Kenya is a tinderbox. If you click, brace yourself for a disturbing image (the one on the front of the print edition is even more graphic; let's see if the Times gets complaint letters about it).
Norwegians really care about fireplaces on TV.
Just because Sheryl Sandberg speaks from a position of privilege, doesn't mean her points aren't valid. I was just thinking about this in the context of Nora Ephron's take: of course you can have it all. What else are you going to do?
Guys, please understand that you are not foremost in women's minds when we dress ourselves. Even to the extent that we dress to look good (in addition to dressing for warmth, comfort, functionality, etc.), that's still not all about you. We like to look good for us.
Not everything women do is done with men in mind. Just because you find someone sexy, doesn’t mean she’s being sexy for you. Just because someone is wearing something you find sexy, doesn’t mean she is wearing that something for you. Your argument that women must be wearing yoga pants in part to appeal to man’s reptilian brains is based on one thing: “Sweats are comfortable too.” So a woman who chooses yoga pants over sweats is choosing the option that happens to be more appealing to men, so that must be her M.O. But maybe they’re more appealing to her because they fit better. Yoga pants are certainly more flattering, but women like to look good for themselves too, you know.and
...I must admit I don’t spend a lot of time thinking about what clothing choices men would approve of... I mean, if I’m going out on a date, I may dress in a way I think he’ll “get” (i.e. no, like, harem pants). And yeah, if I’m going to see a guy I like, I’ll dress and do my makeup in a way that makes me feel good because then I project confidence that I think any man in their right mind would find sexy.
Otherwise, I wake up and get dressed in a way that pleases me every day. I also dress for other women because I admire the style of so many regular women I know or see on the street and, to a certain degree, I feel good knowing another woman on the train, or a coworker, or a friend, might be looking at my outfit and thinking it’s fierce too.Click to read more, it's a good column.
The Onion on fish mislabeling.
The Daily Show on Russia's dashcams.
And now for my ramble (it is a quick one). I've been taking buses this week. I discovered that there's a bus stop a mere two blocks from my house. I guess I've seen it before and never noticed it, because DC buses aren't the most reliable modes of transportation. When I last had to rely on them--in the District, my second year of grad school--they were chronically late and slow. You could generally walk more quickly than a bus would move. But they're a bit better outside the city--they don't have to stop at every block, corresponding to a traffic light at each stop, which makes for more stopping time than moving time. And this bus was going pretty much exactly where I needed to be, so my choices were (1) walk to the metro (8 minutes) + ride to CC (also 8 minutes?) + walk 15 minutes to the conference; (2) walk to the bus stop (1 minute) + ride to nearest stop (12 minutes) + walk to conference (1 minute); and (3) walk the whole way (45 minutes). I ended up taking option three the first night, because I'd just missed a bus and the next one was late (thank heavens for apps!), and indeed, I managed to beat the bus home. And even when they're on time, these buses don't run frequently (every 30 minutes during rush hour is less frequent than Metro's least frequent non-rush hour schedule, which is every 20 minute). To accommodate this schedule, I basically made my day that much longer--my choices were (1) get to the conference an hour ahead of time or (2) risk getting there late, in case the almost-just-in-time bus was late. So even though I have to admit that the buses served their purpose when they actually showed up at a reasonable frequency, I'm not prepared to eat crow and wholeheartedly endorse the system.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment