Thursday, August 7, 2014

Thursday roundup

A poignant essay on having children in a f*ed up world.

A more comprehensive takedown of David Brooks' latest column (than the more basic one I wrote earlier).

I've always said, quantum mechanics makes my head hurt.
Here's some sloppy science writing: "Plasma" is undefined in the text, but defined in the video as ionized gas. Is that what plasma always is, because I don't think that that's how people refer to plasma in the son. Also, I don't think the solar system and the heliosphere are the same thing.

Scientists out of their field love to tell you that organics are pointless, but recent events indicate otherwise. Similarly, I'll answer this call to explain why "GMO denial" is different from anti-vaxxing: because vaccines are a known, proven solution to a real problem (i.e., disease). If the question is, "are GMOs harmful to one's health," than that's as useless a question as, "do organics have more nutrients." Those are narrow questions that don't get a t the actual issue. And global food insecurity is not a matter of more technology in agriculture.

The Supreme Court is backsliding on women's rights, even as other human rights issues move forward.

I cannot deny it: Maureen McDonnell evokes epic schadenfreude in me, even though she's so pathetic--as Robin Givhan bitingly points out--that she merits pity instead:
At the highest levels, the fashion industry produces much that is breathtakingly original, beautiful and inspiring. But it also churns out those products that serve far more crass purposes. They equate money with inherent value.  They offer a flimsy validation of self-worth. They exploit the superficial belief that power, ambition and success can be encapsulated by few rarefied brands that have — through cynical marketing and false scarcity — come to signify that one has arrived.
Read the whole column; it's spot-on.


I feel like I could write an entire post--and maybe I will, this weekend--about dudes who insist on doing things for you (even after you've asked them not to). I was recently talking to my WMF (search the blog if you care enough), and for whatever reason, BE came up. I was somewhat surprised at even her reaction ("and then you owed him something"); um, no, I didn't. I don't owe anybody anything, much less for continuing to do things I've explicitly asked them to stop doing, even if they're generous things on the surface. It's called, boundaries. I stood up to BE the way I stood up to RM; I wasn't about to let either of them bully me into friendship or more. But WMF also said, "ah, you friendzoned him." What?? I mean, I declined to date him. Because I had no feelings for him and knew I never would, and because he annoyed me. Why does refusing to date someone--a perfectly normal thing to do--get its own derogatory name? 

Anyway, thinking about BE--a serial mansplainer--reminded me of when he tried to mansplain me to me. This isn't the first time a dude has done this, and it's even more egregious than mansplaining something tangible (even if you know more about it). I.e., BE would try to mansplain to me the issue I work on (and he wasn't the only one). Anyway, BE once mansplained to me that I was attractive, but that my sense of democracy prevented me from acknowledging it. The only possible translation of that is, "you're not as much of a bitch as you might be, given how attractive you are, because you don't look down on ugly people." More accurately, I don't believe in the concept of ugly people, except in the proverbial sense.

But this speaks to a bigger issue: we're--to paraphrase Eric Holder--cowards in how we talk about attractiveness. So much so that we judge people who handle it better (I keep telling you guys that Russians don't have this hangup). 

Smile! Because dudes you don't give a $hit about think you should.

I was not so lucky as this woman (before she was ever on the receiving end of an obscene selfie), but I'm glad I didn't have to assess so many of them.

Parents: it's wonderful that you think your babies are adorable, but nobody else should have to deal with their $hit (literally). Seriously.

No comments: