Thursday roundup and ramble

Look who's happy to not be dinner.

How much do GMOs actually help the farmers who use them?

Quit giving people shit about what they eat or don't eat; it's none of your business. Also, quit calling all thin people anorexic.

Here's another, rarely discussed way in which science fiction (among other things) neglects physics.

If you've been wondering about ancient bear sex, science has delivered.

***
Sigh. This is going to be a difficult thing to discuss, so please hear me out and appreciate the nuances that I'm going for here (for the most part). First, let me tell you how I came across this: I searched on "Miss Manners" and "ask if pregnant," or some such, because my teammate at work was very upset that another colleague had asked her if she was pregnant (and then proceeded to say that she looked it, judging from her belly fat). I tried to assuage the teammate, told her I never would have thought her pregnant, but more importantly, thought that the asker was a horrible, tactless person. If you're wondering whether it's okay to ask someone if she's pregnant, the answer is almost never. If it's obvious, you don't need to ask; if it's not obvious, you really shouldn't ask. Either way, it's none of your business. I was sure that Miss Manners had an appropriate retort for such an impertinent question, so I searched for one. And came across the afore-linked disappointed response to a Miss Manners' response.

The first thing I'll say is, how was the first commenter helpful? By calling Miss Manners names and neglecting to address anything on substance, what did she accomplish, apart from perhaps further convincing everyone that rudeness accomplishes nothing. The next thing I'll say is, that comment--and the very basis of the thread--is misguided; Miss Manners is an etiquette columnist, not a therapist. She answered the question that was addressed to her, "with the greatest sympathy" for the letter writer. And that answer was, essentially, that there is no etiquette-appropriate way of telling people not to send their good news because it reminds you of your bad--even devastating--news. And that is true.

I also express the greatest sympathy for the letter writer, and I don't think her question was off-base. In fact, I've been in the position of the friends in her situation, and I've wondered about the best approach to similar, though less fraught, situations. For example, I hesitated before sending the invitation to my "anti-mother's day party," knowing that a good five people on the receiving end didn't have living mothers to speak of. One of those people lost her mother quite recently. In the end, I went ahead and titled the party in that way--and it was a joke (the Sunday after my birthday happened to fall on mother's day; my mother wasn't speaking to me at the time; and I have anti-Valentine's Day parties every year, so the name was a play on that theme)--and later, almost incidentally, checked in with each of the people who might have been offended, and none was. I know it's not the same, but the point I would like to make is, that woman probably has friends who are thinking, "should I go ahead and send this to her, too?" And so I do wish that Miss Manners might have addressed that: what would be a good system to communicate the letter-writer's sensitivities to people who are wondering? Another example--and again, I know it's not the same--I remember when an unemployed friend was offended that a mutual friend who had just been offered a job, didn't share the job news with her, even out of sensitivity.

I'm not sure how to say what I want to say while side-stepping a debate over where infertility and miscarriage fit in things that suck but still happen to good people. Definitely worse than unemployment, but also not definitively the most tragic life events out there. We don't need to rate the tragedies that may befall people, but it's hard to go further in this discussion without using other life events (or circumstances) as analogies. I think I would rather side-step the whole thing, which means not using examples. But we do need to establish that there are lots of things in life, some devastating, that people have to deal with. What I am not saying is, "most people in the world don't have access to clean water, so stop whining about everything else." What I'm saying is, there are always going to be things that some people have and others don't, and oftentimes the people who have, take those things for granted, and sometimes those that have piss off those that don't. And 'have' needn't be a material thing; it could be an opportunity (like that of conceiving a child), or the lack of a tragedy or loss or other traumatic event. And to what extent must the haves (of whatever) mind the sensitivities of the have-nots? Even if it's reasonable, is it possible? I'm also, emphatically, not saying go dump out a gallon of spring water in front of someone who hasn't had water of any kind for years. I'm saying, how should those who have, behave? If I've climbed a mountain and want to send some pictures, do I exclude any friends who are in a wheelchair (not that people without limbs can't climb mountains; they can, but not as easily)? Can I kvetch about my mom's antics to friends who no longer have a mom to speak of?

Sensitivity to something as ubiquitous as other people having children is an unsustainable state; eventually, the letter writer is going to want to move on. Not because she should, but because it will serve her more than the other way. I'm in no position to tell her that she should learn to be happy for other people, including those who want what she most wants and can't have, but I can only argue that being happy for those people is a better place to be, for her.