcity. We are designed to crave fat and sugar, because those will store in our bodies so nicely, when we’ll need them for the coming scarce period. And our bodies simply will not acknowledge that the "scarce" period has not arrived for many a year, and is not likely to do so tomorrow. (For all we know, our bodies are smarter than we are. It’s best not to get me started on the apocalypse that is clearly pending once we hit peak oil. But perhaps I've discovered the subliminal source of my urge to pack on as many extra pounds as possible., but that may be my subliminal reason for packing on so much extra food.)

That’s why it seems flip for her to claim that a healthy woman should eat like a healthy woman should pee – when her body tells her it’s time. For one thing, it’s quite physically impossible to pee if you don’t have to pee. It is not impossible to stuff your face if you’re not hungry, more’s the pity. On an evolutionary basis, apparently, our bodies do not want to believe we’re full if there’s sugar or fat to be had – we might need it later! Furthermore, it’s virtually impossible to weed out all of the feelings that seem to signal to us, “Eat something!” It’s impossible to separate out the ones that are “true” hunger and the ones that are “just in case there’s no food later,” or, “this will make me feel better about not getting that job,” or, “this day would be more exciting with some cheese in it,” or even, “mmm, that smells delicious.”

But my point is, we’re not really so good, we humans, at distinguishing what we want from why we want it. Even with peeing. How many people have had the following exchange with their mothers?

Mom: We’re getting in the car now. It’s a two-hour drive, so go to the bathroom now.
You: I don’t have to go.
Mom: Just go.
You: But I don’t have to go!
Mom: Just go!
You: But, Mom! I don’t have to go! Don’t you think I would know if I had to go?
Mom: Just GO!
You: But, MOOOOM!
Mom: GO NOW OR WE ARE LEAVING WITHOUT YOU.
You: Fine! But I don’t have to go!
. . .
Mom: Did you go?
You: Yes.

I know. All of you have. So if we can’t separate rebelling against Mom from not having to pee, how can we be expected to separate “mmm, delicious,” from, “I’m hungry”? It can’t be done. Or it can, but it would take so much willpower and discipline, you might as well go on Weight Watchers.

Finally, she claims that one should only have to diet once, and then you should be at your best weight forever, and the fact that people are constantly on and off diets is evidence that they don’t work. Isn’t it precisely the attitude that you should only have to do it once that ruins so many diets? Well, that’s why Weight Watchers encourages you not to think of this as a diet, but as a change in your approach to eating (incidentally, exactly what Susie Orbach recommends), and encourages you to be a lifetime member once you’ve hit your goal weight by offering free membership to those who keep themselves at that goal weight.

I don’t mean to sound like a Weight Watchers cheerleader. Perhaps I’ll get into my complaints about them some other time. I simply don’t think that Weight Watchers in particular is guilty of the crimes Susie Orbach accuses it of committing.

*Please at all times keep in mind that I’m not employed by Weight Watchers in any capacity. I’m just a lay person trying to explain it all to the best of my ability. For actual information on the Weight Watchers plan, please consult their website.

I Just Learned . . .

2006-12-09T16:45:00.000-06:00

. . . from a two-year-old episode of The West Wing, that a pregnant woman is not allowed to have soft cheeses. Like, say, Brie, or Camembert. No sushi, no fish of any kind, no soft cheeses . . . I'm not sure I'm willing to have children, after all.

A Plea to Aaron Sorkin

2006-11-14T18:05:00.000-06:00

I should be doing homework right now (and didn't I tell you I'd start out posts like this?) but I just want to pause for a moment to discuss Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. Apparently, NBC has put in a full-season order. I find myself relieved, but, admittedly, a bit confused. If the basis for ordering more episodes is the quality of the last eight, NBC must be seeing something I'm not. (I realize that the basis for such a decision is not usually quality but ratings, but from what I understood of the ratings, that wouldn't be the reason, either.)

I say this as someone who really, really wants to like this show. I love Aaron Sorkin's past work. I love shows-about-show-business. Comedy is my favorite sub-section of show business, and sketch comedy my favorite sub-section of comedy. I love Matthew Perry, Sarah Paulson, Bradley Whitford, D.L. Hughley, Steven Weber, any and all Corddrys and Timothy Busfield. I watch this show because I am desperately in love with its potential. I'm sure that its potential is why NBC ordered the first thirteen episodes. But that doesn't explain why they ordered the second thirteen (if, in fact, a full year is twenty-six episodes. I have no idea if that's true).

In the spirit of belief in the potential of this show, I herewith offer the following suggestions for having it live up to its potential.

1. Hire some sketch comedy writers. If you already have them, hire new ones. The sketches aren't that funny. Admittedly, the same complaint could be made about actual professional sketch comedy writers. SNL is widely considered to be not funny anymore. I just saw a show at Second City in Chicago and it was probably only about 30% hilarious. But it was over an hour and a half of material. You only need a couple of minutes or so per show. And the whole problem with most mediocre sketches in sketch comedy is that they go on too damn long, because they need to fill time. The structure of this show is that you can basically present the premise and one or two punchlines within it and you're out! It shouldn't be that hard.
And no whining that comedy is subjective, or anything. You set it up. You a) chose to show the viewers sketches, which you didn't have to do, and b) convinced us that Matt Albie and Harriet Hayes were so funny that they could overlook character traits and beliefs in each other that would have otherwise been reprehensible because they were so dazzled by the other's talent. Not only that, but the rest of the world is apparently similarly dazzled, handing Matthew awards and flailing television shows, etc. If you didn't set the bar so high, we'd expect sketches at the level of mediocre SNL. But you did, so now you have to jump over it.

2. Stay away from Matt-and-Harriet-sitting-in-a-tree plotlines until, at minimum, May sweeps. Seriously, they're irritating. When I saw the pilot, I thought that their love would be treated by the love plotlines in The West Wing, i.e., minimally. Entire episodes - months, really - could go on with nothing happening between C.J. and Danny, Josh and Donna, Sam and Mallory. Not nothing like no kissing. Nothing like absolutely no indication in the show that a romance was brewing at all.
Now, I get that Matt and Harriet are different from those couples on The West Wing. (And I'm not using The West Wing in a way that implies that you should be doing the same beloved show over again. I just mean that you've done this before and you know why it works, so why not do it again?) For one, C.J. and Danny and Mallory and Sam didn't work together in the same way. Yes, C.J. probably saw Danny every day, as part of the press gaggle, but had other stuff to do besides interact with him one-on-one all the time. And Mallory rarely had a reason to be around Sam without planning for it. Josh and Donna are the closest to Matt and Harriet, in that they did work together all the time, and one of them was the other's boss. But Josh had stuff to do that did not directly involve mooning over Donna, stuff that was more interesting than writing to film. And if we focused on the other stuff Harriet was doing all day, we'd need more sketches, which, see above.
So maybe Matt and Harriet will need more screen time together.
One thing that could really mitigate the irritating factor is if the rest of the characters did not treat their love with such respect. If they could roll their eyes with us, it might help. Another thing would be to actively engage them in entirely separate storylines. Harriet could be shown to be more involved with the cast. Matt could be more tied to an NBS plotline, or something more directly with Danny. For all the chemistry Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford had together in the pilot, we barely ever see them together for long stretches anymore. Do that. Do whatever. Just keep them from staring wistfully at each other for a while. I mean, it's a damn comedy show, not a melodramatic romance.

3. Get off the damn soapbox before someone pushes you off of it. When the show began, I was willing to give it a pass for being very self-important about TV. TV is important. Stories shape the way people think. Stories are culture. Stories are society. And people get their stories these days overwhelmingly from TV. This is not the beginning of an anti-TV rant. There's nothing inherently better or worse about TV as a media than novels or fireside storytelling. But it is important to understand the forces that shape the stories that are so pervasive and influential in our culture. Sure, it's not White-House-level important. But it's important.
But that should not translate to every single episode being about "the culture wars." It should especially not translate to every episode being a smashing of the Christian right. I thought you made Harriet Hayes a Christian to humanize the other side (because apparently I wasn't watching your other shows that closely) but all you do every week is show how wrong she is, and how not particularly articulate she is about defending her side. Aaron, baby, no one watching your show is on that side. But if you keep showing our side to be such arrogant, hypocritical dickwads, we may rethink things.
And also, the importance of TV as a medium should not be the sole focus of every single show. It can always be there, humming in the backdrop, or it can take up major story time for one episode, but not the next, but it can't always be the only thing front and center. Show us some cast plotlines. Show us some Matt-and-Danny-working-together plotlines. Maybe show some writing-sketch-comedy-is-hard plotlines.

4. Straw men are not acceptable characters. Middle-aged people from Columbus, Ohio, know the "Who's on First?" routine. It'd be more likely that someone Tom's age, who was very smart and very liberal but didn't happen to be in on the comedy scene, wouldn't know the routine, than it would that Tom's conservative, midwestern parents didn't know the routine. That's just ridiculous.
Also ridiculous is ridiculing the audience for thinking that, when a rural Nevadan judge who has been called off a fishing boat strolls into a scene, he'll be a racist, ignorant hick who doesn't even know what NBS is, when just last week you had a middle-aged man from Ohio not know what "Who's on First?" is. Again, you set the bar (this time, very low). No fair making us responsible for it.

5. Figure out Harriet's deal. At this point, she's coming across as one of the straw men; just a very confused one. Why does she get to have a debate about the sinful nature of gay marriage one week, when only a few weeks before she said something to the effect of premarital sex being the only kind she's likely to have? It feels like she has whichever Christian beliefs are convenient to the plot. I'm not saying all people are logical and coherent in her beliefs. But it feels like the incoherence is coming from the writing, not the character. Fix that. And also, she's been on the show for six years? I think that's your timeline. So she doesn't get to get pissy about material that conflicts with her personal beliefs anymore. Especially since she's got a burgeoning Christian music career and could walk away from the show if she wanted to.

(Actually, there's a plotline for you that, if done right, could be interesting. Have Harriet threaten to walk. But here's what you have to do. 1) It should be over a particular sketch. 2) She should not be bitchy or hysterical about it (which she is all too often for a woman you want us to like). It could come out of some thinking about her faith, which we need to see to sort out her many sides, and could also come out of practicality - she doesn't need to do this to get work anymore. 3) Matt and Danny should be a team in confronting this, and they should be confronting this as head writer and executive producer, to circumvent Matt using this as another "But I looooove her" moment. 4) Obviously, she should decide in the end that doing comedy (not Matt!) means more to her, but that she wants a bigger role developing sketches that are not based on bashing the right wing. This serves as character development and a means not to allow bashing the religious right to be the center of every goddamn episode.)

6. Use D.L. Hughley. Why isn't this man being used as a comedic actor in a show about comedy? He's really funny! I heart him! Yes, I can see he has potential as a dramatic actor, and that's great. But let's see him in more sketches, or maybe helping to write some! He's great! And he's sitting right there!

7. Get over whatever your deal is with women. You have this very particular variety of misogyny common in left-wing wealthy white males. It's hard to describe. You go out of your way to show us powerful women - the network head, one of the Big Three cast members - but then you undermine them by making them hysterical or drunk or what have you. And then you treat that hysteria as a form of feminine power or something. It's not as blatant as the way the Sex and the City leads were written, but it's close. Cut it out.

8. Leave your personal life out of it. So apparently you had a tumultuous relationship with Kristen Chenoweth, who is Christian and right-wing? And you've had trouble getting your oh-so-smart shows on TV because network execs want to put on shameful reality shows instead? And the internet, that monolithic source of all bad things, says mean things about your shows? You know why I know all of this? Because you put it in your show. Stop doing that. Unless you're going to mine your life for some decent plotlines, just cut it out. I am not your therapist.
That last bit is good advice for all show creators, by the way. Know why I stopped watching Desperate Housewives, Mr. Cherry? Because all of Bree's storylines started to feel like you working out your anger with your mom.

I think I've said my piece. I'm sure I'd have more suggestions if I could sort them all out. But just keep in mind, Mr. Sorkin, that some of the things you're getting criticism for on this show are things you've gotten away with before. Misogyny? Check. Pedanticism? Check. Over-inflated self-importance? Check. You just have to do them better and we'll love you again.

As Long as I'm Here

2006-10-12T17:27:00.000-05:00

I thought I'd share a funny story I heard last week from one of my classmates. He was getting a haircut, and the hair person was I guess a fairly intense Christian. She was asking about his classes, and he told her he was in Introduction to the Hebrew Bible (which I am in as well). The hair person asked if the class was mixed faith and he said yes, mentioning he had a friend in the class (me) who was Jewish. She asked if I had ever taken a class on the New Testament.* When he confirmed that I had, she said, eyes wide with wonder, "And she wasn't converted? How could that be?"

*Do we still call it the New Testament if we don't call it the Old Testament anymore? Do we call it the Latin Bible? Or the Christian Bible? I don't know. Even that would be complicated, because Protestants and Catholics put the books in a different order. I think.

Alzheimer's

2006-10-12T17:25:00.000-05:00

So apparently marijuana may prevent Alzheimer's. Are they sure it doesn't just make Alzheimer's harder to detect?

Comma

2006-10-08T15:55:00.000-05:00

Bush has apparently said that the war in Iraq, in the history books, will be a comma. A lot of people are very upset by this. I am not. Know why?

I don't know what the fuck he means.

You know how sometimes you'll be watching a sci-fi movie or something, and you know something's gone haywire when the robot character starts inserting random words into sentences? I'm trying to remember if Data ever did this, and I'm sure he did, but I can't think of the specific incident. But Tock (or possibly Tick-Tock) does it in Return to Oz and that's how they know they have to wind him back up. Well, that's what this sentence seems like to me. Like Bush needs to wind himself back up.

Especially since I'm not convinced Bush knows what a comma is.

My daddy always said . . .

2006-08-24T11:29:00.000-05:00

that with some things, you could either laugh or cry, so you might as well laugh.

I'm trying, Daddy.

I don't know which one of them I'm more annoyed at. Mr. Girls-Who-Work-Will-Leave-You-And-Not-Clean-Your-House, or Ms. Nuh-nuh-I-lurv-my-husband-and-that's-an-adequate-refutation.

Let's start with both of them, for treating all women who fit their definition of "career" - have had at least university-level education, work more than 35 hours a week, and earn more than $30,000 a year - like they have the same level of income and the same responses to it. Like there's not a huge difference between the way $300,000 a year influences your decisions and the way $30,000 a year influences them.

And special hate is reserved for this statement, from Ms. Elizabeth Corcoran: "There is, of course, the continual dilemma of who does the work around the house. But if both spouses are working, guess what? They've got enough income to hire someone else to fold laundry, mop floors, etc."

You've got to be shitting me, right? If they both just fit the definition, then they both earn about $60,000 a year. That's enough to hire cleaning staff? In too many parts of this country, that's not enough to have a house to clean!

I'm not sure if I'm madder about that, or about the way her response is basically, "Well, my marriage is fine, and I'm a career woman, so clearly you're wrong." Is it wrong of me to expect better journalism? More thoughtfulness? Less navel-gazing?

No, wait, I'm madder about the ignorant elitism. Especially because the only way to afford house-cleaning services on salaries of $60,000 a year - if you can even afford it on this - is to pay illegal immigrants less than minimum wage to do it.

Then let's look at this set of gems, from the original article by Mr. Michael Noer.

"If a host of studies are to be believed, marrying these women is asking for trouble. If they quit their jobs and stay home with the kids, they will be unhappy (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2003). They will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Social Forces, 2006). You will be unhappy if they make more money than you do (Journal of Marriage and Family, 2001). You will be more likely to fall ill (American Journal of Sociology). Even your house will be dirtier (Institute for Social Research). "

Look, those statistics (if true) are important. It's important to know that, basically, life is this difficult to live, even when you're making money. But Mr. Noer is not treating this as a question of why these statistics are true, why it's so damaging to a marriage for a woman to work, when it's so frequently necessary or at least seriously beneficial. I have to assume that a portion of Forbes's readership is female, and that those particular females are "career women." Considering that, shouldn't this article be aimed, at least in part, at them? Shouldn't it be, "How can we make career and family more harmonious for everyone?" or "How can we adjust our expectations of marriage to include both partners working, which is likely a trend that will last?" rather than, "Hey, fellas, never make a working woman your wife."

The "whys" of these statistics are important. Why will career women be unhappy if they quit their jobs to stay home with their kids? Could it be that the household now has less money? Could it be because they went through the trouble of educating themselves and getting themselves good jobs and priding themselves on the work they were doing, and now they don't do it anymore? Could it be because we live in a society which will not provide easy or affordable ways to raise children without someone - usually the mother - quitting work, but will look down on women who do anyway? (Oh, excuse me, I forgot. Anyone making $30,000 a year has no money worries and could easily afford the services of day care or a nanny to take care of the children.) Could it be because their own husbands don't appreciate the work they do at home and look down on them for just sitting around the house all day? Could it be because they feel trapped, choiceless about their current situations?

Why will they be unhappy if they make more money than you do? Why will you? Because we still expect men to be breadwinners? Isn't that unfair? I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Feminism is a two-way street. The sexism we fight is a sexism that hurts everyone. If you stop expecting women to not have "careers" and to take care of your home and your children exclusively, we'll stop expecting you to earn all the money.

Your house will be dirtier? So clean it, you schmuck! I think he's right that marriages frequently work best when labor is specialized. But the lines of division don't work really well anymore. Even if a couple was able to support only one partner working, a) it doesn't have to be the husband, and b) housework is a really heavy load. The working partner should still take care of some of it. And most couples in this country simply can't operate like that. A single income cannot support a family. So, assuming that the "market" labor will have to be done by two people, the "non-market" labor will have to be done by two people (or more - either help, if you can afford it, or children, if they're old enough). So husbands may have to clean something occasionally for the house not to be "dirtier."

I know what my husband would say to that. He'd get very mad. He'd point out that he does do most of the cleaning in our house, so how can I talk as if men as a general category, as if they all violently oppose cleaning?

I guess I'd have to respond, because this guy does. And because, if the statistic about dirt is true, clearly most guys in this country do violently oppose cleaning, since the mere fact of a woman working is enough to make houses statistically dirtier. (I would really prefer to not know how that study was conducted, by the way.)

I have no explanation for the falling ill thing. I guess it's possible that if both partners work, then that's germs from two different workplaces entering the house, so you will fall ill more easily. But if you have young children, workplaces are the least of your worries.

What about this? "Women's work hours consistently increase divorce, whereas increases in men's work hours often have no statistical effect. "I also find that the incidence in divorce is far higher in couples where both spouses are working than in couples where only one spouse is employed," Johnson says." Well, duh. When one spouse isn't employed, there's a very good reason for staying married, right? That's the problem with dividing household labor by "market" and "non-market" activity. The "non-market" partner has to stay with the "market" partner or risk debilitating poverty. It's always important to keep in mind that "not divorced" and "happily married" are not the same thing.

This kind of thing shows up all the time in arguments about women working, and I wonder if the men writing it even notice the insecurity they're displaying. The thinking seems to be, "There is nothing attractive about me except my wallet. If women can fill their own wallets, they'll leave me." This shows up in a lot of conservative, wealthy, white guy arguments, otherwise notable in the anti-same-sex-marriage movement, whose argument seems to be, "If we give women a choice between us and other women, they'll leave us." It's really frightening. And, knowingly or not, Mr. Noer drives that point home by arguing that women at work can meet co-workers, for whom they'll probably leave their husbands. It's so sad. It almost makes me want to give Mr. Noer and his ilk a hug. Then I remember the probably-deeply-steeped-in-reality trope of men leaving their same-age wives for much younger secretaries and I stop feeling bad.

Actually, this reminds me of something in the anti-gay movement, too. Have you ever talked to a guy who absolutely shudders at the mere thought of exposure to a gay man, because he's so desparately afraid that this man might, well, hit on him? I've always laughed at the arrogance of it, and also at Jerry Seinfeld's bit about how easily men are sold things, but it occured to me not too long ago that these men are the kinds of men girls meet at bars and parties all the time, who grab at them, leer at them, come on to them very aggressively and won't let up, get sexually inappropriate at the merest provocation, and then, when rejected, get hostile, even violent. And it occurs to me that what they're really concerned about is gay guys treating them exactly the way they themselves treat women. And that's what's occuring to me here. Afraid that if your wife works, she'll leave you for a handsome co-worker? Then you're probably the kind of guy who'd leave your wife for a cute secretary. Karma, she's a bitch.

I'm going to end this post before it gets too alarmingly random.

Because the World Works like this . . .

2006-08-17T08:48:00.000-05:00

Three days after my last post, I ran across this through Salon's Broadsheet.

And before I start anything, Evangeline Lilly? Are they serious? Has there really been such an extreme dearth of actually curvy women that EVANGELINE LILLY counts? Good God, y'all.

Then there are the assertions that, 1) the "curvy" ideal as it applies to Drew Barrymore, et al, and pin-ups from the '40s and '50s is less exacting than the super-skinny ideal, and 2) if you are a "curvier" woman, you're less afraid of carbs (and therefore, ugh, your boyfriend's "salami"*). Let's take 1) first. It's just as exacting. I haven't done a great deal of research, but I'm sure Bettie Page, et al, received a lot of pressure to look a certain way. It was just a different way from the way Nicole Ritchie and Kate Moss and the other skinny minnies feel pressured. They aren't being given more "leeway" to celebrate their "cushioning." Remember when breast implants, rather than super-skinny-making diets, were the big horror in terms of what women were doing to their bodies to fit the ideal?

A lot of this reminds me of the reaction when "Baby Got Back" first came out. Everyone celebrated it as liberating for women because it turned against the skinny trend for women. But it was just as exacting. "36-24-36? Only if she's 5'3"!" ". . . an itty-bitty waist and a round thing in your face . . ." "My anaconda don't want none unless you got buns, hon!" Never mind that Sir Mix-a-lot was hardly sporting an ideal body himself, he was playing arbiter of appropriate women's body shapes. It was just a different shape. (Not that I don't love that song. Those lyrics were called up from memory, after all.)

It is important to keep in mind that, for the most part, you don't get to choose which ideal to try to live up to. I'm never going to achieve the super-skinny look. I could fast, I could exercise seven hours a day, it wouldn't matter. I'll always be more Winslet than Moss. Likewise, Kate Moss could stuff her face full of pizza daily and she won't look like Kate Winslet. Or me. Whereas, if I did diet and get in better shape, I could start to look more like Kate Winslet.**

Which brings us to 2). Note, I'd have to diet. So does Kate Winslet. The Kate Winslets of the world typically have to be more careful of their weight, and their carb intakes, than the Kate Mosses of the world, and not just because Kate Moss has cocaine to help her. (Cocaine, by the way, will kill you, and fuck you up in all kinds of fun ways, and is terrible for you, but it is the best weight-loss drug in the world.) Some women are naturally skinny. The women who aren't have to watch their food intake. Is all I'm saying.

I again assert that this is not a dig at those particular actresses. (Well, I don't like Evangeline Lilly much, but it's not her fault. I hate her character on "Lost," but that doesn't mean she's bad at playing her.) It's articles like this that make me nuts.

* I know I'm married, and much more carb-friendly than even those gargantuans like Drew Barrymore and Catherine Zeta-Jones, so I don't count, but seriously? Details guys? Referring to your genitals as your salami? So very juvenile and unattractive.

** Another Adventures from Subbing tale. I had a class of all black males one day, and because of whatever we were talking about in the context of their history class, the discussion turned to body shape and image, and the boys asked me why white girls don't have butts like black girls. Do they just diet them off? What is it? So we had this huge discussion about how sometimes you have the butt, and sometimes you don't have the butt, and white or black, there's very little you can do to affect it one way or another, unless you basically do four hours of lunges daily, and even then, the butt will disappear in about ten minutes if you stop.

Body Image

2006-08-14T15:22:00.000-05:00

I only bring this up because my Wild Words from Wild Women quotes calendar has this quote today: "God made a very obvious choice when he made me voluptous; why would I go against what he decided for me? My limbs work, so I'm not going to complain about the way my body is shaped." - Drew Barrymore.

Now, seriously, if you had a body like Drew Barrymore, would your attitude about it be, "Eh, at least my limbs work," or "Yippee kay-o kay-ay! Let's go shopping!" Because mine would be the latter. Ditto if I looked like Angelina Jolie, Kate Winslet, or Reese Witherspoon, all of whom have been called very "brave" by VH1 (or possibly E!) for "celebrating" their bodies instead of trying to diet them away. And I'm going, "Reese Witherspoon is now considered Rubenesque? I have definitely fallen down the rabbit hole."

I mean, I guess considering that Hollywood is what it is . . . but are there really producers running around telling women like Angelina Jolie, et al, to lose weight for roles? I don't understand. Do these producers have absolutely no sexual chemicals running around in their bodies at all, thus rendering them incapable of responding to or even recognizing sexy female bodies?

And no one is calling Camryn Mannheim or Kathy Bates brave, by the way. They seem to be pretty comfortable with their bodies. But I guess if you're actually fat and okay with it, that's not "brave," it's just icky.

I don't mean this as a dig at any of these actresses. In fact, I do admire their attitudes, which are usually less, "Look at me being TOTALLY OKAY with my boobies! Look! Look!" and more "What the fuck are you talking about?" And even though the Drew Barrymore quote seems to put her in the former category, it's not really her fault that she gets asked these assinine questions. My beef is with the askers and framers of these categories, this gestalt that finds boobs and upper arms wider than the elbow all scary and then patronizingly congratulates the women with these scary features for seeming not to mind.

People are weird, is all I'm getting at, here.

One other minor point which has nothing to do with anything: have you ever noticed that you can't really say "voluptous"? It always comes out "volumptous," doesn't it?

Becoming a Luddite

2006-07-25T09:20:00.000-05:00

I’m giving it all up and becoming a Luddite.

I wake up this morning, energized and ready to go to the gym. I get dressed, I grab my gym card, my keys, and my iPod, and head out the door. I notice that one of the elevators appears to be shut down. The door is open and the inside is dark. I assume they’re doing work, as they do fairly often, so I press the button, assuming another elevator will arrive.

The button won’t light.

I figure maybe that elevator wasn’t shut down properly and the system expects me to get in it. I don’t want to get into a dark little box and expect it to safely carry me 34 floors. So I decide to walk down to the 33rd floor, where an elevator is not parked and waiting, and see what happens.

Nothing. The button won’t light.

I go back to my apartment and start my computer to look up the number for the doorman’s desk to find out what’s going on.

My internet’s down.

So now, because my phone is a VOIP, my phone doesn’t work, either. I’m stuck on the 34th floor of my apartment building with no way of communicating with the outside world. And it’s all specifically because of all of this technology that’s supposed to make our lives easier.

So I’m done. I’m moving to a farm in the middle of nowhere. I’m not having a phone, or electricity, or a computer. If you need me, write a letter.

(Obviously, if you are reading this, the problems have been solved and I’m back to being totally dependent on modern technology again.)

"Adults Only" - Dirty or Boring?

2006-06-13T07:38:00.001-05:00

This post has no timely relevance at all; it's just an old anecdote. When I was about 7 or 8, my family went to London to stay with my uncle, who was living there for a couple of years. One of the days we were there, my parents went to Bath and left us behind, saying this trip was just for adults. My imagination was immediately filled with all kinds of mysterious and arcane sexual practices that must be going on in Bath, to warrant a "just for adults" rating. And keep in mind, I was a very naive 7 or 8, so these imaginings were incredibly vague and therefore loomed even larger in the "sexual naughtiness" part of my brain than if I were capable of imagining specific practices.

Then in my mid-teens, I started reading trashy romance novels and also Jane Austen, learned what Bath actually was (just a resort town around some still-working Roman baths) and was forced to conclude that "just for adults" meant they thought it would bore my sister and me. Which was probably true, and heavily disappointing.

Nice Guys

2006-06-01T10:58:00.000-05:00

I ran across this while strolling* the internet, and I enjoyed it very much, but I have a codicil. I have blamed this for a long time on the Dawson's Creek syndrome. Y'all remember how Dawson was allegedly the nice guy and Pacey was allegedly the jerk? I remember having these conversations in mixed-sex groups, and the "nice guys" I was usually friends with would bemoan the fact that we all loved Pacey far more than Dawson because Pacey was the jerk, and this all mirrored the actual discussions had on the show, wherein Dawson would whine that he was such a nice guy, he never got the girl, and Pacey was such an asshole but he did.

So I think Dawson's Creek effectively convinced guys my age that the traits that Dawson displayed were nice-guy traits and the traits that Pacey displayed were jerk traits. And what were these traits that the show claimed made Dawson nice and Pacey not? Well, Dawson wanted a relationship with lots of snuggles and Pacey thought about, and talked about, sex.

That was really it. Go back and watch the show, if you can stomach it, or need an excuse to drink a lot.

And the thing was, Dawson would whine and whine about how he was such a non-sex-worrying, relationshipy guy, so how come he wasn't getting any? And Pacey, yes, joked about sex a lot, but was also a loyal friend and actually generally really sweet, whereas Dawson was completely self-absorbed and pissy all the time.

I think guys have somehow gotten the idea that "wanting a relationship instead of just one-night stands" makes you "nice." But fellas, it's not enough. "Nice" means respectful of people, regardless of what they want from you. "Nice" means paying attention to other people's wants and needs, and treating those wants and needs as if they are important. You can be nice and not want a relationship at all. You can want a relationship and be a total dick about it, like stomping on the ground when the girl you want a relationship goes to a dance you didn't ask her to with somebody else. (Dawson's Creek, Season 1, possibly episode 2 or 3. And shut up, like you don't remember, too.)

I'm married to a guy who's mostly nice on both counts (wanting a relationship, and actually being nice). But we have gotten into arguments where he thinks that waking me up at 6:30 in the morning to snuggle is nice because don't girls like snuggling? Don't nice guys give them snuggling? I once got so mad about this, I cleaned the bathroom and kitchen, at which point he unfortunately noticed how productive I am when I'm angry.

I know this post is a little rambling. I apologize to my audience of two.

Again with the Shyster Thing

2006-04-07T23:08:00.000-05:00

This article sort of nicely sums up my problem with the word. How am I supposed to fight against this when not many people know it's an ethnic slur?

Maybe We're Not Created for Procreation

2006-03-21T16:09:00.000-06:00

I believe my political views on issues like birth control, abortion, and feminism are pretty clear. But at last, I think I'm getting some scientific back-up.

I am in the midst of reading Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee. Which is us, by the way. And he says that actually, the female reproductive cycle of humans gives every evidence that we are not built to use sex exclusivel as a procreative tool, because, unlike some other primates, we do not know when we are ovulating, and we can have and want sex even when we're not.

See, other species make it easy. Their butt turns bright red, or they go into heat, or something, and that's when they're fertile, and that's when they want sex, and that's when they're at their most attractive to members of the opposite sex. But we hide our ovulation well. Even with our current scientific knowledge about it, we're wrong a great deal of the time. That's why the rhythm method works so shoddily; we just can't predict when we're going to get pregnant. Furthermore, we're capable of wanting sex even when it won't produce children (since we have no idea when it will), and men are capable of wanting it from us. Plus, we have a clitoris, which not many species have. (I think it's just us and Bonobo chimps, but I could be wrong.) So clearly, we're supposed to be using sex for recreation and bonding, possibly even more than we're supposed to be using it for making the babies.

In a weird way, this also accounts evolutionarily for homosexuality, which is supposed to be "unnatural" because it's not procreative. Because if you're supposed to be having sex for fun and bonding, why shouldn't you have it with members of the same sex?

And I can hear the objections already. Aren't we supposed to have kids? Isn't passing on genetic material the most important thing, evolutionarily? Well, yes. But we're humans, not fruit flies. It's not a numbers game. It's getting the kids you have to reproductive adulthood, which takes at least twelve years. So you're really better off having a few to whom you can devote your resources. So it'd be good if you didn't get pregnant every time you had sex. And it would be good to form a bond with the person you had sex with, so that they devote their resources to your kid, too.

See, it all works!

PLEASE JUST SHUT IT!

2006-03-03T09:32:00.000-06:00

This is a blurb that recently appeared at Slate.com. (Scroll down to the bit about Utah.)

OH, MY FRICKIN' GOD, PEOPLE! Humans started being distinguishable from other primates 6-8 MILLION YEARS AGO. No one is accusing your GREAT-GRANDFATHER of being an ape. But pretty soon, I'm going to start accusing YOU.

What kills me about this in particular is that, in all other respects, we (and I'm not sure who I mean by we but I'm pretty sure I mean contemporary people in general) seem to have absolutely no long-term memory otherwise. I was talking to a friend of mine, for instance, whose parents will not buy anything from a German-based company ever, because of the Holocaust. She and I have both thought this was a little silly. I think it is especially silly now because companies are multinational most of the time; what does it even mean to say you bought a German car? The parts are made in Taiwan, assembled in Michigan, and owned by stockholders from Japan. But she was also telling me that on one of her many worldly adventures, she made friends with a German girl our age who was bitterly resentful that people acted like she had something to do with the Holocaust. And while I understand that she didn't exactly do anything, I also think World War II ended 61 years ago. That's not even a lifetime in a modern industrial nation. It's not exactly time to start pretending the whole thing never happened.

Americans are very similar on the subject of slavery. It's gone now, like a puff of vapor. It has no relevance any more. It's this wicked, wicked thing that some other, wickeder group did that has no effect on anything that's going on now, and Godforbid you bring it up in connection to current racial tensions. It only ended 141 years ago. That's, okay, two reasonable but not terribly long lifetimes.

It's like the entire human race (or maybe just Americans, or Westerners, or something) is a psychiatric patient with severe repressed memory problems. We have all of these problems, and if we just looked into the past, we'd be able to piece together why we have them, which is the first step to healing them. But we won't. We either can't un-repress the memory, or we don't want to.

And even the language these people are using reflects that nano-second memory problem. You don't want your great-grandfather to be an ape. That's close enough to you to care. So never mind that no one is saying he was. Because no one would care if we were just saying that our ancestors 6-8 million years ago were the same as the ancestors of other modern apes. It has to be your actual great-grandfather for you to get upset about it.

I can't believe this is even a conversation in 2006. I think I wrote in my former blog about how this shouldn't even be a thing for religious people, because according to Paul, faith should be stronger than reason, and how better to prove that your faith is stronger than reason than to have a science class that teaches things antithetical to your faith, and managing to believe your faith rather than the science? Making science accountable to faith, and in fact caring about science at all, is very anti-Pauline, really, and if it's anti-Pauline, it's anti-Bible, and so why are these evangelical the-Bible-is-always-right people INSISTING SO LOUDLY THAT THEIR GREAT-GRANDFATHER IS NOT AN APE? GET OVER YOURSELVES!

Relax. Your Daughter is Probably Not Having Oral Sex with her Entire Seventh Grade Class.

2006-01-26T10:16:00.000-06:00

WARNING - THIS POST WILL CONTAIN SOME INFORMATION ABOUT MY OWN SEX LIFE. IT'S NOT GRAPHIC OR DETAILED, AND IT'S CONFINED TO THE "OBJECTION THE FIRST" SECTION, BUT IF YOU HAVE THE KIND OF RELATIONSHIP WITH ME THAT PRECLUDES WANTING TO HEAR ANYTHING ABOUT MY SEX LIFE, DO NOT READ THIS POST. ESPECIALLY DO NOT READ THIS POST AND THEN COMPLAIN TO ME THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT MY SEX LIFE, OR THAT YOU OBJECT TO ME WRITING ABOUT IT AT ALL, GIVEN THAT YOU PERSONALLY MAY BE VIEWING IT.

I know this scare has been brewing for quite some time. "Oh, my god, teenage girls don't think oral sex is sex!" "Oh, my god, they're HAVING oral sex!" "Oh, my god, they're having oral sex with random and mutliple people at parties, publicly, like they're WHORES, and also the girls are not receiving it in turn!" I remember this. I remember this scare going on while I was in high school, because that's when the Clinton scandal was taking up 109% of everyone's attention. Apparently, many adults decided that if Clinton said oral sex wasn't sex, then teenagers would pick up that belief, too, even though a) they were being awfully optimistic about how seriously teenagers take - or even know about - the opinions of their authority figures, and b) I don't know about any of you, but I learned in 1994 that oral sex was sloppy thirds and sex sex was home base, and so the two were clearly not the same thing. That was well before the Clinton scandal broke. But this scare has come to my attention again recently. Bitch magazine published on their (s)hitlist a link to Caitlin Flanagan's article in Atlantic Monthly about the phenomenon. So I thought I'd take it up again, with all of my objections to this faux trend and the hype about it.

Objection the first: Thinking oral sex is not the same as vaginal sex and does not constitute the loss of virginity is not the same as casually performing oral sex on multiple boys in one party.

I'm pretty sure I had this conversation with my mother when the Clinton scandal broke. She was shocked to learn that I didn't think it was the same as sex, and that I thought it was a less big deal than sex. I was probably 15 at the time of this conversation, which means that, though my words echoed the words of some of the girls quoted in this article - and the opinions of most of my peers - I wouldn't actually have any oral sex for another three years. In the privacy of a dorm room, not at a party. With my boyfriend. Who is now my husband. Obviously, I don't think of myself as a typical example. But I have girlfriends. I don't know any one of them that considers oral sex to be equal to or dirtier than vaginal sex. I also know that not one of them has performed oral sex on multiple partners in a casual and public setting. I don't believe that any of them has made a habit of performing oral sex on people with whom they are not in a relationship. Not to say it hasn't happened once or twice, but that's probably the extent of it. Even the girls I knew in high school who were significantly more experienced and racier than me didn't engage in that type of behavior. The raciest thing I heard in middle school was a Spin-the-Bottle game that involved breast-touching. I have a younger sister who is now a senior in high school who was upset when a few of her friends decided that a camp bus ride was boring and that French-kissing all the boys on the bus was the best way to pass the time. They were thirteen, I think. These girls (or at least one of them) are the "slutty" ones, the ones with the worst reputations at school, and that's where it started.

Objection the second: If they're still called "sluts," not much has changed.

I found it remarkable that Flanagan didn't notice it when she said, "Wide-eyed young girls spilled the beans on their slutty classmates, and intimated that they themselves weren't so different." Right. It's still considered slutty to behave like this. It was considered slutty to behave like this ten years ago, and it was slutty twenty years ago, and it was slutty forty years ago. It's not becoming a norm of teenage behavior. Obviously, I'm not arguing that sexual norms haven't changed since the 1950s. I'm just arguing that they haven't turned into, "It's now considered normal and acceptable in high school to give blow jobs to as many guys as you can at a single party." I'm also arguing that they've kind of changed for everyone, roughly equally. Can't figure out why a thirteen-year-old thinks pleasing her boyfriend sexually is more important than getting herself off? Ask the twenty-five-year-old reading Cosmo. Don't know why a fifteen-year-old thinks casual sex with acquaintances is a good idea? Tune in to Sex in the City. Why do we expect teenagers to have different values than the culture they're being raised in?

Objection the third: Are those values really such a problem?

Obviously, to the extent that girls are not learning that their own desire is important, it's a problem. And I do believe that that is happening, although not to the extent and not with the end results that so horrify Flanagan and others. But to the extent that oral sex is a little more casual than vaginal sex, and sex in general is a little more casual than it has been before, is this really such a big deal? Did the parents of these teenagers wait until they were married to have any sex at all? Do the parents of these teenagers not perform oral sex on their partners? I don't understand all of the hand-wringing.

And I'm not being deliberately facetious. I wring my hands, too, over the idea that girls don't demand sexual pleasue for themselves, and that they allow themselves to be used in a degrading manner - as part of one of these "trains," for instance - in order to be more popular, and that many teenagers don't understand that you can transmit diseases that way even if you can't get pregnant. I just don't think it's happening as much as these articles imply, and I also don't think that all of the evidence used in these articles is evidence of it happening. Half of all seventeen-year-old girls have had oral sex? Okay, fine. But that statistic doesn't speak to how many times, who they had it with, or who got sexual pleasure from it (since you've "had oral sex" whether you were the receiver or the giver), and I refuse to get my stomach in a knot over the idea of a seventeen-year-old engaging in sexual activity with her boyfriend that has no chance of getting her pregnant (as long as they are acting to prevent transmission of diseases).

And I know that people will say, "Oh, but you're not a parent." Okay, but a) I am a big sister. I feel very protective towards both my younger sisters, one of whom is in this age group. And I can honestly say that as long as she's safe, loved, and getting as much as she's giving, I'm happy for her, and b) if parental reaction to this is more about, "Oh, my baby is growing up," and less about, "These practices are emotionally and physically dangerous," as is implied by the "But you're not a parent yet" attitude, then I have even less respect for them than I did before. Parents, teenagers have sexual urges, because they have gone through or are going through puberty, which means "the time in life when you get sexual urges." The lucky ones are even acting on them. You did or would have, too.

Objection the fourth: If you are an adult interviewing a teenager on their attitudes about sex, you should know they are probably making every effort to come across as blase and experienced to you, because they are teenagers, and they do that. Their answers have no bearing on their actual behavior. If you don't know that, you're perhaps in the wrong profession.

This relates to that "and intimated that they themselves weren't that different" sction of the quote. They tell an adult a story about a friend of theirs whose behavior is slutty, and the adult acts predictably horrified. What are the kids going to do, align themselves with the values of these adults, right in front of them and everything, or quickly align themselves with that which the adults want to reject? Clearly, they're a little shocked and put off by these stories as well, or they wouldn't be telling them. You can't take their "intimating" that seriously.

Objection the fifth: You probably know your own kid better than you think you do.

After another recent teenage-behavior scare, the one about "friends with benefits" (which is, again, something that plenty of older people are doing or pretending to do), my father asked me if I thought my fourteen-year-old brother was at risk for this type of behavior. Now, I love my brother very much, and I think one day he will grow into quite the lady-killer. But right now? He's kind of a dork. I don't know that he's been able to say "Hi" to a girl he has a crush on. I told my dad that he was more at risk for NOT having any of this type of behavior for a long, long time, and that if my dad really wanted to help, he'd figure out how to get him into one of these situations, not out of them.

I've encountered this attitude in other venues. Remember this spring, when some schools banned prom because kids just use it as an excuse to rent hotels and get drunk and have sex? Lots of hand-wringing them. But listen, parents. If your kid goes out to parties all the time before prom, and doesn't come home, and always claims to be sleeping at a friends', whose parents you don't know, then they are also going to do that at prom. If your kid engages in none of these activities before prom, because a) you are too strict for them to get away with that, b) they are not really inclined to that sort of thing (which plenty of teenagers are not, I swear!), and/or c) they are too dorky to be included in that sort of thing, they are not going to do them at prom. You probably already know which of these categories your kid falls into.

I also had a sort of weird discussion with my mother-in-law. I went on a teen tour to Israel when I was 16, for five weeks, and expressed that I expected that I would send our kids on one, too. (Actually, since my grandparents sent me on mine, I sort of expect that my dad will send my kids on theirs, but that's neither here nor there.) My mother-in-law said that she thought this was a bad idea because kids get up to all kinds of trouble on trips like that, away from home, with limited supervision. I said, first of all, that supervision is not that limited, and second of all, that I went on a trip. Not entirely getting my point, she said, "Yeah, and you said some kids were drinking and partying." I pointed out that a) they got caught and their parents were called, and b) I still didn't do anything. I was sitting that night with a bunch of people who knew that it was going on and chose not to go to it. I reiterate, if your kid does that kind of thing when not on a teen tour in a foreign country, your kid will do that kind of the thing when on a teen tour in a foreign country. Admittedly, in Israel, your level of supervision is no longer a safeguard, but you still have the other two - inclination and dorkiness. And you usually know whether your kid has either of those. Really, the biggest worry is if you know your kid wants to drink, you know your kid is cool enough to be invited to hang out with those who want to drink, and so only your vigilance has kept them from doing so. And I think, given their genetic material, there's little chance our kids won't be too dorky to be invited to the big, drunk orgies.*

I have no other objections I want to get into right now**, but I do want to say one other thing. I really do understand why parents don't want their kids having their boy/girlfriends in their actual bedrooms, because there are beds in there, and things can go in beds, so I'm not objecting to the rules themselves. But I do think parents have to understand the phrase "my room" from a teenage perspective. To a parent, who owns the whole house, a bedroom is the place where one sleeps, (hopefully) has sex, and engages in private activities of various types. To a teenager, their room is basically their apartment. The rest of the house is not "theirs" in the same way, and so their bedroom is usually their location for sleeping, eating, dressing, studying, socializing, lounging, etc. So some of the time, when they bring a boy/girlfriend up there, it's not with the understanding that sexual activity will be engaged in, it's with the understanding that this is where they live and so where else would they go? Again, I'm not saying that means you should let your teenagers have their boy/girlfriends in their rooms. I'm just remind you that your understandings of "bedroom" are different so you can be guided accordingly.

*I should stress that these kids don't exist yet, much less do they show signs of wanting to rock and roll all night.

**I do object to how obsessively this is all focused on girls, because obviously, boys are not a factor in blow jobs at all, but there's just too much there.

Adventures in Subbing - Learning and Not Liking the Slang

2006-01-26T09:58:00.000-06:00

I suppose I intended to do some serious logging of all of my substitute-teaching adventures, and it's too bad that I stopped when I did, because I've been having some fun in the interim, but today I just want to talk about one aspect of my job - the learning of new slang - and one new word in particular - shysty.

As those of you who can figure out the origins of this term might imagine, "shysty" is an adjective for a person who is untrustworthy, especially with money, a person you can count on to cheat you, steal from you, or lie to you. Obvious to me is that it comes from "shyster." Apparently the kids don't know this, nor do they know that "shyster" is a derogatory term for Jews.

I can't even be too hard on them for not knowing. Some of them have never met a Jew, and anyway, one of my husband's teachers at the dental school used the word "shyster" as if it had no ethnic implication at all. And generally speaking, when I hear it and I say to a kid, "Hey, don't say that, it's a racial slur on Jews," they say they didn't know that and apologize. But so far I've only brought it up to kids I know, kids whose schools I go to all the time. And I don't know if they still use it when I'm not around, much the way they're cautious about saying "white" in front of me. (Well, some of them are. Some of them have no problem not only saying "white," but saying "white motherfucker," in front of me, and not understanding why I think that's a problem.)

But I don't even know if I can state categorically if they're wrong to use it. If for them it is completely divorced from any association with Jews (and they are not using it to apply to Jews or even to imply that the people they are applying it to occupy any other ethnic or racial category than their own), is it wrong for them to use it? I don't know. Nor do I know what to do about it in situations where the kids just met me five minutes ago, and will likely never see me again, and, though they may not mean to be racist or anti-Semetic, don't particularly care if I'm interpretting them as either.

And I thought this was just teenage slang. I'd never heard any of the adults use it. (I didn't hear them tell the kids not to use it, but I figure they have a hard enough time getting them to not say "fuck" all the time.) But last night, on Project Runway, Zulema said it. I don't think she knew either. And maybe the producers didn't. I mean, if a contestant said the n-word,* I'm sure they wouldn't have used that footage.

To end on a lighter note, I wil share some slang I do like:

Track star - promiscuous person. As in, one who runs around a lot.

Chaluppin' - somewhere between walking around, looking for girls, and cheating on your current girl. But in a fairly relaxed way.

Thirsty - desperate, particularly for sex.

Woo woo - yadda yadda yadda

*I can't type it. I feel ridiculous writing "the n-word," and I am trying and trying to convince myself that it's just a word, and I'm only referring to it as a word, not using it to describe a person, and I would never use it in an actually racist way, but I still can't do it. I can't say it either, even when I'm discussing it as a word with the kids, and even when the kids tell me it's okay for me to say it in that context. But it took me until I was 12 years old to say my first curse word, too.

Ew, Kissing

2006-01-10T15:35:00.000-06:00

I saw the new Pride and Prejudice this weekend, and, despite my initial misgivings, I was pleased.

Now, this is not a faithful adaptation in many senses of the term. For one thing, it's significantly shorter than the ultra-faithful 1995 BBC version, which (justifiably) launched Colin Firth to stardom,* and came in at around five hours long. This is trimmer, at only a little over two hours, and as a result, they cut out a lot of scenes, combine some others, and cut or combine some extraneous characters. You get a little less time to, for instance, watch Wickham be charming, so when he's revealed as a tool,** you're not really surprised, or invested enough to be surprised. One of Bingley's sisters is cut, so the remaining one has to take on the bitchery that was usually shared between the two of them over a longer period of time into a few short scenes. (Fortunately, the actress handles that pressure with aplomb.) Everything just moves a lot quicker (until the very end, when time suddenly stands still, but that will be discussed later). Most of the time this is fine, although sometimes it's clear they forgot little details. For instance, the visit Elizabeth pays at Bingley's estate while her sister is there and ill is cut short, so that the scene in which her mother and sisters come to see how everything is going in the novel turns into the scene in which her mother and sisters come to pick the two of them up. But this isn't obvious until they drive away, so one is left confused by the fact that Jane doesn't join them downstairs when they come in, and the fact that Caroline Bingley seems so surprised at the extra Bennets' appearance. But these are minor, and most importantly, when plot points hinge on minor characters, those plot points are delivered deftly and quickly.

Unfortunately, a lot is also dumbed down. Jane Austen always displayed incredibly subltey in her wit; nothing sounded insulting until you thought about for a few minutes. Some of that gets tossed away. For instance, instead of Elizabeth Bennet's customary nonchalance at Darcy's overheard declaration that she is not "handsome enough to tempt" him into dancing, she is visibly insulted and later throws those comments back at him, albeit humorously, and then walks off in slo-mo as triumphant music emphasizes her put-down of him. The movie also feels the need to explain things - like Charlotte Lucas marrying Mr. Collins - that the novel and other adaptations allowed the audience to understand for themselves. It's occasionally irritating, but not truly detrimental.

There were two elements of this movie's turn away from the source material and subsequent adaptations that I appreciated very much. The first is that it eschews the tradition of presenting Pride and Prejudice as a light, silly comedy of manners with no real emotional component. I suspect that the director or the script writer was a nerd in high school, because no one could capture the emotional pain of socially awkward characters like Mr. Collins, Mary Bennet (the boring, pedantic sister, who hates going to balls and prefers reading books of sermons), and even Mr. Darcy himself. He is so rarely portrayed as genuinely feeling uncomfortable and out of place at a country assembly, rather than just too good for his surroundings, and this depiction nails both.

The other, somewhat faithless, thing I appreciated was the way class was depicted in this film. In the novel, the way it's explained is the way it needs to be explained to an early 19th-century novel reader, i.e., not at all. Although I've always liked the BBC miniseries, I agree with Stephanie Zacharek's criticism that it concentrates very hard on being pretty at all times. It's possible that the way Longbourne (the Bennet home) is decorated absolutely correctly in a periodic sense, and that the Bennet family is dressed absolutely correctly, but to modern eyes, it's difficult to tell the difference in material wealth between the Bennets and Mr. Bingley based on home and dress, because they all look pretty and old-fashioned to us. And though Pemberley (Darcy's estate) is obviously bigger than Longbourne, it's not obviously nicer. Very little about the dress of the Bennet girls in comparison to the Bingley sisters or Georgianna Darcy makes their economic differences obvious. This movie may (or may not - I certainly don't know what an early-19th-century middle-class chair looks like) not be as historically accurate in its details, but it certainly does a better job of driving home exactly what is at stake financially for the girls.

Also driving home that point is a much-improved (to my mind) Mrs. Bennet. I wrote a paper last year on depictions of her (including the one in the original) and found that she's always shrill and ridiculous, despite the facts that 1) she has a very legitimate concern about the future of her girls, of which Jane Austen is obviously not unaware, and 2) she's right about nearly everything. The novel opens on her fervent desire to see her eldest, prettiest daughter married to the new owner of Netherfield, and lo and behold, it happens. True, she doesn't get to see any of her daughters married to the man who will inherit the estate, but Elizabeth, the daughter she was pushing in that direction, marries the wealthiest man any of them have ever met instead, so it all works out. Mrs. Bennet's real fault in the novel seemed to be that she was just too obvious about these things, too honest, in a society that was supposed to hide these motivations. (That's why the moments in this movie in which other characters were too honest about their motivations - like Charlotte Lucas when she explains to Elizabeth why she's marrying Mr. Collins - bugged me. If that's Mrs. Bennet's fault, all the other people in the story can't share it.) Most depictions of Mrs. Bennet, though, make her purely ridiculous, and none of her statements or emotions are meant to be taken seriously. This film managed to balance the inappropriateness of her character and overabundance of her emotions with the very real nature of the Bennets' problem. Furthermore, we were more able to see how easily any of the Bennet women, the haloed Elizabeth and Jane included, might fall into similar behaviors. One of the cutesy visual jokes of the movie (which, despite being cutesy, I liked) was the constant eavesdropping at the door at innappropriate moments - and the constant being caught at it.*** Elizabeth and Jane participated in this habit with as much enthusiasm as their mother and sisters.

Donald Sutherland's portrayal of Mr. Bennet really drives this home. He's tragic, really. Sad and weary at all turns, a gentleman farmer who is afraid he hasn't been very good at either, and a father who knows he's done a piss-poor job of providing for his daughters, but still can't stand the idea of their marrying for money. Usually, he's Mrs. Bennet's straight man, the one winking at the audience (and Elizabeth and Jane) to let us know that he knows how ridiculous she is. But this version allows him to be every bit as aware of his negligence as he ought to be.

While I don't mind that the costumes and the set design may have been fudged a little to make us understand who has money and what having money means, I do mind a couple of anachronisms that seemed out of place. Most egregious was Mr. Bingley walking into the bedroom Jane is staying in while she's sick at Netherfield (Bingley's house). I know most modern audiences who have no historical perspective whatsoever wouldn't understand, if Bingley's so in love with Jane, and she's in his house for days, why they don't see each other that whole time. But for a man to just wander into the bedroom of an unmarried female guest while she's in her nightgown? It's the equivalent, today, in embarrassment and inappropriateness, for the guy you like to wander into your bathroom while you're putting in a tampon. Also, at one ball, Caroline Bingley appears to be wearing a sleeveless dress. I know that the richer and more urban you were, the more daring your dress tended to be, but I think that's pushing it.

I also minded a lot one other area of faithlessness. I always loved Jane Austen's ability to deliver romance stories that leave out the mushy stuff. Once you know a pair were together, that was pretty much it. The end. Sometimes, she's even teasing to her reader. When Edward comes to propose to Elinor at the end of Sense and Sensibility, the readers have to leave the room with her sister and mothers; we don't even get the pay-off of a proposal scene. And, quite famously, we never see kissing. It's part and parcel of the whole idea that, though Jane Austen appears to be writing about lurve, she's really writing about money and manners and hypocrisy. Though this movie does a very good job with the first, and an okay job with the other two, it insist on having the mushy love stuff, too. As fast-paced as the movie has been to that point, once Elizabeth has more or less vocalized her desire to be Mrs. Darcy (to his aunt, played brilliantly and imperiously by Dame Judi Dench), the movie slows to a stop. Elizabeth runs outside**** and sees Mr. Darcy approaching her through the fog. Very, very, slowly.

A digression: I was reminded of an incident when I was an undergrad at Brandeis. I was assistant stage managing a play, someone's senior thesis for their theater major, and there was a scene which began with an old man working at a book shop. The director (who was crazy in an almost stereotypically director-y way) and the actor playing the old man decided that the most hilarious thing ever would be if the transition music into that scene was "Paperback Writer" by the Beatles, and if the actor would walk to the center of the stage where his desk was v . . . e . . . r . . . y, v . . . e . . . r . . . y, s . . . l . . . o . . . w . . . l . . . y. Seriously. Maybe one footstep per ever half-bar. We all thought they were nuts. We were begging them not to do this. The play was already kind of confusing and out there, and we thought this would just put the audience over the edge and we would lose them. We were wrong. The audience burst out laughing, and didn't stop laughing for the entire walk.

Okay, end of digression. Because this slow walk was not at all the same. It was not funny or romantic; it was boring. And then, when they finally meet, they get all melty, and Elizabeth actually KISSES his HAND, and looks all moonily at him with the Lauren-Bacall-patented chin-down, eyes-up look, like they might actually do it right there in the fog. Then they extended the talk between Elizabeth and her father so we could be really, really convinced they were in lurve. Then, THEN, we were subjected to a scene which appears nowhere in the novel, in which Mr. and the now Mrs. Darcy canoodle on his balcony and talk about how happy the are and they actually KISS. Which made me very mad.

But I enjoyed. I must commend Kiera Knightley, for doing a better Elizabeth Bennet than I thought she would, and to commend Matthew MacFayden for his very endearing, and very un-Firth-like Darcy. I always loved Colin Firth in that role, of course. He was the sine qua non of arrogant, stand-offish sexiness. MacFayden gives Darcy vulnerability (and seems somehow younger). My friend used to talk about the way Colin Firth looks at Elizabeth Bennet as eye sex. Having seen this version, I would say that Colin Firth was having eye sex, as in, he was looking at the person with whom he was having sex with in his mind at that moment. MacFayden's Darcy looked at her like he was looking at the person with whom he morosely thought he'd never be able to have sex with. It was hot, in an entirely different way.

Overall, I was a very pleased movie-goer. And it's very rare for me lately, to approve of a piece of narrative art. Kind of restored some of my faith in storytellers. (In case you're interested, Veronica Mars is the other thing that's restored my faith in storytellers.) You know, except for the kissing part. Ew.

*In fact, the only scenes that were not in the novel but were in the mini-series were 1) Colin Firth taking a bath, 2) Colin Firth fencing with an open-collar shirt on, and 3) Colin Firth swimming in a pond in his extremely thin white shirt and tight pants and then coming out of the pond and promptly running into the love of his life while dripping wet.

**I follow a spoiler policy similar to Television Without Pity's. This novel is nearly 200 years old. If you don't know the plot structure, that's the fault of your high school English teachers, not mine.

*** Actually, one of my favorite scenes, which broke my heart, really, was the scene in which Elizabeth has finally and conclusively turned down Mr. Collins, and at the moment he is realizing his rejection, the door swings open, having accidentally been pushed by one of the eavesdropping sisters, some of whom are giggling. That proposal is usually played for laughs, but this film goes for pathos, really. For the first time in my very long history with Pride and Prejudice, I kind of wanted to hug Mr. Collins.

**** This movie takes the characters outside a lot more than the BBC version did, and I loved that. Sometimes it fell on the treacly side. I know it rains a lot in England, but does it really rain so conveniently every time Darcy and Elizabeth step outside to have a "moment"? But Austen herself is constantly pushing her heroines to go on walks, and Elizabeth is supposed to be a pretty outdoorsy girl, for her time and class, so getting her outside all the time was nice, I thought. Plus all of her walks around sweeping examples of English countryside contrast so nicely with that moment that Caroline Bingley asks her to take a "refreshing" "turn about the [stuffy, tiny, drawing] room." Although I'm sure part of their motivation was that they'd already spent lavishly on the little bits of Netherfield and Pemberley that we do see; they couldn't afford more indoor scenes.

Frivolity

2006-01-07T19:01:00.000-06:00

Lately, I have been obsessed with fashion. When I was a kid, I wanted to be a fashion designer, and now, with Project Runway in its second season, and blogs like Go Fug Yourself and Manolo, and access to sites like this and this, I can indulge this obsession as much as I please. (Keep in mind that this indulgence is not happening anywhere near my actual body. My wardrobe is almost entirely Gap and Old Navy, because I have neither the money nor the figure for the clothes I really want, nor the patience required to overcome the first two problems.) Also, something happened (I can't remember what) in early November of 2004 that made me prefer staring at pretty things rather than thinking about the state of the country or the world.

In this veing, my current obsession is the Dolce & Gabbana Spring 2006 collection. See, for example, the photo at right and above.

Is it not exquisite? Is it not (to borrow a phrase from Michael Kors on an episode of Project Runway*) "deliciously girly," while, at the same time, glamourous, sexy, and sophisticated, as well?

Of course, one could argue that it is not exactly wearable. But actually, I sort of disagree. I mean, if one happens to not be a six-foot tall runway model, one might want to forgo the exposed lines of underwear and stocking top, and instead wear a demure slip. Still, one would need to be confident of one's shoulders and arms, but that's true of any strapless dress, and certainly, strapless dresses are worn by many. If one is less than confident, one could wear a shrug.

Or, what about this one?

Totally wearable! For non-sticks and sticks alike! And it's actually really hard to find beautiful clothing that could be worn by non-sticks, but isn't positively screaming, "No, seriously, fat girls can wear me! Fat girls! Over here!" And being modelled by a "plus" size-eight model.

They've also put out some lovely suits that would look good on anyone:

Who wouldn't look good in those? Though the Everywoman - or really, any tastefully dressed woman operating in real life as opposed to on the runway - should probably choose a nice shell rather than a black lace bra to wear under the suits. Just a thought.

Not that wearability is a necessary standard for gorgeous and fun and sexy and girly, as these designs are. Check out these:

If you want to see the whole collection, click here or here. (If you click on the second one, and read the runway review, I just want to say, I'm confused, too. First of all, it's not red, it's hot pink, right? And second, bosomy?)

Enjoy! Perhaps something more serious will come up next time.

* Though he was not, actually, using the phrase in the positive, but rather to describe what a certain losing outfit was not. For more on that, see here.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, DAMN IT!

2005-12-22T07:48:00.000-06:00

I probably shouldn't even honor this faux-controversy by writing about it on my blog, but since I think my readership is up to, you know, zero, I hardly think I am adding to the problem. Plus, it's bugging me.

As a Jewish person who also celebrates Christmas with my pseudo-Catholic mom, I have always thought "happy holidays" makes the most sense, since you don't know which of the many holidays the person you're speaking to might be celebrating, and no matter what, they are celebrating New Year's Eve/Day, so chances are, the plural is relevant. Plus, even atheists have a day or two off of work, which is called a "holiday," so it's grammatically correct, accurate, and inclusive. But it has never bothered me when people say, "Merry Christmas" to me since even if it's not accurate, it's still nice, and maybe that should be the most important thing, right?

But not anymore. Because of the creation of this faux-controversy, now it is reasonable to assume that a person saying "Merry Christmas" is in fact a disciple of Bill O'Reilly, a person who buys in to the belief that there's a "War on Christmas," despite all evidence to the contrary. This person is not just being nice when s/he says "Merry Christmas." This person is now saying, "I am a beleagured Christian who is suffering the slings and arrows of oppression in this country! Where there is so much hate for Christianity that there's even a war on Christmas! So I will fight against those secular liberal PC-police* (by which I mean Jews) by saying to you, 'Merry Christmas!' So hah!"

And conversely, "Happy Holidays" is no longer a nice, inclusive thing to say. It now means, "No! I am the truly beleagured one! You are a moron! So hah!" So basically, this faux-controversy has taken two perfectly nice phrases, which were used in good spirit and cheer, with the intent of making someone else a little bit cheerier, and made them combative phrases. Great.

I even heard one woman say that her minister told her to say "Merry Christmas" because it's a merry Christmas to her. Funny, I thought speech was intended to communicate with others, not to serve as a constant, out-loud diary.

*Wouldn't it make a great Project Runway challenge to have them design uniforms for the PC police?

Together Forever

2005-12-18T09:55:00.000-06:00

So I was fooling around on the Barbie Collectibles website (What? Shut up.) and they have a collection titled "Together Forever," which is Barbie and Ken as various - okay, two - famous couples. Guess which couples go under the heading "Together Forever"?

Romeo and Juliet.

AND

King Arthur and Queen Guenevere!

Hahaha!

Now, I guess I could see the first one. I mean, they are "together forever" if one considers, in a romantic, moony light, that they died together and their souls are bound and blah blah blah. Or, in an unromantic light (my personal choice), their corpses are probably sticking around. Still, "together forever" probably shouldn't imply "only because they killed themselves before they could get a taste of 'forever', or even, say, a week together."

But King Arthur and Queen Guenevere? Have the folks at Mattel never read a book or seen a movie at all?

Oh! Access to Care! Is That What We Do Here?

2005-06-21T20:34:00.000-05:00

I'm sure I don't have to expound at length on my views about pharmacists not dispensing pills because of their religious beliefs here. I mean, obviously, I think that if a pill is legal to be prescribed, and has been prescribed by a liscensed doctor, it should be dispensed by a liscensed pharmacist. I have also been discussing the legal ramifications of freedom of religion with my parents (who are both lawyers - corporate lawyers, but still willing to discuss First Amendment law with me as the whim strikes me) and have come to the conclusion that if your field requires you to do something your religion forbids, you shouldn't be in that field. I understand that individual employers should make reasonable accomodations for religious practices, but presumably, those accomodations don't apply to the entirety of a field of practice. For instance, religious Jews can't work on Friday nights and Saturdays, and I'm assuming there are religious Jews who've sought employment at bars, movie theaters, etc. And individual bars, etc., may have to come to an agreement with those employees, perhaps by giving them all the Sunday or Thursday night shifts, and using them on Christmas and Easter, etc. But I also assume that the recreation field - movie theaters, bars, nightclubs, etc. - don't have formalized procedures for dealing with religious Jewish employees. And you don't even have to go through formalized procedures to become a movie theater employee. Pharmacists go to school for four years AFTER getting a college degree. I'm sure that at some point in school, they're like, by the way, some people have sex before they get married but don't want to have babies, and there are pills you may be required to dispense to that end.

But anyway. I found this article interesting. I think right now, the situation is that there is a religious right contingent within the pharmacalogical community which is intent on not giving birth control to women. (I don't know which contingent is suddenly against mental health medications, or painkillers, but whatever.) And I think the rest of the community is kind of going along with the fight, because it might result in more power for pharmacists, and I get the sense that, very much like actual younger siblings, pharmacists are constantly trying to prove themselves against/wrest power from their big sibling (See what I did there? Gender-free!), actual doctors. But now BigSib is telling LittleSib that it has resources, that it will quash this attempt to gain power. And the non-religious contingent of the pharmacalogical community will want to move the hell away from that if this is going to be the result. So, yay! Go, doctors!

Glass Slippers and Abusive Husbands

2005-05-15T14:22:00.000-05:00

A study about women who love fairy tales and their abusive husbands has been receiving some attention in the blogosphere lately, so I thought I'd give my opinion, as a long time lover of fairy tales, and wife of a non-abusive husband.

Obviously, there are lots of problems with this study. First, there's the sample size - 67 women. A study done of 67 women could not accurately determine anything of value, really. And then, there's the total lack of a "control group." I am sure one could do a similar study and determine that there was a strong preference for wearing blue jeans among women who've been subject to domestic violence. But if you don't look at 67 women who haven't, then you really don't know anything. And a childhood love of fairy tales is just as common as a predeliction for blue jeans in modern industrialized countries. So I don't know why asking 67 self-described victims of domestic violence whether they liked fairy tales growing up tells anyone anything.

There's also a problem, though, with the way they seem to be interpretting the texts. In the AFP article, the author of the study, grad student Susan Darker-Smith, is quoted as saying, " "They believe if their love is strong enough they can change their partner's behaviour." I don't know how one would read fairy tales in their semi-original form and come to the conclusion that one could change one's partner, as the fairy tales, typically, have fairly limited characterization skills. When I was about eight years old, my mother bought me The Complete Fairy Tales of the Brothers Grimm, translated by Jack Zipes, and I tore through it. (Later, she picked up herself, and grew worried about me liking such a bloody, gory, disgusting book. But, to her credit, she merely checked with me to make sure it wasn't twisting my brain and let me alone.) And the thing is, no one, male or female, has such a strong personality - or such a strong personal growth - that one can accurately determine that the woman changes the man through the strength of her love. The Beast in "Beauty and the Beast" is just beastly in form, really. It's not even implied that it's his fault that Beauty has to stay with him - her father plucks a rose from a magic bush and that's pretty much that. The Prince isn't even Charming in Grimm's; he's just a prince.

The cinematic renditions of these stories - with two hours rather than a couple of pages to fill - go far deeper into the characterizations, and thus Disney's Beauty and the Beast, Drew Barrymore's Ever After, and modern-day Cinderella classic Pretty Woman all play on the theme of a good woman changing the behavior and even personality of a formerly not-so-nice guy. Even Shrek, which went one step better than Beauty and the Beast by allowing the girl to be unattractive, too, centered around the taming of an ogre into a nicer ogre because of the love of a good, if feisty, woman. Those depictions (along with all other romantic comedies ever) seem to do far more to promote the idea that you can change a man by loving him than the original fairy tales would. Which would be fine and well, except the study does single out the fairy tale "literature," and favors TV- and movie-watching as the anecdote to these bad, bad bedtime stories. Again, from the AFP, "Darker-Smith said she believed younger generations exposed to television and other entertainment media may react differently and be less submissive than those weaned solely on literature." How on earth is she determining that TV and movies, laden with images of good girls making bad boys good, will be better for women than Cinderella?

I would also like to note, for those of you who've dismissed fairy tales as get-a-man, fast-as-you-can claptrap, that most of Grimm's Fairy Tales have nothing to do with finding a husband, and there are a surprising number of stories about women getting their brothers out of some kind of trouble, either self-induced or evil-forces induced. Not that it's a feminist paradise in there - it's usually the sisters' ability to stay quiet for extended periods of time, or be submissive and "good," which save the day. And there are A LOT of wicked stepmothers and mothers-in-law. I'm just saying. They're not all, "Someday, my prince will come, and until then, I've got mopping to do."

My Husband is Knitting

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

My husband is knitting.

I probably shouldn't be surprised. Although my husband has never done anything quite this effeminate before (aside from relishing Jane Austen movies, I guess), he's always had a casual disregard for gender roles, or, in fact, any rules imposed by a society which clearly does not operate at as high an intelligence level as he himself possesses. Also, it makes sense. He's very physically dexterous, and he needed a new project. And why should I be so hung up on gender roles that I think it's weird for boys to knit?

But I thought we were buying the yarn, the needles, and the Stitch&Bitch for me.

What happened was, I recently took up embroidery with this lovely kit. I happened to be with my m-i-l when I purchased it, and she mentioned that she'd heard knitting was making a comeback, and she'd like to take it up herself, because not only would she be able to make nice, warm things for her family (a major value for her), but she might stop biting her nails. So I bought her the Stitch&Bitch, and the requisite supplies, for Mother's Day. This prompted my husband to lament, for the four hundred and second time, that I haven't yet learned to knit. I ignored him, but then I started reading, and I got interested. Also, I bought a hank of yarn, which looks like a coil of yarn rather than the standard ball or skein, for his mother, and the two of us had a great time rolling it in a ball for her. He had an especially good time, as he went a lot faster than me. So he decided that we would buy all the necessary equipment for me this week, and he would roll yarn into a ball, and that would make him happy.

But now he appears to be knitting. And having a great time. He's told me I don't need the book, he'll just show me. But why should I learn how to knit if he's going to do it? I've got embroidery projects to work on.

Faith and Science

2005-05-09T19:50:00.000-05:00

I have just completed my semester-long course in the Bible as Literature - the New Testament. This was, of course, material I'd never read before so it was very exciting for me and as a consequence, I talked so much about it that my husband was about ten seconds from inventing the human mute button. But here's something I've yet to talk about too much. Why is it that any Christian gives a shit about evolution being taught in public schools under the heading "science"?

I realize, of course, that many Christians do not give a shit, and in fact, the majority of people who fill in the bubble next to "Christian" on surveys and forms that still have the temerity to ask are not batshit crazy and do not wish to interfere with science curriculae. But the majority of people who do wish to interfere with science curriculae identify themselves not only as Christian, but as extremely Christian, as Evangelical or Fundamentalist Christian, or some other variety of Christian that in most cases boils down to "batshit crazy." And why? Now I feel I know something about Christianity, I feel I can state, with some authority, that it should not matter to a person who believes in the ideals put forth by people like Paul whether science classrooms teach evolution or not, because to care about things like that is to belie the whole notion of faith. Faith is believing in something when there is no proof, when all provable evidence is either indifferent or against what you believe. So faith should pretty much roundly ignore science, no?

Paul writes all over his letters (or, for the more Biblically correct term, "epistles") that faith in Jesus is all that's important now. He even puts an interesting spin on the story of Abraham to prove that faith is the all-important thing. In it, he's disproving the significance of the law, not of science, but it can be applied either way. Paul reasons that Abraham was deemed "righteous" because when God said to him, "Pack your bags, move to this unknown land, and you will be father to great nations," Abraham said, "Sounds good to me," even though there was no reason to believe that any of this would work out, since he had never heard of this place and he was already too old to think of fathering anything. So if Abraham is supposed to be your model, isn't the exercise in faith in the word of Bible that much stronger in the face of some really serious scientific proof of evolution than it would be if there were no such proof? If it were still reasonable to believe that the world was created by God in six days, would it really be so faithful to do so?

Also, these guys tend to want their faith taught as science. That seems blasphemous to me. Why should God have to hold himself up to the standards of the scientific method? That is totally anti-thetical to the very concept of God.

Anyway, I was just wondering.

Maybe My Problem is the Desire to Send Letters

2005-04-19T21:47:00.000-05:00

They printed my angry letter in Psychology Today! I almost forgive them for printing such an asinine article. I like being published.

I got pissed at the article "The Emperor's New Woes" which is asinine even from the title. It's by Sean Elder, one of the boys behind Bastard on the Couch, the male answer to Bitch in the House. Feel free to read the text yourself, but basically it says that men have been "blindsided" by their wives suddenly wanting them to have, like, feelings, and be, like, friends with them. Even though their wives are icky-picky girls. And it's so unfair because they expect them to have feelings, but to hold down jobs at the same time! It's just terrible, because, hey, they (men) were willing to let their wives have jobs, and even be proud of them, but if they (women) expect them (men) to have feelings just like icky-picky girls, they have to be out of their minds. It's just terrible that "Today, simply not cheating on your wife or beating your kids doesn't make you a good husband or father." Yes, that's a direct quote. Go on, look. Furthermore, while men might be willing to make that extra step towards sharing their icky-picky feelings, they'll only do it if their wives will put out more. No, really. No, really. Go read the article. I'm not making this up.

So I wrote them a letter, saying that if men were still feeling blindsided, they'd been asleep since 1975, and isn't it irresponsible of PT to print articles suggesting emotional intimacy is icky-picky to boys, and isn't feminism supposed to be about everyone? They editted a little, but they printed it! Yay!

And then they printed an article about how day care is bad for children. Argh. But what's even more "argh" about it is that the only sure statistic printed is that children in day care more than 45 hours a week exhibit more bad behaviors and emotional problems. Leaving out the true measure of bad behavior, let's examine, shall we? The work week is supposed to be 40 hours a week. Figure a half hour to and from the work place to pick up the kid and that's exactly 45 hours a week. So the kids who are exhibiting problematic behaviors are the kids with overworked parents. So maybe the problem isn't day care at all. Maybe the problem is overworked parents, corporations that don't allow for family lives, and cultures that keep everyone feeling guilty about every minute they don't spend being "productive." Maybe. They also claim that this study is also looking at quality of care and quality of parenting when the children are at home, but it doesn't say they're controlling for these variables, just looking at them, and the results of the looking aren't mentioned. And these articles always read as cautionary tales to parents (read: mothers) not to put their kids in extended day care, which is sexist but expected, but what about parents who actually have to work, or their kids will have malnutrition problems on top of their emotional problems? Just argh.

Now, I went to day care starting when I was six months old. I was probably in day care 45-50 hours a week. I was always the first dropped off and the last picked up, which I thought made me special. My parents were still excellent parents who made lots of quality time for me. I was an abnormally well-behaved child, and now I've got no more emotional trauma than the average 23-year-old.

Except for this pesky desire to keep sending letters to PT.

Adventures in Subbing - A Backlog

2005-04-02T12:03:00.000-06:00

Day One - February 23, 2005 It is my very first day of subbing ever. I am awakened at 10 to 6 and told to go to C_____ High School. I am relieved to learn that it is right by school - so I can just head to class afterwards - but not so relieved to learn that it is right by school - not the best neighborhood in the world. I expected this, but I'm still very nervous. Discipline is my main weakness and I think I might need it more than ever today.

I am right. I get to the school twenty minutes before I was told to - and, as it turns out, twenty minutes before the home room bell rings. They ask what I specialize in. I don't specialize in anything; it's my first day. But I say English, because, well, duh. "Okay, we'll give you Mr. Whoever," says one of the secretaries.
"No, don't give her Mr. Whoever. I'm saving Mr. Whoever for the end."
"Well, who should I give her?"
"I don't know. Do you mind having a seat?"
I sit for twenty-five minutes. The first bell rings. They are still sorting things. Finally they give me Ms. Davis and tell me to go to room 205. This is evidently all the instruction they plan on giving me. I flip open the book they hand me. I have Geometry, Algebra and Reading? Huh? I also have unclear lesson plans for the latter two and no lesson plans for the first one. I tell them this. "Oh, they have books. Just have them flip open their books."
"But - "
"You have a free periods 2 and 3. You can come back down then and ask more questions."
Geometry is my first period. "But-"
"Honey, you've got to go! Homeroom started five minutes ago!"
So I go. They do not have books. The books are locked in the cabinet. I don't have the combination. My first period, my first day of subbing, and I have a geometry class with no lesson plans and no textbooks.

The day does not get better. I keep trying to get more questions answered - why do students keep wandering in and out of my classroom and then claim that they don't belong in my class? How am I expected to take attendance? Where is the bathroom? What kind of teacher teaches math and reading? - but none are forthcoming. I keep going down to the office during my free periods, but they keep sending me to some other teacher's class for more subbing duties. This other teacher is in school; she just has a meeting. Why she has a meeting during her class times, I don't know. I do know that two students almost get into a fistfight in one of her classes while I am there. My presence does not stop them at all. I try to get them to read. One of them may or may not be illiterate. The others are at about a second-grade reading level. They're freshmen in high school.

One kid threatens to hit me. He later tries to turn over a desk/chair thing while another student is sitting in it. Even once I know you're supposed to check IDs, students wander in and out of my classroom as if I am not standing there. I finally get the question about why I teach such varied subjects. It's because these are Special Needs kids. In this school, that does not mean lower IQs or learning disabilities. That means eSpecially Needs a kick in the behind.

When I get to my own class (the one in which I am a student) that evening, my friend asks me what's wrong. "First day of subbing," I reply. She understands completely. She's had first days of subbing before. Well, at least one. She says I look like hell.

I figure, though, that it's a good thing my first day was so rough. Now, what can they possibly give me to top this?

Day Two - March 2, 2005 O____ School, an elementary/middle school, calls me. I had given them my name a couple of weeks ago and said I lived in the area. I am a little nervous that I'll get really little kids, but I'm so grateful I'm not going to Collins that it's fine. I don't; I get eighth graders, and apparently, the "good" eighth graders. I appear to be teaching reading and organizational skills. Or something. I am given explicit lesson plans. Mostly, I am to administer tests and oversee Quiet Reading Time. The eighth-grade kids think they are bad-asses. One in particular, whose worst crime is talking when I tell him not to, wants to know if he's in trouble. If I write him up, he tells me, he'll be suspended. I tell him that if he doesn't want to get suspended, he should stop doing things that would get him written up, but inside I laugh. Kid, I think, you have no idea. I also have seventh graders who think they are bad-asses. They are slightly worse than the eighth-graders. One student keeps farting, causing laughing riots and much movement among other kids. One kid, who clearly fancies himself a Jack Black-style class clown, tells me his name is Seymour Butts. "First of all," I tell him, "it doesn't hurt me if you get marked absent. Second of all, if you want to be class clown, you need better material. That joke was old when my grandfather was your age." All in all, a much better day. I tell the sub coordinator that I would be delighted to return.

Day 3 - March 4, 2005 And return, I do. This time, to sub - get this - gym! It is to laugh! But it's kind of a fun day. I have all ages this time. Most are really pumped to participate. We play Line Soccer, the kind where you divide the class in two teams, have them stand against opposite walls and assign them coresponding numbers, and then call out those numbers so only a few kids play at a time. I scream a lot, I lose my voice, and I discover that third and fourth graders love to tattle-tale. I also discover that most of these kids could whoop my ass. They do multiple push-ups, sit-ups, running - and they do it enthusiastically! By the end of the day, I have completely lost my voice, making it hard to chear for my sister-in-law when we see her in The Vagina Monologues that night.

Day 4 - March 11, 2005 O_____ hasn't call me so I go back to C_____ the next day. I get excited when I see that the students have a half-day, and I don't have kids in my last two periods. I think this means I can leave early. It does not. I have to stay for the Staff Development meeting, which is boring. But then, so is most of my day. I am subbing for the Culinary Arts teacher, who is on maternity leave, but I'm not allowed to actually cook with them. I'm basically allowed to babysit them. I get them to talk about the food they like, a little, but that's about it.

Day 5 - March 28, 2005 I haven't worked in a couple of weeks, because I had a lot of work to do before I went to the Bahamas, and then both I and the students in the CPS district had spring break. I wasn't even going to work today, but O_____ called at 8:40 to tell me to come over right now. So I do. They're using me as a teacher's aid to two Special Needs kindergarteners - one in the morning session, one in the afternoon session. (Kindergarteners here only go to school for half a day.) The one in the morning session has apparently made subs run out of the school crying after half an hour. It's why the sub coordinator is so reluctant to tell me what I'm actually doing. But I think the kid is okay. His parents won't have him diagnosed, and refuse to admit there is a problem at all, but, based on my limited knowledge of the one autistic kid my m-i-l tutors, I think this kid has a slightly lesser degree of autism than that kid, and possibly some attention and hyperactivity disorders as well. The main thing he does is yell, but he doesn't seem to yell maliciously. He just seems to yell when he's really excited. Although it's clear that there is no point to him being in this classroom. He cannot interact with the other kids; he cannot get anything out of the actual education going on. But he certainly does not make me want to run out of the building crying.

The next kid has Ausberger's and is clearly very smart. He's just not great at interacting with the class, and he gets distracted easily. He's obsessed with coinage, which is funny, and routine, which makes it difficult to be his sub. This is true in general, and especially of younger kids, but with kids with mental problems already there's a definite mistrust of me and why I'm there. But he's not overtly bad for me. He just isn't as good for me as he would be for his regular aid. All in all, an interesting day.

Day 6 - April 1, 2005 I accept the job at O____ before I realize that it is April Fool's Day. But nothing bad happens. I get third-graders, who haven't moved beyond "Made you look!" as a form of practical joking. They are the same third-graders I had for gym. Some of them remember me. They all seem to like me. They are a little rowdy but nothing too bad. They are also tattle-tales. One of them reminds me of my sister. Aw.

A Vacation and a News Story

2005-03-22T16:57:00.000-06:00

I really didn't want to be the 9,765,482nd blogger writing about Terri Schiavo. I barely know anything about the case, but what I know about it tells me that half her problem is that 9,765,482 people are interested, and a couple hundred of them have elected posts in the federal government. (The other half of her problem is that she's a vegetable.) So I was going to write about my vacation to the Bahamas instead.

But the thing is, the Bahamas is lovely to go to, but not very interesting to talk about. Want to know what happened? There was sunshine. Lots of it. There was lolling about poolside. The combination of these two factors led to the copious application of sunscreen, which was, for the most part, successful. There was the eating of much shellfish. There were the endless security lines. But mostly there was the sun and the water and the sunscreen. Not very thrilling for you my readers (all two of you).

The Terri Schiavo case, on the other hand, has meat. Lots of meat. I'm just going to take a little bite. And it is to say this: Monsieur le Presidente, this "culture of life" of which you and your cronies cannot stop speaking - will it be arriving in Afghanistan or Iraq any time soon? What about your old state of Texas, responsible for so many of the death penalty executions in this country?

What's that you say, Mr. President? That's different? There are situations in which life must be sacrificed for some other purpose? Especially if that life belongs to someone darker than us? Huh. Interesting. A person's own better interest, a person's own request, to die instead of being kept alive by life support, is not a good enough purpose?

No, you say, Senor el Presidente? (In case you can't tell, I don't speak Spanish.) Would I be in support of suicide in general, you ask? Well, not exactly, no. I do find suicide understandable and lamentable at times. But "supporting" or not "supporting" suicide is a bit beside the point. The problem with people committing suicide is not in the act itself. It's the despair that leads them to the act that's a problem. Sometimes, that despair is relatively personal and psychological, and therefore, what we, as a society, must do to demonstrate our lack of support for suicide is ensure that access to psychological and psychiatric care is easy and affordable, that there are no stigmas attached to seeking such care, and that there is widespread knowledge about the access to such care. Sometimes, that despair is a bit more societal, say, when gay teenagers feel despair at the way society will discriminate against them (aHEM, President Bush) and thus commit suicide in record numbers. That's also something we need to work on. (AHEM! Geez, I hate it when I have this big a frog in my throat, Mr. President.) My stance on suicide is similar to my stance on teen pregnancy and STI transmissions - I'm not "in favor" of those things; but mostly what I'm not in favor of is the things that lead to those things - lack of education and access to contraception. But I already know you and I don't see eye to eye on this one, Mr. President & Co.

In Terri Schiavo's case, the (presumed and supported by her husband) desire for suicide has roots in the despair over her medical condition. Her medical condition cannot be helped. Medical science, as a rule, makes advances everyday, so we're already working on preventing as many future Terris as possible, but Terri herself can no longer be helped. So why are we forcing her to live with the despair? Why isn't that just as good a cause as anything you use to justify mass killings, Mr. Bush?

And that's all I'm going to say about that.

If I Had a Million Dollars

2005-03-10T17:50:00.000-06:00

So I am now addicted to VH1. Not all of it. I have a Tivo so I can pick and choose, instead of just putting it on. Mostly what I choose is the Fabulous Life of . . . series. I think it's, well, fabulous. You know what's especially hilarious about it? That the VH1 commentators can constantly react with such shock; that they can so very consistently apply their own salaries to the celebrities' lifestyles. I was watching one about celebrity kids, and they were oohing and aahing over some family - the Travoltas, perhaps? - going on an around-the-world vacation over the summer. Imagining these kids going back to school that fall, they were gushing, "Oh, what did you do this summer? I worked at camp, I went to Disney World, I went . . . around the world?!!! How many kids can say that? They're just going to be the coolest kids at school." Well . . . not at the Travolta's kids' school. Or whoever. At the Travolta's kids' school, lots of kids probably take extravagant vacations over the summer. I mean, they probably do go to Disney World, but they probably get to rent the park out, you know?

Or yesterday, I was watching Fantabulous Homes. They were all on top of Jerry Seinfeld for putting a baseball field on his bajillion dollar property in Long Island. "What a waste!" they cried. "The land under that field is probably worth $15 million!" So what? A baseball field sounds like a perfectly good use of space to me. I mean, this isn't public property. He bought it as part of his home. So he's not going to, I don't know, put a homeless shelter there. Not that these people would have cared; they talk about Angelina Jolie's house in Cambodia and they don't even mention her charitable work. But a baseball field would be great at your house! Your friends could come over. Your kids' friends could come over. I mean, he didn't build a stadium. It's just the diamond. I didn't even see bleachers or anything.

Then again, I also thought that Aaron Spelling using two of his 128 rooms in his mansion as gift-wrapping rooms sounded totally reasonable. I mean, if you're Aaron Spelling, you have a lot of gifts to give. And wrapping them actually takes up a lot of space. When I was working as a receptionist last year, I was helping the head secretary wrap the Christmas gifts the company was sending out, and they weren't really big presents - just candies and cookies and nuts - but we needed to completely transform the space between our cubicles, plus use an empty room in the back, plus use part of the warehouse, and the wrapping, etc., was all stored in a closet. Gift-wrapping is space-consuming! And I'm sure Aaron Spelling is not just sending out gifts with drugstore wrapping and $0.99 ribbon, either.

Maybe I was just meant to be ridiculously wealthy, so this all makes perfect sense to me.

Welcome to my World

2005-02-22T10:35:00.000-06:00

Most of my posts will start out like this: I should be doing homework, but . . .

This first post will be no exception. I should be doing homework, but . . . I've decided I need a spot on Blogger! And now that I have one, it's back to Pierre Bourdieu.

But first, a few things about me. I'm a twenty-three-year-old grad student in English Literature. I'm married. I live in Chicago, but I'm from New Jersey. I love raspberry lime rickeys, and not just because they're named after me.