It's okay to talk about your life

I see a thinkpiece/twitter-war pattern. I've seen it for ages, at least since Barbara Ehrenreich wrote “Nickeled and Dimed” nearly two decades ago to a bizarre backlash from the argument that, unlike the writer, some people don’t need to artificially experience poverty; they live it. But Ms. Ehrenreich acknowledges as much in her book, which was not an attempt at authentic slum tourism; it was a scientific study in whether a person could actually make ends meet on minimum wage (spoiler: one couldn't). Her book added value to a socially significant national conversation.

The same backlash emerges whenever anyone who is not actually poor writes about struggling financially. Take Neal Gabler’s very reasonable essay about being middle-class broke. He reiterates at many points that he owns the life choices that have left him broke, and that he’s among the lucky ones: he is not poor, he has a roof over his head, etc. And yet, there's a slew of responses along the lines of "why does this man think he's poor." Is there really something wrong with exploring the disconnect between what’s supposed to be a middle-class lifestyle and one's own middle-class reality? Leaving aside the very broad definition of middle-class... I continue to see “some people have it worse” as a bad reason to not write about the middle class.

***

Regular readers of my blog, if any, know that I write about travel, including affording travel. You’ll recall my recent musings about a dude I went on a date with, who asked me if I was “frugal.” I didn’t understand the question. Like most people, I have finite funds at my disposal. Therefore, I spend them somewhat selectively. For example, I mostly make my own food (and tea and coffee), and I don’t have cable. Those two life choices help fund my travels. Now if you love going to restaurants and getting Starbucks, I wouldn’t tell you not to. And if you don’t want to travel, I’m not here to change you. I *don’t care* what anyone else does. I’m merely making a very simple choice-consequence connection: I don’t spend money on certain things that don’t mean a lot to me so I have more money to spend on the things that do mean a lot to me. I am also well aware that I have choices about how to spend money and that many people don’t. But I’m writing about the choices and experiences available to someone like me.

Hence my bewilderment when I came across a tweetstorm over an article about a 23-year old who blogs about travel. The headline was slightly inflammatory—she travels the world to prove that anyone can do it—the article less so, and the woman herself, not at all. She’s a cancer survivor who came to appreciate that life can be short, and chooses to do the things she loves in the present. She never says or even implies that everyone should travel—there’s no judgment in the interview—but notes that people put things off, think they can’t do it. So she wants people to know that there's no time like the present, and that they have more agency than they may know to make things happen.

Is it really so wrong to share travel tips and/or fight the perception that travel is a luxury only for the rich? Again, no link to article.

— is the election over (@rgbrb) November 1, 2016

"But not everyone can travel and she’s judging them! There’s an implied “what’s your excuse?”" Really, where? I don’t even see it implied. Yes, of course there’s implicit privilege, but there is in everything. There’s implicit privilege in “here’s a picture of my brunch.” There’s implicit privilege in how to afford college. Does that mean everyone should stop writing about it? 

Here’s what this article isn’t, as I noted in one of my sets of tweets: It isn't Gwyneth Paltrow (“here’s how you can ape my uber-expensive lifestyle, which is better than yours and I totally think I earned it but really I was born into great wealth and connections that propelled me in spite of my mediocre talent”). It’s not the douche who dips his balls in gold and so should you.

Coincidentally, my last 3 trips all cost abt the same (& also same as 1 monthly payment). Also same as if I'd bought lunch each weekday/yr.

— is the election over (@rgbrb) November 2, 2016

It’s “I’m not Gwyneth Paltrow, but I still make time and save money for travel, and here’s how you can if you want.”

Her tips are not revolutionary and her MO is unappealing (unless you know you’re dying, and maybe even if you do, why spend three days to fly to Asia and back for a three-day trip?). But I have a hard time finding her blog offensive.

***

At happy hour the other ngiht, we found ourselves talking about Australia and Australians. And how they’re everywhere. I noted—based on what Australians themselves have told me—that there’s a national perspective of, “we live on an island, we should get out and explore.” And yet, here, we have—from the left, no less—a national perspective of “travel is douchey and talking about travel is even douchier.” 

I get it: not everyone wants to travel, and many who want to, genuinely can’t afford to. But is it one’s imperative to not write because it makes people realize what they’re not doing with their lives? I don’t respond to things in the former category—things I don’t want, like a gala wedding or luxury car—with resentment about how people are judging me for not having those things. I don’t respond to things in the latter category—things I want but can’t have, at least not now—with rage at the people who are enjoying those things in their lives. There is maybe exactly one category of article or tweet that provokes the same reaction in me that this travel piece did in some people: articles that imply that everyone should wear makeup and it’s easier than you think. There is a real social pressure for women to wear makeup and I resent having to justify my decision not to wear it. So I get that sense of “where do you get off?” I also think we can just let people enjoy things that they enjoy that we may not, and if it’s something we do want, let’s try to channel our energy toward aspiration rather than jealousy.                                         

Sunday roundup

Silver lining of this nasty. misogynistic election: men are starting to understand women's reality and how to change things:

Men have begun asking themselves what they can do to intervene in cases of sexual harassment or denigration – how not to stand by silently. Mothers and fathers have been asking how to raise sons who do not act like this.

Some men, anyway.

Mr. Fortenberry told Mr. Pence that his young daughter had come to him and said, “Daddy, Donald Trump hates women,” according to one of the lawmakers, who both insisted on anonymity to recount a private conversation.

“It’s just not true,” Mr. Pence shot back, arguing that Mr. Trump was improving with women, the two House Republicans said.

Hillary has a long history of being demonized, and no one's saying she's perfect, and yes she's hawkish, but she's pretty good. 

 

Wikileaks is a force for censorship, not transparency.

 

Gary Kasporov on what a rigged election looks like. Is there hope for Russia?

If dairy weren't a climate and cruelty nightmare, I'd support Chobani for its support of refugees.

Mental illness isn't a joke or a spectacle.
Parenting isn't off-limits to criticism.

I am disinclined to trust Quartz on anything science-related (they just bungled the basics of an article on nuclear) but this is a fairly interesting piece on the science of dressing up.

The history of a fake but successful British accent in America.

Saturday ramble

Some of those stories are old, I know. It's been a very busy few weeks. I got my dental implant drilled in (I'll spare you the details); retiled my downstairs bathroom--which entailed tearing up five layers of vinyl; replaced (with some help) both toilets with high-efficiency models; had to have my washing machine fixed; volunteered at a college fair; and finally got in to see an optometrist and get a new prescription to replace my scratched up, loose-screwed, ten-year old glasses.

Saturday roundup

Saudi Arabia really, really f*ed up in Yemen:

The dead included many members of prominent tribes from northern Yemen. Ms. Alley, the analyst with the International Crisis Group, said those tribes might now ally with the rebels in new attacks on Saudi Arabia. Also killed were Abdulqader Hilal, the mayor of Sana, and a number of other political and military leaders who not only supported peace talks with the exiled government, but also had the credibility to put an accord into effect.

“They killed and injured several important moderate leaders who were working with them, who wanted a deal,” Ms. Alley said of the Saudi-led coalition. “Now the desire for revenge is high, and militants will be empowered, which puts us in a situation where a compromise might not be possible.”

A few perspectives on intervention in Syria.

Someone in New York City told a Chinese-American family to go back to their country and an Iowa politician doesn't seem to understand his community.

Yes, this is the kind of thing that makes America great, but as I've noted recently and as stated more articulately here:

These blooms of generosity are not replacements for policy-level action that can permanently change the lives of people on the darker side of the inequality spectrum, just as a big tip or a one-time holiday gift to a food pantry doesn’t fundamentally change the long-term arithmetic for a waitress earning $8 an hour.

You don't need female family to see bullshit.

It took a conversation with my editor, Carolyn Ryan, to remind me why that framework was problematic. Because in it, women are defined almost entirely by their relation to men. They are in need of protection and defense by men.

Moreover,

Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, used a written statement of displeasure with Trump to identify himself as “the father of three daughters.” This was apparently a wellspring of his pique, which didn’t rise to the level of actually rescinding his endorsement of Trump. Would a fourth daughter have done the trick? A fifth?

and

In much of this there was a familiar insinuation that parenthood is a singularly sensitizing, enlightening circumstance, giving someone a special stake in a more just world. But doesn’t Trump himself contradict that?

He’s a parent five times over. He’s a father of two daughters himself, and that’s a credential he carried with him into his nauseating exchange with Billy Bush in 2005 and into his vulgar conversations with Howard Stern across the years.

Vox had a good take on this.

Industrial farms aren't better at feeding people. And dairy farming has gotten increasingly industrial and unsustainable in every way. And as usual but even more so, industrial hog farming is poisoning everyone's water.

I want these Idiocracy posters.

Go ahead and eat food that fell on the floor. 

When letting go of someone, take your agony now, right in the face. On a related note, teach your kids to manage their emotions, not deny them:

 Feel It. While it may seem obvious to feel emotions, many families focus on pushing away negative emotions. “When we’re saying ‘don’t be sad, don’t be angry, don’t be jealous, don’t be selfish,’ we’re not coming to the child in the reality of her emotion,” she said. “Validate and see your child as a sentient person who has her own emotional world.”

Miss Manners on socializing (and looking for insults): Leftover indignation may be directed toward those who check the time or anything else on their cellular telephones when supposedly socializing.

Friday roundup

STEM isn't everything.

Gwyneth doesn't understand why people think she's full of shit. Hint: because she is.

Certain jobs require or at least benefit from certain looks. I'd like to think I'll never botox--especially after reading Holly Milea's piece in Elle--but I can see why other people would. I do identify with the (above-linked) writer's statement that sometimes a procedure just takes care of an issue or makes something better, and it's okay to be happy about that.

On a related note, I think Trevor Noah's take on Machado-gate: yes, she was Miss Universe; yes, Miss Universe is bullshit and more pertinently, it's a contest of conventional beauty standards that include thinness, so, yes, it's legitimate that thinness is expected. But there is nonetheless no virtue in humiliating and fat-shaming anyone. There's also no virtue in stiffing your vendors.

Women can't win in the framework some people are trying to stick us in:

I get the point, not that I didn’t get it before. If I speak up, I’m a shrill nag. If my weight fluctuates at all, I’m a gross, inconvenient fatty. If my husband cheats, it’s on me. If I try to defend or salvage my marriage, I’m a stupid dupe. Men like Trump and Giuliani have advanced ideas like these so the women in their lives will be cowed, thin and complaint, while if they err, they’re swashbuckling and strategic. The idea that we should trust men who hate us in private to protect us in the public sphere is the ultimate insult to our intelligence.

Also: let women have our angry face and every other face.

I did not know about the subversive conceptual art on Melrose Place.

Ask Polly comes through again, especially with her advice to "stay the fuck away from this person, because life is too short to align yourself with a human dirty bomb." Also spot-on:

This is one reason why, from my casual observations, very rich children often develop incredibly long-lasting addictions: Mommy and Daddy swoop in to save them over and over again, so there is no rock bottom, and the addiction just embeds itself in their veins. There is no moment of reckoning where the addict is sucking cock in a gas-station bathroom for some coke. Instead, there are gorgeously designed spaces by the sea in Malibu where people tell you you have to change, but everything around you says THINGS WILL ALWAYS LOOK THIS GOOD NO MATTER WHAT THE FUCK YOU DO. 

It doesn't surprise me at all that fitness trackers are not helpful. Theories include,

So perhaps the monitors resulted in less motivation to move, Dr. Jakicic says. It is possible, he says, that when those wearing the trackers realized they would not reach their daily exercise goal, they simply gave up, leading to relatively low caloric expenditure on those days, and less weight loss overall than among those not using the technology.

The people using the monitors may also have assumed that, in some roundabout way, the technology removed responsibility from them for monitoring their energy intake, Dr. Jakicic says. “People may have focused on the technology and forgotten to focus on their behaviors” and ate too much, he says.

It comes back to finding food and exercise that feel as good to you as they are for you. I was thinking about this (again) last weekend on my bike ride: I was exhausted that morning and didn't feel like exercising, but I really felt like cycling. However many hundred calories wouldn't have motivated me to get out, but the feeling of being on the bike and amid all that natural beauty, did.

Saturday roundup

Dollar General is rightly paying for stupid, horrible treatment of an employee.

Young men are loving video games. Work, not so much.

More wise words about the single life.

I love Ask Polly's answer about women and fertility (among other things):

A lot of the best things in life are things that you have to work really hard for, but you STILL have no control over them and have no guarantee of success. Finding someone to love can be like that, too. No one likes to work hard and still have no control over the outcome. No one likes to be invested emotionally and WHAM! “Sorry, too bad. Try again!”

When you’re in hell, you know the kinds of things people say to you? They tell you in very cheerful voices how fertile they are, how every time they fuck another beautiful healthy baby pops out. I spent a few months casually, inexpensively trying to get pregnant, I had one miscarriage — chemical pregnancy, really — and I never really felt that envious or traumatized, because I had it easy. But to this day, when I hear someone talk about how amazingly fertile she is, I want to say, “Look, that’s cool, but you can’t really take credit for it.” If you’re fertile and someone else is fertile, that’s just a happy conversation. But telling someone who’s trying to get pregnant that it was super-duper easy for you to get pregnant is like walking around a cancer ward saying, “Wow, that’s weird, it’s been SO EASY for me NOT to get cancer! I just eat lots of fucking kale, guys! Have you tried eating kale, you sick dummies?”

Wednesday roundup

Hell hath frozen over: Jennifer Rubin is spot-on.

...“creative destruction,” the rise and fall of businesses and entire industries, which is an intrinsic part of a dynamic free market. If you’re not a hard-core Libertarian, the average conservative has considered the solution to this problem to be a safety net and tax, education and other policies that allow workers to rebound; it has never been to halt the marketplace or shift to a government-planned economy... The coal town is depopulated? Yes, that’s sad, but why are they not moving — as immigrants do — to where the jobs are?

You don't have to agree with everything Hillary Clinton has ever said or done, or every position she holds now, to acknowledge that she's a lot better than just "not Trump."

It was a refugee who took the photo of the bowl of Skittles. 

Well, apparently I've been ahead of my time in balking at turning over $10/day for lunch. That's $2,500 a year, people--more than what either of my trips to the Southern Hemisphere this year cost. I guess I am--as that dude I went out with the other night puts it--"frugal."

Monday roundup

Plan Colombia may have catalyzed the peace process, but it didn't staunch the drug trade. The only way to do that is to eliminate the superprofits--either by reducing demand or legalizing and regulating the trade.

It's awesome that stories about people struggling to make ends meet inspire donations that change lives, but it would be more awesome if we had a social safety net so that the people in need didn't have to rely on press--and so that people in need who didn't get press, got help, too.

This has a cool map of TV apartments in New York City, from "The Jeffersons" to "Sex in the City" to "Broad City."

Here are some (links to) vegan cheese recipes.

BGSD Part II

I blogged the other night about "Bitches Get Stuff Done" and the inverse: Stuff Getting Done = Bitches. I clarified that by "bitches" I didn't mean "assholes," and wrote about the disconnect between a result (stuff getting done) and the work it takes to get those results. For example (specifically, the example I harped on): the food on one's plate has to be prepared, from ingredients that are purchased.

Another example came to mind by way of an otherwise/mostly not-bad date I went on the other night (it was initiated before I decided to take a break). The dude asked me what I did on Saturday, and I told him that a friend and I hit the Mile-Long Yard Sale. I didn't buy much; most of the stuff was overpriced for what it was and the condition it was in. My friend, who has a toddler, got a bunch of children's books. In response to this, and maybe some other comment I'd made (maybe about something being expensive), the guy noted--not in a derisive way, in his defense--that it sounded like I was "frugal." Would I agree with that?

I don't know. It's a silly question.

I live in a high-cost area and want to do things with my life--many of which cost money--so I manage my money and prioritize my spending. Is that frugal, or is it just savvy? Is looking for good prices and making trade-offs such a foreign concept to some people? I don't spend money on things that are unimportant to me (cable, cars, take-out) so I can spend money on things that are important to me (living where I want to live, travel, etc.). I don't deprive myself of experiences or stiff other people. Does this balance really require a label?

So an apt response to this dude who lives in a one-bedroom in west Arlington asking me whether I'm frugal would have been, Bitches Get Stuff Done. Stuff is, in this case, being able to buy a house in Alexandria on a modest single income. I'm not frugal enough to stomach living in west Arlington; to save the money to live where I want to live, I choose to be frugal about other things. So am I frugal? Who knows.

Stuff is, two vacations of a lifetime in one year. One year of not buying coffee at Starbucks covered my trip to South Africa. Maybe that's frugal, or maybe it's just living according to my priorities.

All of this got me thinking about other examples of BGSF. Maybe stuff is, one's goal body composition. It's the opposite of Gillian Flynn's "cool girl," who "jams hot dogs and hamburgers into her mouth like she’s hosting the world’s biggest culinary gang bang while somehow maintaining a size 2." Dudes (not all dudes) love a woman who eats anything, as long as she stays slim. We as a society tend to crap on people who eat nutritiously and/or hit the gym, but Bitches Get Stuff Done. 

Saturday rambles

I went out last night with a few friends, all guys and all physicists (my physicist organizes these outings and introduced me to his grad school friends a while back). Sometimes more people (other coworkers of mine and his) join, but this time it was just the four of us. It was interesting to be among guys discussing relationship issues (specifically the issues of the only single one). I'd been in the presence of other men discussing relationships, but less mature men--back when I carpooled with a bunch of pups who were right out of college. That was eye-opening, but less interesting. These were sober (well, not physically), adult men interpreting things that I usually hear women interpret ("why hasn't she texted?"). I guess we're really not that different.

I showed the guys the Douchiest Text Ever (I took a screenshot because it was that amazing), and they agreed. They wanted me to get back in touch with this guy so they could get together with him and discuss physics. Tell him that the giveaway--that he didn't know what he was talking about--was that no one finds that shit "fun." And also, no one says "chaos/string." Those are two very separate things. Even I knew that.

I summarized the story of the horrible date, and two of them didn't understand why I didn't just walk away in the middle of it. I thought about it, but I didn't want to be rude, and also, there's always, in a woman's head, the awareness that a dude can turn dangerous.

***
I told you that I had a "bitches get stuff done" ramble/rant brewing... and I still haven't quite made it coherent, but I'll see if I can tie all these indirectly related things together.

For better or for worse, I will invoke RM. One of the reasons that it so galled me when RM referred to my "meal plan," was that he was speaking from a very entitled cluelessness. For those of you unfamiliar with RM's antics or at least this antic of his: he was convinced that I followed a strict dietary regimen, even after I explained to him that I was just planning out what I was going to eat for the week. For example, he once asked me if I wanted to get dinner with him, and I declined, mostly because I couldn't stand him but also because--this is true--I'd just bought and cooked a bunch of food, and needed to eat that instead of buying more food. RM wasn't convinced; he'd seen me make lists of what I would have for lunch and dinner on a given day, and his warped mind translated this into an eating plan that had to be adhered to at all costs. To me, it was the necessary planning underlying the act of purchasing and cooking one's food. To him, it was a pathology. And his warped mind was prone to this way of thinking because the man never cooked his own food. At home, he had a wife. Not at home, he had per diem. He bought things at restaurants and ate them. I was not on per diem, and I didn't have a personal chef. I did (still do) have a mortgage. I bought food, cooked it, and portioned it out for the week (still do). See also: bitches get stuff done.

Saturday roundup

Russia's intense outreach imperialism by other (i.e., religious) means.

The world needs sustainable farming.

In case you had doubts, it's safe to raise vegan children.

I blogged the other day about cultural appropriation, and I come down about where Robin Givhan does: it exists but not everything is it.

Creative people regularly dive into treacherous cultural waters. And they should be prepared for backlash. They should know what they are doing and be able to explain their choices. They should be sensitive and respectful.

And observers should remember that not every cross-cultural moment is cause for outrage. Jacobs’s models were a mixed group of women: black, brown, white. Should all the models have been black? Why? How would that validate pink dreadlocks? The clothes were a punk, street, cyber, sparkle fest. Hate the clothes or love them. But the outrage just seems like an exhausting exercise in misdirection.

Innovation takes a village:

Evolutionary biologist Joe Henrich of the University of British Columbia, who recently wrote a book on the role of culture in the success of our species, expects that will indeed turn out to be the case. “I think the idea that innovation depends on individual geniuses is misguided. History shows that inventions invariably build on earlier findings that are recombined and improved upon. Most of the things we use every day are inventions that no single human being could ever design within her lifetime,” he observes. “Rather than the product of individual innovators, these inventions can be thought of as the product of our societies. Innovations rely on individuals learning from others—in that way, human society functions like a collective brain.”

Astronauts and Olymic cyclists (and other women) don't need your mansplaining.

This woman actively talked to her sons about consent, but they still don't entirely get it. 

Women have a right to be complicated, too. Even before "Mad Men" came up, I thought of Don Draper (and also the TV version of Bill Masters) while reading this article. I also thought, the reason we're so turned off by Lena Dunham's character in "Girls" is because she's perfectly horrible. Is that necessarily a gender thing? Hannah H. is no Don Draper.

On maintaining your values and being single:

pursuing the things I genuinely care about is more important to me than hiding who I am to remain “datable” for a man who may or may not show up.

Dating in D.C. had been fine, meh, whatever. But despite my feminist sensibilities, I was lonely. No, I didn’t need a partner to be whole, and yes, I’d rather be Forever Alone than with the wrong person. But I’d never planned on being single THIS LONG.

On dating with cats:

Why do single women get judged for having cats? Society has a bad habit of scrutinizing women for how we live and whom we love. Replace “cat” with “dog” in any of the above instances, and I’d be considered hot — a catch even! — rather than crazy. If I were in a relationship, I’d be one half of a cute animal-loving couple.

And if I were a man, I’d be a magnet for women. What does America call a man with three cats? He’s just a man. Women are held to a different standard than men, and cats to a different standard than dogs.

Alicia keys on the tyranny of makeup. Her detractors prove her right.

I am willing to have a child if she grows up to be anything like this one.

This so reminds me of RM! He would always question me about what I did at work or what I did at work on a given day, and never got the hint that I had nothing to say on the matter.

There are people in DC who can afford exhorbitant tasting menus.

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.