Kota Kinabalu and surroundings

We boarded a very early flight to Kota Kinabalu, where we were picked up from the airport by our tour guide and driver so we could head straight to Kinabalu Park, stopping at a couple of markets along the way.

Friday roundup

Were you wondering about Qatar? Or about NATO?

 

Richest country in the world...

In Iola, community workers talk of tragedies that could have easily been prevented.
Holly Jerome, a director at the Southeast Kansas Mental Health Center, spoke about a patient who lost a leg to diabetes and a disabled drug addict who couldn't go back to work because his insurance wouldn't cover a nonaddictive pain medication. Angela Henry, project director of the community organization Safe Base, told of a 13-year-old girl who lost part of her jaw when her parents couldn’t pay to finish a dental operation, and the packing pellets a dentist put in her tooth rotted.

Money and whiteness buys man relative impunity even in the rare case where he's prosecuted; woman's life is upended.

 

Eat plants.

Two perspectives (Roxane Gay's, indirectly, and Lindy West's, via the Goop festival) on fatness.

Kids need limits.

How you handle and discourage unwanted gifts depends on the relationship.

Karma can be a beautiful thing.

Xmas eve roundup

Two perspectives on Allepo.

Why there's nostalgia for the Soviet Union in spite of its victims.

Evan Osnos on tyranny:

Tyranny does not begin with violence; it begins with the first gesture of collaboration. Its most enduring crime is drawing decent men and women into its siege of the truth.

Our horribly unjust justice system.

Just two excerpts from Coates' must-read "My President Was Black."

Barack Obama’s victories in 2008 and 2012 were dismissed by some of his critics as merely symbolic for African Americans. But there is nothing “mere” about symbols… Burning crosses do not literally raise the black poverty rate, and the Confederate flag does not directly expand the wealth gap.

and

Historians will spend the next century analyzing how a country with such allegedly grand democratic traditions was, so swiftly and so easily, brought to the brink of fascism. But one needn’t stretch too far to conclude that an eight-year campaign of consistent and open racism aimed at the leader of the free world helped clear the way.

Why I still haven't managed to muster compassion for Trump voters:

But the istina of the 2016 campaign is that Trump’s base was heavily dependent on racists and xenophobes, Trump basked in and stoked their anger and hatred, and all those who voted for him cast a ballot for a man they knew to be a racist, sexist xenophobe. That was an act of racism.

That and this (on the Jewish family that did skip town early because they were smeared by Fox and Breitbart).

Would we have Pizzagate had we responded to gamergate?

You--provided that you'd rather live--want a female doctor.

It's hard to undo climate rules, fortunately.

I recently had reason to revisit these two articles, which I blogged about at the time. This reminded me of the second in particular, in that... the Post wants me to feel bad for these people and I kind of do but I don't. I have trouble responding with compassion (and outrage) to the man who pushes wheelchairs at National and sometimes can't afford to get home. But "I'm a stay-at-home mom of four and can't afford xmas gifts for my kid?" Get a job. If I had four kids I couldn't afford shit either; we all make our choices. And the mom who's kid wants a Playstation? Guess what? I asked my parents for a Nintendo when I was a kid; they told me to make the money for it myself, and by the time I did, I changed my mind (and more importantly, learned that things have opportunity costs--not a bad lesson).

I do and don't hear this. I think vast differences in income can be a challenge on either side. I've not been in a serious relationship where I've vastly outearned the man--I've probably been on any number of dates where I did, but no information would have come out to broadcast that fact. I don't agree that men, generally, are turned off by ambition and outspokenness; plenty are, but who needs them? Also, her other article on 'manly men' is awful--there's a clear line between manliness and intrusiveness and disrespect for boundaries.

Everything about this screams red-flag, even as I don't doubt the benefits of nursing.

More things not to do when dating or trying to.

Dr. Nerdlove on how not to text and other dating truths:

When it comes to dating in all of its forms, there’s one universal sin: being boring... There should be substance behind your texting – something meaty that the other person can sink their conversational teeth into. It could be something crazy that’s happening or a question that prompts a conversation. You could even be texting just to flirt, because flirting is inherently fun. But if all you’re doing is just killing time, then you’re killing the attraction as well.

 and

Rolling into the conversation cock first is a signal to others. Under the most charitable reading, you’re someone who’s so blind to social conventions and emotional intelligence that it’s amazing you’re allowed out of the house. At worst, it’s a giant neon sign that you don’t see the person you’re texting as a person. For all intents and purposes, you’re signalling that you see them as an especially elaborate sex toy and you’re hoping to jerk off inside them.

Pair with this from Ask Polly:

What you experienced is a very personal form of terrorism: Some coward (or group of cowards) resented you and your friends because you had the audacity to take up space and behave confidently while also being sexually attractive. You had more power than they could bear. They hated you for that power, and hated that you didn’t give a fuck how they felt about you.

And while we're reading Ask Polly:

I also think it’s important and smart to invite single people to so-called couples gatherings. That’s just normal, honestly, even if a world of lazy couples tends not to see it that way. Single people need to get invited to do “boring” things, too. A lot of single people love boring shit, but because they’re single, they’re forced to go out on the town a lot, sometimes much more than they actually want to. Supporting single people no matter what, embracing and including people without kids when you have kids — this is just part of being a solid friend. And not to sound harsh, but none of us know when we could end up single again. Shit happens. Defying the stupid-ass ways our culture sorts us into categories is important. The more you break those boundaries and shake things up, the better your social life will be.

To give better gifts, don't overthink it and focus on longterm utility rather than immediate reaction.

See my thread on how (for the bzillionth time) "kasha" DOES NOT mean buckwheat.

I leave you with some holiday thoughts with the extraordinary J. K. Rowling (click and read the whole thread):

But if your life is currently full of difficulties; if you aren’t where you want to be, either literally or figuratively, 5/12

— J.K. Rowling (@jk_rowling) December 24, 2016

Tuesday roundup and some quick rambles

Female bonobos collectively shoo off men who threaten or harass females. Take that, every evolutionary psychology study that pushes the idea that women only compete with each other.

Social media company that goes in thinking technology can solve all of society's problems, throws its hands up at complex social issues that can't be resolved with an algorithm.

Man who's not hating on women for not shaving their arms, doesn't get why we don't do it.

I wish Lionel Shriver weren't so wrong about so much, because she's right about a few things. The cluelessness, though, of a white, heterosexual, able woman claiming that ethnic and sexual identities are not identities--and offering the world access to German cultural stereotypes to "appropriate"--is stark.

That said, I agree about a few things (I do garden in a Vietnamese conical hat; is that appropriation? No. Neither is eating food from other countries). Katy Perry in a geisha outfit and Iggy Azalea in general, however, are appropriating.

Contrast with this piece on pho--which does not, notably, claim that white people shouldn't eat pho. It is intriguing that Bon Appetit didn't bother to consult Vietnamese people about pho.

Much of the anger centered around the choice of a white person to authoritatively speak about an Asian food. As the chef shared his personal insights, he never mentioned his fondness for the soup, his personal connections to it. That omission was an editorial mistake. Treating pho as merely a fashionable food negated its rich role in Vietnamese, Vietnamese-American, and now, American culture.

Pho has always been unpretentious and democratic, inviting everyone to experience and appreciate it. However, pho also represents the history of Vietnam and its push for self-determination. Born during the French colonial period, this dish persisted through political upheaval and economic hardship, then resettled and flourished with Vietnamese immigrants all over the globe.

I get the overall idea behind this article on automatically saving money, but the percentages (examples, I know) are ridiculous. First of all, is this pre- or post-tax income? It must be post, because it's about what to do with each proportion of one's paycheck (but then it includes 401k??). How would I apply those proportions to myself? For one thing, 85 percent of my (pre-tax) income is spoken for (including 401k and other retirement savings, as well as taxes, monthly payment, and utilities). What can I really save out of the other 15 percent (take out another 10 percent for groceries, car, pet, donations, and miscellaneous but not-quite discretionary expenses (eg. home and garden, gifts, etc.); that leaves 10 percent). So that leaves 5 percent of my income for fully discretionary spending. I'll spend it on travel and local recreation (theater, restaurants, watersports, what have you). I'm not saving for a wedding, as suggested. Should I agree to be someone's womanservant for life, I'd prefer to sign some papers and call it a day.

I have a rant brewing around the concept of "bitches get stuff done."  Inspired most recently by the South Africa trip (my friend and hotel-roommate was decidedly less Type-A than I, which was fine for this kind of trip but not one that entailed planning), and before that by an ex. It's the same principle as the RM food issue: the man was never responsible for making his own food in his life, so everything I did seemed extreme and overplanned. When you have to get things done--when you're responsible for your own food, your own itinerary, etc.--you have to get things done. That means being Type A, being anal, being a bitch if need be.

Saturday ramble

You've heard me go on and on and on about gifts--how graciousness is generally good, but sometimes problematic. Sometimes=when the gift is inappropriate, not when you merely dislike it. It can be inappropriate because it is too intense, intimate, or expensive in proportion to one's relationship with the giver, (and/)or it could be inappropriate because of overt intent or hidden undertones--whether it's an expectation of quid pro quo, or an attempt to influence the recipient in an unwanted way. It could be a combination of all of the above. I've received gifts from men that are inappropriate because they were given after I explicitly told these men to stop giving me gifts, and in those cases I mustered the courage to overcome the expectation of graciousness. My mother, in her more functional days, often tried to push gifts on me--clothes, furniture--that I did not want or have room for, and they were inappropriate because there was an element of control: she, not I, would decide what I wore and how I furnished my house. And how much money would be spent on those things. Oh, the pushback when I bought a new suit for a job interview, when I could have gone to Goodwill! And--just as when I mentioned in passing that I was getting a (paid) haircut--who did I think I was? I was, am someone who, unlike my mother, leaves the house and interacts with people professionally and socially, and has a lot of hair. I invest in a decent haircut, or I have to deal with my hair every day. My well-meaning friend (WMF) once said something similar: "I would never spend that much money on a haircut." 

But I digress. I'm here (partly) because my WMF just gave me, not for the first time, some thrift-shop finds that were a bit small for her. Now, I have no problem with thift shops; I shop at them myself. And I had no problem the first time she did this, but now that it's becoming a habit, I want to discourage it (and I think my lack of graciousness may have done the trick). I don't want her to buy stuff thinking that if it's too small, she can just give it to me. I don't want to deal with it. I don't want or need other people to buy me clothes. Clothes are a personal thing--they have to work for you, as I often told my mother as she tried to convince that whatever item of clothing she was pushing on me was very in-style. It doesn't matter if something is the trendiest thing ever; if it doesn't fit your body or your personality, don't wear it.

As with mom's gifts of furniture, these were items I was unwilling to pretend I wanted. I didn't want WMF asking after them (i.e., was I wearing them) and I certainly didn't have room for them in my closets and drawers. We eventually got to 'okay, well then give them back to Goodwill,' but not before WMF tried to convince me that this cardigan would look perfect over a black dress. Because I'm a terrible person, I bitched to two mutual friends about having to fight off these gifts. Both not only agreed that the items were unattractive and not me, but appreciated my frustration with WMF, even as she meant well. I told Camille about WMF's over-a-dress idea.

A.: The whole reason I wear dresses is so I don't have to match clothes. I don't want to wear anything over my dresses. I want to put on a single thing and go.
Camille: You sure do. [Shaking her head.] She doesn't know you very well at all.

Saturday night

I snapped at mom last night and felt really, really bad about it (usually, I feel mostly justified). I've written about struggling to adjust my response to her from "stand your ground, reinforce your boundaries" to "she's old and sick, let it go." I've managed to make the adjustment in situations where I'm thinking about it, but my gut reactions have yet to adapt to the new reality.

At happy hour a week or so ago, the conversation turned to therapy, and how it matters because your past infiltrates your present. In other words, your familial history informs the way you interact with everyone else. In my case, I think I've done a pretty good job of clearing mom out of my interpersonal interactions with just about everyone, except mom (and--see my 'Gift of Fear' posts over the last couple of weeks--other people who bring it on themselves). As I said in those posts, it is the right thing to do, when someone continues to do something you have asked them not to do, to reproach them rather than thank them, even if that something was "nice." For a while, that was especially true with mom, but now it's not.

Addendum to "The Gift of Fear" post

The takeaway is indeed that the social expectation that women be nice, accommodating, and receptive to interaction, is a precarious one. But I was slow to deal with those situations, and I'm not much influenced by social expectations. I maintain that, had I been under those influences, I would have gotten out worse. Even absent the social expectation, there was an interpersonal expectation: you don't need social pressures to not want to hurt someone's feelings. And manipulative people expertly exploit your very human inclinations to not confront them.
I've written about this exhaustively with regard to gifts: there's not only a social expectation to accept gifts graciously, but an interpersonal one. Nobody wants to throw a gift back in someone's face. I never thought I'd throw a gift back in someone's face, but when I did, it was the right thing to do.

Notes on The Gift of Fear

I'd known about Gavin de Becker's "The Gift of Fear" for a long time--I must have seen him on Oprah back when that episode aired, when I was (probably) in high school. Even then, the concepts were simultaneously eye-opening and intuitive. Over the years, various friends read it and recommended it. I wonder whether, had I read it earlier, I might have cut RM's antics off at the start. But I hadn't, and I didn't. I can say that I knew enough that I pared back RM's antics, which could have been a lot worse, and by the time I'd navigated RM's antics, I was better prepared for BE's. Even so, I didn't recognize the BE signs as early or clearly as I might have had I read the book.

You may be thinking, "neither of these guys were a danger to you," to which I say two things: (1) I don't know; RM might have been a danger to me had I been any less assertive, and (2) de Becker states explicitly that these are indicators of manipulativeness, not necessarily danger--and it's manipulativeness that can push you to ignore the instincts that might help you stay out of danger. Consider also the woman who tried to kidnap me--even she probably wasn't dangerous; she didn't intend to harm me. She merely manipulated me verbally into getting into her car, which allowed her to manipulate me physically into being her captive audience for an hour.

Friday roundup

Blogger has crashed on me multiple times, so I'm trying to recreate the links from memory and Twitter...

The too-tragic-for-words murder of Mr. Palmyra.

Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric is inspiring violence.

Idiot thinks she'd be a better parent because she has a nicer house.

On food news: Meat is the leading cause of extinction, grass-fed is just as bad, meat waste is worse, and the big one: "Corn Wars":

Corn Wars http://t.co/oYOs1YJRaw via @tnr Another problem: this "aid" can destroy ag markets in recipient countries pic.twitter.com/yUlbcAK81x

— Rose glow barberry (@rgbrb) August 17, 2015

...and the abandonment of healthy ag methods can lead to land sustainability and other environmental problems pic.twitter.com/KVYRbNgOgj

— Rose glow barberry (@rgbrb) August 17, 2015

Also, Julia Ioffe explains how anyone from St. Petersburg could trash food.

"...you’re not going to bomb Kazakhstan and Belarus to enforce the sanctions.” http://t.co/XiypnsCIfL pic.twitter.com/JZFmhvVvOY

— Rose glow barberry (@rgbrb) August 19, 2015

Veganism isn't elitism; it's popular among low-income populations.

I'd rather be single than in a relationship that hinges on a sandwich.

Truly amazing newspaper corrections.

And now, the Carolyn roundup (much of which was lost):

On how people project their insecurities:

I find that sometimes I can’t win in conversations with relatives and casual friends. If I even mention events in my life that the other person cannot afford, I’m “bragging.” If I admit that something in my life is bugging me, I’m “whiny.” If I redirect the conversation to the other person’s life after a modest non-answer, I’m being “secretive.”

I realize that tone of voice and exact wording are very important, but I have come to the conclusion that some people will see bragging or whininess regardless of my tone and words.

A similar occurrence, in terms of imposing, manipulative gifts:

People determined to upset themselves will find ways to do it, no matter how much thought you put into words meant to stop them.

You know you're in the right relationship when you're not always second-guessing it.

The line between healthy compromise and unhealthy people-pleasing.

Saturday roundup

Medical research on fetal tissue saves and improves lives.

Just say no to orphanage tourism.

Cacao has a child labor problem. Seafood and pet food have a slave labor problem. Pork has a murderous manure problem (but let's keep fetishizing bacon and painting the food movement as elitist). Beef has an overall environmental problem.

What you eat really matters, and eating plants (not animals or their products) is a good thing to do. It's much harder to make a difference when it comes to buying clothes.

I probably need a whole blog post that I don't have time for right now about Cecil the Lion and the backlash and backlash to the backlash, but for now, this is a good start and so is this. This one's less 'whatabout' in general and more about what about other animals, but I don't agree with all of it because trophy hunting really is bad.

Wow, people actually complained about photos of an interracial family.

Gifts are hard to get right.

How to make your man fall for you? Skip the Glamour piece and go straight to Dean Burnett. It's science.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I'm forgiving of parents who make an effort. Still, some great excerpts here, starting with this:

Kid-haters are also correct, because they did not choose to live in a dystopian nightmare where children are now, if not welcome per se, at least present in bars, high-end restaurants, and other places I would never even think to take my child.

Saturday ramble

I've been thinking about something all week, but I haven't had a chance to ramble to you about it until now. I've been thinking about it in terms of my disappointing post-speed-dating date, and in the aftermath of having run into someone that I once thought I wanted to date. I've been thinking about it in terms of being so different from my mother.

Sunday roundup

Can Sri Lankan refugees return?

Military force is a means of achieving an end, and it can be just or necessary, but it's messy and violent, and you can't be surprised when you show up in another country with weapons and people shoot back.

We have to come to terms with, not whitewash, our history.

In memory of Boris Nemtsov.

From the makers of "The Invisible War," "The Hunting Ground."

I'm not sure what the best part of GQ's MRA article is. I'm partial to,

For a young MRA named Max von Holtzendorff, the red-pill moment was being accused of sexual harrassment by a co-worker to whom he proposed sex, "being blunt and forthright, because that seemed the best way to ensure consent."

Sadly, this part invokes the way some white women talk to black women on Twitter:

Many more women—a million within days—responded with #yesallwomen, as in, yes, all women have experienced variations of the misogyny that led Rodger to his crimes. The manosphere did not like this. "Men are your benefactors, your protectors, and your providers," a writer at A Voice for Men explained. "So the next time you trend a hashtag about us, maybe you say 'thank you' instead."

Elon James explains intersectionality and why black women are sick of explaining it.

Even Samuel Huntington understood that the Clash of Civilizations wasn't actually about civilizations.

When AIPAC thinks you've gone too far...

English: Anatolian or steppe?

It's funny that "you're welcome" can be seen as a reflection of gifts or favors being offered unfreely. Funny how in some other languages--every other one I know--"you're welcome" is worded as "it was nothing," which challenges the quid-pro-quo interpretation. Also interesting (and not discussed in the article) how we English-speakers have colloquially taken to saying "no problem" instead.

Leonard Nimoy on the origins of the Vulcan salute and the immigrant's sense of being an outsider, everywhere.

Did you know that Leonard Nimoy also created the Full Body Project and fought for equal pay for Nichelle Nichols...

...when, in this day and age, there's so much money to be made in selling women the idea that there's something everything wrong with them.

I am not even going to link to TNR's despicable, short-sighted article about how vegetarianism isn't the answer to climate change. It perpetuates such tropes as "animal products aren't bad when you adjust for protein" and "vegetarianism is a privilege and most people are poor." I'm not even going to re-address these tropes here, because I already have, so many times. I'd say I can't believe TNR would traffic in that kind of garbage, but TNR has trafficked in worse.

Amazon reviews for #thedress.

Saturday rambles--updated

Jezebel ran a piece on regretting motherhood, and New York Magazine ran one on happily childless women. Nearly all of their thoughts resonate with me (ironically, Condi Rice's thought resonates most and Ashley Judd's resonates least) in some way or another. Unlike Condi, I am not a very religious person, but I nonetheless "at some very deep level believe that things are going to work out as they're supposed to. The key is to be open to that and to appreciate the life that you've been given." [Update: see also the New York piece about not being sure.]

Targeted junk mail

I remember a joke (or at least an entry) on Russian Girl Problems along the lines of, "your grandfather sorts through junk mail saying, chto onyi ot myenya khotyat? [What do they want from me?] To give you an idea of just how Russian this is, it's essentially what mom is doing now: going through junk mail, which has gotten very elaborate ("gifts" from charities) and wondering aloud about why they send it to her. Must be because they have a big enough mailbox to fit all that stuff, so the mail carriers, not knowing what to do with it, leave it with her.

I really wish mom weren't losing her mind.

Tuesday ramble: gifts

I've thoroughly covered the topic of gifts on this blog. I've covered it in the context of my personal experience and that of some friends, and I've invoked studies and outside perspectives about gift-giving and receiving. Let me rehash all this, in reverse order (you can find the links somewhere on these pages):

Outside perspectives and studies:

• Miss Manners generally writes that one should not ask for a gift or feel entitled to one, and that one should be gracious when receiving a gift. I say "generally" because I'm sure that Miss Manners has, or would, make exceptions for inappropriate gifts. In fact, she definitely has (see: bringing "gifts" to parties where "bring nothing" is requested). Also, gifts are "free," i.e., not given in the spirit of quid pro quo. Giving entitles you to nothing.
• Carolyn Hax recently wrote that she generally agrees with the graciousness concept, times have changed and the act of receiving gifts is no longer free. The fact that material gifts take up space and come at an environmental cost calls for a reconsideration of the way we gift.
• Time did a piece a few years ago on how gifts do not always have the effect intended by the recipient. People often don't like getting particularly grand gifts because they feel like it puts them at an obligation to the giver (see: Miss Manners' point about quid pro quo).
• Yet, there is still a social value to gifts. Sometimes a gift, when done right, is better than a gift certificate.

My personal experience:

• I've received more than my fair share of thoughtful, appropriate, and welcome gifts. These can take the form of a book I'd never have thought to read, but I'm glad someone drew my attention to it, or something someone brought me back from a trip as a sign s(he) was thinking of me. It could be something I didn't know I needed that I ended up using all the time.
• I've clashed with mom over turning down her gifts. There was a disconnect between my circumstances (no basement) and priorities (less crap) and hers (who knows, you might need it some day).
• I clashed with RM over many things, including turning down his gifts, particularly after I'd explicitly asked him not to give them. Even the gifts that were not inappropriate in and of themselves were inappropriate because I had drawn a boundary that included "no gifts."
• I've received gifts that I didn't know what to do with, but weren't worth clashing over. Just like there's a spectrum of social situations where it makes sense to accommodate or compromise rather than clash--accommodating an aggressive talker on a very short flight when you don't have a book anyway is on the opposite end of that spectrum from accommodating an aggressive talker who is living in your house and claiming your time every evening--there's a spectrum that ranges from regular to one-off gift-givers. That said, I hate sending stuff to the landfill, so receiving a gift that I have no use for is almost an anti-gift. In cases where it's something for which I don't want to create more demand (eg, animal products) or that has more intense environmental consequences (toxic chemicals), it's really an anti-gift.

Why bring this all up now? The short answer is, I found myself thanking my coworker for not having gotten me a t-shirt. He'd been to a cat show over the weekend and saw a shirt that made him think of me, but he figured I wasn't really a t-shirt person. I thanked him for not getting the shirt (I'm neither a t-shirt person nor not one, but I definitely have more t-shirts than I know what to do with).

I've also--as I've told you--been on a self-perpetuating decluttering kick. It started out with one area of the house or maybe one category of stuff, and then, one thing led to another and I've managed to get my house to the point where there's barely anything in here that I don't want or need (or think I may not ever need). And I'd really like to keep it that way. In a sense, it's "academic"--it's not like I had clutter spilling over furniture; it was all hidden in corners and storage spaces, or even spare rooms. But there's a feng-shui, spiritual aspect to not having excess stuff around, sapping your emotional energy. It's the converse of what personal finance advisors tell you about deciding whether to buy something: think of the total cost rather than the sticker cost, where the total cost includes the space you'll have to find for that thing and the time you'll spend cleaning it, or, perhaps, the hassle of having one more thing to pack and unpack if or when you move. And the environmental cost, of course (production, disposal). Gifts may not bear a sticker cost, but they do bear those other costs.

So, especially now that I've recycled my electronics and donated my old clothes, furniture, and other stuff, and I can pretty much find everything I want to when I want to, I'm very sensitive to extra stuff. And I'm also at the point where I either have everything I need or I'll quickly go out and buy it, unless the thing I need is something so specific that no gift-giver is going to randomly figure it out. Which brings me back to the RM factor, or what I'll call the arrogance factor of gift-giving.

RM, as you may recall, would get very excited about "surprising" me, and not just in inadvertent, creepy ways or by amazing me with just how annoying he could be. And even from the beginning, I tried to discourage this sort of thing because he was in no position to surprise me: he didn't know me well enough to know what would make for a pleasant surprise. Of course, it didn't occur to him that I wouldn't necessarily be pleasantly surprised, just as it didn't occur to him that he was in no position to get me gifts that I wouldn't dislike. At first, I felt genuinely bad, because he was trying. Then--after I discouraged him--I just got annoyed.

Sometimes it was unquestionable arrogance (he would bring me chocolate candy after I specifically asked him not to bring me chocolate candy). I rewarded his arrogance by ignoring the candy, which, upon my rejection, he placed on the table so as to tempt me subtly. Sometimes it was clueless arrogance, as in the case of the pearl earrings. They were not only inappropriate, but misguided in a really ironic way: he went to the jewelry store and described me to the shopkeeper, who helped him pick out the earrings. It did not occur to him that--even as he and the shopkeeper agreed that the earrings fit my personality perfectly--I might already have a set (or two or three or ten) of pearl earrings. This kind of thing went on and on: he would try to figure me out in a very simplistic way, and--I repeat, despite my asking him to quit giving me gifts--find gifts based on his conclusions. I have a lovely Bohemian crystal displayed on my bookshelf (that a friend brought me from abroad), therefore he should give me a faux Bohemian crystal conference freebie he probably found around the house.

But let me quit piling it on atop RM, because who the f* cares. And let me also point out that any of us may put thought into a gift that may still fall flat. The bigger point is, intelligent gift giving requires a more complex thought process than "Susie likes dogs, so she must want dog paraphernalia." And even if she does like dog paraphernalia, maybe she already has as much as her apartment can hold. This feeds into the even bigger point, made earlier, that gift giving needs to be intelligent in this day and age of small living spaces and environmental awareness. Gone are the days of harmless tchotchkes; in are the days of, everything in your space best have a purpose or a meaning. That means that "no gifts" really means "no gifts." Not to put too fine a point on it, sometimes the best gift is no gift. When that's not an option, the best gift is well-thought out and attuned to the recipient's tastes, circumstances, and values. If you're not in a position to suss those out, the best gift is probably still no gift.

Mom update/rehashing

I found myself angry at my mother for the first time in many months. I was angry on behalf of dad and not on my account. The apparent dissolution of our family is upsetting to him and he is trying to save us, as a family. Which means trying to reconcile mom and me, which is a lost cause as long as mom wants it to be. Which is why he’s going about it in the wrong way, because he’s after what I said to mom—or even what she thinks I said to her, or what I did say that she took the wrong way. But what I said or how she took it isn’t the point; the point is, mom is stewing in her resentment and acrimony because that’s what she does. She needs an excuse to do it, so she invents one or blows an event or statement out of proportion or context to feed her acrimony. The issue is not the event or statement; the issue is mom’s response.

Let’s review the last year or so in mom drama (it's a year if we start with Memorial Day weekend, when mom threw a fit and decided not to talk to me because I balked at taking the Chinatown bus to Boston). She chose to take that as “I’m not worth $30 to you” rather than “400 miles of the Chinatown bus is a terrible idea.” Nobody who wasn’t looking for an excuse to get offended would take what I said the way she did. She got over it when I did visit (by way of a quite expensive flight), and things were reset until I visited for Labor Day weekend. Over the five or so says that I was in Boston for Labor Day weekend, mom hammered me relentlessly about my hair, skin, extremism, lack of warmth, and other crimes. Toward the end of Day 4, I snapped and said something $hitty to my mother.

That I was only throwing back at her what she’d said to me is not important; I’m the adult here, and I choose the high road. But after four days of hammering, among other factors, I couldn't see the high road. As I wrote earlier, the more determined I am to take the high road, the more mom pushes to drive me off of it.) So, to mom’s “you will never find a partner,” I said, “if you did, anyone can.” This was $hitty because it hit a nerve. She was trying to hit one of my nerves by saying it to me, but she missed, because I knew it wasn’t true. I was at peace with my role in the demise of my last relationship (my behavior wasn’t saintly, but it was human). Anyway, I’m not proud of what I said to mom—but, again, I'm human. I didn’t say it under logical consideration; I said it because I snapped. Under enough pressure, I snap. So as mom threw emotional grenades and kept missing, I threw one right back at her, and probably hit. She shrugged it off at first (“me? What do I have to do with anything?), but I don’t know whether it registered. I later apologized; she essentially told me to f* off, told me I was dead to her. She continued to lob grenades until dad took me to the airport the next morning. She didn’t talk to me again until I called her on her birthday about a month later. After that, things were more or less normal until February.

In February, mom remembered or imagined a grave offense that I apparently committed against her, and hasn’t talked to me since. Dad has been trying to get to the bottom of this, but she won’t tell him what I said, so he’s been asking me. I’ve cooperated fully; I've repeated every statement I’ve made to mom that could be interpreted as unkind, starting with the actually-unkind one I relayed above. He said, “no, that’s not it.” He’s continued to ask her about it; she’s continued to demure. We talked about it again last night. He said he managed to get out of her that it was something that happened when they last visited me (which was years ago). I suggested that it was maybe the side table (that mom offered over the phone, and which I specifically told her not to bring, but she decided to bring it anyway in case I changed my mind and then called me an ungrateful pig when I said I didn’t want it). She added that it was much nicer than the one I had and that I had terrible taste. I acknowledged her opinion but pointed out that hers was nonetheless too big for my space. I brought this up because saying no to mom with regard to “gifts” has been a repeated source of tension. In fact, last Labor Day Weekend, she got angry because I wouldn’t take a skirt that she’d bought me. All I can say—as with RM—you can’t just shove things I don’t want at me (particularly things I specifically ask you not to give me) and then get indignant because I don’t just accept them graciously. It’s called boundaries: If you keep doing something I ask you to stop doing, you’re not going to get a “thank you, I now see the light.”

What did happen when mom and dad visited was that mom would not for a second stop criticizing me or the house. When I called her on it, because it was grating, she retorted that I was too sensitive and it was of her essence to just say what was on her mind, and that if I couldn’t deal with it, we shouldn’t talk. She cited (Nina’s dad)—he shrugged it off after she berated him for bringing her a mask from Georgia that didn’t suit her style. That’s why they’re friends: he understands her.

That is who my mother is—I understand her, too—and I’m not angry or resentful at her for the constant barrage of criticism. That is the only way she knows how to be, and it hurts her more than it hurts anyone else. But it just makes it all the more rich for her to then hold against me whatever I may have said to her or did say to her, not least because I forgive her for the $hitty, often abusive things she says on a regular basis. And this is why Dad’s barking up the wrong tree—the tree of what mom thinks I said; the right tree is mom’s choice to hold on to whatever this is, because (she thinks) it serves her. You can’t assuage someone who feeds off of acrimony by addressing an actual issue; you have to address the fact that the person feeds off of acrimony. If dad could persuade mom to change the way she feeds—then, and only then, can we be a family again. Otherwise, she’ll always find something to feed her acrimony. The fact that she’s ailing doesn’t change any of that.

Monday morning roundup and rambles

The Times did very well with a headline and story rightfully meant to enrage: a six-year old girl gets bartered for her family's medical expenses.

The Times also fell into the trap, in its obituary of Yvonne Brill, of writing the profile of an accomplished woman with undue emphasis on her personal life.

The Canadian case against Keystone.

I've seen a number of the plays Peter Marks talks about and I don't think they're that great, particularly "Mr. Burns." If it is "brilliant," I must be an idiot.

***
I very much enjoyed Mike Daisey's "American Utopias," but it did not need to be as long as it was. Not only was it too long for a play without an intermission, but it was too long, period: it would have benefited from some editing. Same goes for Amy Herzog's "4,000 Miles," which is not a very good play. It's a mediocre play that has its moments, including its very funny and very poignant moments. But it doesn't come together; it doesn't succeed. I think of "4,000 Miles" together with "Bachelorette" and "Motherf*er with the Hat," the latter of which is the best and funniest of the three, in that not one is an excellent play. They are all entertaining, they all have messages that they spray more than they say (and I prefer my theater unaerosoled), and they all have provocative--bordering on shocking--sex-themed discourse. Which makes me wonder whether sex-themed discourse (particularly of the shocking variety) is a crutch, a cheap but amusing substitute for structural and substantive strength.

***
The "Mindy's Birthday" episode of The Mindy Project and Laurie Sandell's poignant "Modern Love" essay to which I linked the other day both address the minor indignities of the single life. On the show, Mindy gets a "microwave meals for one" cookbook of some kind, among other 'message' gifts. Sandell writes,

I felt depressed every time I had to check “single” on a form and when I sat down for a fancy meal I’d prepared for one.

I won't say I get depressed, but it does get old. What are these forms implying?? I did get sick of replying to my mortgage broker, every time I refinanced, that, yes, it was still "just me." I reflected shortly after my last breakup (almost a year ago now) how instantly the change in relationship status hit, but it didn't actually bother me. I don't judge myself for my relationship status; nobody I actually care about judges me for my relationship status--except for my mom, but she judges me for so many other things that it's a wash. So why the status-based angst? I'm not talking about the 'legitimate' reasons for wanting to be in a healthy relationship; just that sting of checking 'single.' Why does it sting more than checking an income other than 'over $250,000," which should also bring us back to our realities?

Thursday evening roundup

While Pakistan's bulletproofing buses for cricket players, maybe they could work on the school buses, too.

Aw! Nigerian kidnappers up their game for the holidays:

Police say kidnappings often increase towards Christmas, when gang members need more money for festivities and gifts.

God's all, "I don't think so."

Tina Fey is wondering whether she's a secretary on Mad Men.

Ikaria: the island of life. Here's a shocker:

She noted that the Ikarians’ diet, like that of others around the Mediterranean, was rich in olive oil and vegetables, low in dairy (except goat’s milk) and meat products, and also included moderate amounts of alcohol. It emphasized homegrown potatoes, beans (garbanzo, black-eyed peas and lentils), wild greens and locally produced goat milk and honey.

and

“One explanation why they live so long is they eat a plant-based diet. Or it could be the absence of sugar and white flour. From what I know of the Greek diet, they eat very little refined sugar, and their breads have been traditionally made with stone-ground wheat.” 

Most importantly,

That’s what the $70 billion diet industry and $20 billion health-club industry do in their efforts to persuade us that if we eat the right food or do the right workout, we’ll be healthier, lose weight and live longer. But these strategies rarely work. Not because they’re wrong-minded: it’s a good idea for people to do any of these healthful activities. The problem is, it’s difficult to change individual behaviors when community behaviors stay the same. In the United States, you can’t go to a movie, walk through the airport or buy cough medicine without being routed through a gantlet of candy bars, salty snacks and sugar-sweetened beverages. The processed-food industry spends more than $4 billion a year tempting us to eat.

Conveniently, a companion blog entry links to a few plant-based recipes (note that the Times avoided the 'v' word).

Sunday morning roundup

Stephanie Coontz reviews, questions some of the conclusions of, "The Richer Sex."

Also see this contribution to the 'men are more than walking penises' canon.

Really? Wireless carriers are supposed to be helpful? Because I reported some text spam to AT&T--a message I had to pay for no less--and all they did was offer to change my phone number for a high price and sell me a monthly service to block numbers. I'll now report both the spammer and my carrier to the FTC.

Let's agree that unsolicited statement gifts--whether it's a shaving kit for someone you find too hairy or a charitable donation as a wedding gift to a couple you find too wealthy--are in bad taste.

I love Miss Manners, but I'm not sure why anyone turns to her for dating advice. You also just want to shake this woman and say, there are no guarantees in life, much less dating. No one's going to admit to you on a first date that they're there to trash your finances. No one wants to deal with that and there's no shortcut for screening against it. There are all kinds of people out there.

On that note, people who slam online dating need to realize that it's at least no worse than any other way of meeting people. Bf and I were just talking last week about how our respective friends who'd tried to set us up (with other people) were comically misguided, usually because there criteria were, "they're both single." In one case, one of my friends wanted to set me up with someone because I'm "a talker" and he was pretty quiet, so I would apparently have more time to blab indiscriminately. The point is, by all means let your friends know that you're interested in meeting people; but you may as well also meet people in other ways, too.

Darn it, the Times has figured me out and wants to make me pay for access, so I don't know what they have to say about the parenting-by-nationality debate. It's mostly about how American parents are over-involved.

Friday evening roundup and follow-up ramble

See the oceans of respect for the late Anthony Shadid.

You think our politics are f*ed up? Check out what this Dutch far-right party pulled. If that happens here, I'll definitely submit myself as an immigrant job-stealer.

Big dairy is afraid and pathetic.

Why and how the President might grow a pair.

You know the story but check out the tweet and the comments. You people do realize that a lot of users of birth control are married? In which case abstinence and "self-control" are even less relevant.

What is it with guys these days? Don't blame women for your hormones.

A college professor wishes her female students would broaden their horizons and write about something other than men. In related news, here's a dating advice book I would actually read. I agree that the 'blame feminism' nature of many dating books is abominable. In heart-warming dating news, a woman marries on her hundredth birthday.

This tomato thief was really confused.

***
I've updated my Tuesday ramble about gifts (and other actions) that were not only unsolicited but deliberately discouraged. Added to RM's sins the second and third gifts of chocolate, since I'd politely asked him to quit giving me chocolate (and he, of course, thought I was being coy).