Dear today,
Let me count the ways in which you are screwing me over.
1) Frederick's of Hollywood has informed me that I need to call the local USPS office and instruct them to stop ruining my corsets when they deliver them. I'm not sure why Frederick's of Hollywood doesn't include a sticker that says something like, "DO NOT BEND," or why they don't send corsets in boxes. Or why I have to fix the problem I'm not causing. Or why I'm still not being offered some kind of compensation for this RIDICULOUSNESS.
2) Johns Hopkins can't reimburse me for a $230 plane ticket until I send them a receipt. I thought I did, but the receipt I sent doesn't show that my credit card was charged.
3) Expedia's printable receipts for business purposes do not show that my card was charged, just that I supposedly paid $230.
4) I checked my credit card account, and it shows that I was charged $89 for the original flight, and then an additional $190 when I had to change my return flight at the last minute. That's more than the $230 Expedia says I paid.
5) Expedia's automated phone service does not have a general representative option.
6) Someone stole the postage stamps from my desk.
Love,
Me
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Friday, February 11, 2011
Days in Boston may be numbered
Dear University of Chicago,
If you want me, you've got me. For serious.
Love,
Me
Dear Omni Hotel, Chicago,
You are a ridiculously expensive hotel. You have in room snacks, sitting there and taunting me, that are ridiculously overpriced ($6 for Snickers? NOPE).
Charging me $10/day for internet is just overkill.
Love,
Me
Dear classy heeled boots,
I still love you, but after today, I think we need to go on a break. No hard feelings. I just miss the time before the only sensation my feet were capable of experiencing was pain.
Love,
Me
If you want me, you've got me. For serious.
Love,
Me
Dear Omni Hotel, Chicago,
You are a ridiculously expensive hotel. You have in room snacks, sitting there and taunting me, that are ridiculously overpriced ($6 for Snickers? NOPE).
Charging me $10/day for internet is just overkill.
Love,
Me
Dear classy heeled boots,
I still love you, but after today, I think we need to go on a break. No hard feelings. I just miss the time before the only sensation my feet were capable of experiencing was pain.
Love,
Me
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
No regrets
The word "feminist" is commonly perceived as an almost offensive word in mainstream social interactions. If I call myself a feminist* when I'm talking to my close friends, especially my feminist, progressive friends, it's not a dirty word. But if I use it in less-safe contexts, it certainly feels like I've made some sort of mistake.
At work, my feminism is no secret, but I often feel as if many of my coworkers consider it some weird quirk about me, like, "Oh, there Steph goes again. She turned a normal conversation into a feminist-thing." Not that my coworkers aren't great people, people I like and get along with, just that I have to be extra-conscious of the way I talk about a lot of issues.
There are two specific areas of my life where bringing up feminism feels like a moderate risk. The first is when I'm trying to date. The second is right now, as I try to get into graduate programs. In both cases, I made the decision to make my feminism public. And in both cases, I don't have regrets.
Dating:
I don't like or hate dating. It's fun, but there's a lot of stress and over-analyzing, and "What do I say or not say to get another date?" And when it comes to online dating, there's a lot of stress over the fact that an online dating profile is often a terrible indication of whether or not you would get along with someone in person. It's a great way to avoid wasting time with deal-breakers; I tend to avoid messaging guys** who smoke, who use misogynistic language or talk about chivalry, who don't have similar intellectual backgrounds,*** or who seem to be really keen on finding a partner who will join them in lots and lots of travel or physical activity. But it's not really a good way to tell if the conversation will be interesting, or even if you're going to be attracted to the other person physically.
So the goal of the profile is to deter obviously incompatible people from messaging you (and yet I still get messages from 40-year-olds sometimes), and to get possibly compatible people TO message you.
So do I put in my profile that I'm a feminist? Originally, I didn't. I got more dates when I didn't, but I only had a handful of second and third dates, and they weren't fun. So I decided to put it in. It was in my profile when I started dating my last boyfriend, and while that relationship obviously didn't last, putting it in worked. My boyfriend had been interested in my profile because I was socially progressive, and not afraid to say it.
I keep it in my profile now that I'm dating again. I'm okay with the fact that it cuts down on the number of messages and dates I get. Any guy I go out with is going to find out at some point that I'm a feminist. I might as well make sure I avoid wasting time going out with guys that would find that unattractive or a problem.
Grad school:
I'm a pretty decent applicant for biology PhD programs. I say "pretty decent" because I do not work in admissions, so I'm just guessing. My GRE scores are fabulous, I have excellent recommendations, I've got great research experience, and I do think that my personal statement is interesting and well-written. But I also have a super-mediocre GPA.
What's worse is that my GPA is pretty evenly divided between "biology classes" and "not biology classes." Any class I took for my biology major, I got a mediocre grade in. At best. Most classes I took for other requirements, for fun, or for Women's Studies,**** I did very well in. And I'm reasonably sure that, if you're dealing with a shitload of applicants, you're going to assume I'm not cut out for science and throw my application into the rejection pile.
I figured that with the rest of my application being really great, I would have a chance at some interviews, where I could explain that wild discrepancy. It's not that biology classes are just too hard for little ol' me. It's that biology classes at the school I went to SUCKED. I'm not saying that I couldn't have aced them if that's all I had time for. I'm saying they SUCKED. You are not going to learn how to do excellent science by sitting in a lecture hall at 9:30am with 300 other students. You are not going to learn how to do excellent science by struggling to do a basic lab experiment with a lab partner who's not interested in working. You are not going to learn how to do excellent science in a lab class where your grade depends on technicalities, or whether or not a really difficult experimental set-up works (especially if only two groups get it to work and the professor admits that it usually doesn't work).
You learn how to do excellent science by joining a lab and working on a project. I did some of that, mostly introductory labwork, and even though I was lost most of the time, it was the most helpful class I took to prepare me for working in science.
A lecture class with 3 tests, all of which require you to essentially read the textbook and memorize the details? Not useful professionally, and not a good way to measure ability or even learning.
So that's pretty much why my biology grades are solidly MEH. Because I don't learn by going to boring lectures interrupted by pre-meds, where the only way to ace the test is to read the book and remember everything. I learn by understanding something, and relaying my understanding back to a professor. Kind of like how Women's Studies works. We sat and talked about everything, from hardcore theory to examples of socialization and bias. We read engaging books. We were "tested" by writing papers, giving us a chance to demonstrate our understanding by making new arguments.
That's how I learn. Memorizing a biology textbook isn't useful. Being able to understand, say, privilege and explain it in a paper is useful.
But that's something to leave for interviews. I don't want to sound whiny in my personal statement. But I did need to use that personal statement as an opportunity to distinguish myself from other candidates. Like so many other applicants, I want to go into research because of a personal experience (in my case, my own illness), and I want to cure diseases. Not original! Not interesting!
Unlike a lot of applicants, though, my most important goal is to plug up the leaky pipeline***** and to increase women and people of color in the sciences in general. And so I said so in my statement. I said I was a feminist. And I made it clear that you're not going to just get another person who can do good research; you're going to get a very unique PhD student who's not hyper-competitive, who's thinking about social responsibility.
I have gotten four interviews so far (waiting to hear back from six more programs). I firmly believe that making my feminism clear in my personal statement not only helped to sort of diminish my weird GPA (and to make the Women's Studies classes look much less like filler, which they weren't! I loved those classes!), but also helped to distinguish me enough that admissions committees are taking interest.
I hope that by making it clear that being open about my feminism hasn't destroyed my personal life and career, more men and women will feel good about applying that "f-word" to themselves. No more, "I'm not a feminist, but!" How about, "I'm a feminist, and!"
* I've tried and failed to use "feminist" as an adjective and not a noun. I'll practice more, I promise.
** As far as I know, I am heterosexual, and therefore look for guys to date. I have no idea what it's like to be a guy trying to date women, or a man OR a woman trying to date someone of the same sex. Or to be a transperson trying to date. This is just a hetero-cis-woman trying to date men who like women.
*** I've been called out before for this preference, but at this point, I've stopped trying to force myself to date guys I'm not attracted to from the start. I like to date guys who graduated from a decent college, especially with STEM degrees (not necessarily exclusively, but all of my boyfriends were scientist guys, and I really like that ...). I don't refuse to go on dates with guys who don't fit that bill, but really, I can't help it :(
**** This is what the program was called at my school. I don't like that it's called that. I think it should be called "Sex and Gender Studies," or, "Sex, Gender, and Sexuality Studies." But it wasn't my decision.
***** The leaky pipeline specifically refers to the loss of women in the sciences higher up in the career ladder. That is, the higher you go (from PhD student to post-doc to assistant scientist, etc. etc.), the fewer women there are. And the fewer women you start with (i.e. a higher percent of biology PhDs go to women than do computer science PhDs), the fewer you end up with. The reasons for the leakiness include, but are not limited to, sexism in the workplace in general, the stereotype of STEM as a "male" field, and the lack of childcare options in the US.
I like asterisks.
At work, my feminism is no secret, but I often feel as if many of my coworkers consider it some weird quirk about me, like, "Oh, there Steph goes again. She turned a normal conversation into a feminist-thing." Not that my coworkers aren't great people, people I like and get along with, just that I have to be extra-conscious of the way I talk about a lot of issues.
There are two specific areas of my life where bringing up feminism feels like a moderate risk. The first is when I'm trying to date. The second is right now, as I try to get into graduate programs. In both cases, I made the decision to make my feminism public. And in both cases, I don't have regrets.
Dating:
I don't like or hate dating. It's fun, but there's a lot of stress and over-analyzing, and "What do I say or not say to get another date?" And when it comes to online dating, there's a lot of stress over the fact that an online dating profile is often a terrible indication of whether or not you would get along with someone in person. It's a great way to avoid wasting time with deal-breakers; I tend to avoid messaging guys** who smoke, who use misogynistic language or talk about chivalry, who don't have similar intellectual backgrounds,*** or who seem to be really keen on finding a partner who will join them in lots and lots of travel or physical activity. But it's not really a good way to tell if the conversation will be interesting, or even if you're going to be attracted to the other person physically.
So the goal of the profile is to deter obviously incompatible people from messaging you (and yet I still get messages from 40-year-olds sometimes), and to get possibly compatible people TO message you.
So do I put in my profile that I'm a feminist? Originally, I didn't. I got more dates when I didn't, but I only had a handful of second and third dates, and they weren't fun. So I decided to put it in. It was in my profile when I started dating my last boyfriend, and while that relationship obviously didn't last, putting it in worked. My boyfriend had been interested in my profile because I was socially progressive, and not afraid to say it.
I keep it in my profile now that I'm dating again. I'm okay with the fact that it cuts down on the number of messages and dates I get. Any guy I go out with is going to find out at some point that I'm a feminist. I might as well make sure I avoid wasting time going out with guys that would find that unattractive or a problem.
Grad school:
I'm a pretty decent applicant for biology PhD programs. I say "pretty decent" because I do not work in admissions, so I'm just guessing. My GRE scores are fabulous, I have excellent recommendations, I've got great research experience, and I do think that my personal statement is interesting and well-written. But I also have a super-mediocre GPA.
What's worse is that my GPA is pretty evenly divided between "biology classes" and "not biology classes." Any class I took for my biology major, I got a mediocre grade in. At best. Most classes I took for other requirements, for fun, or for Women's Studies,**** I did very well in. And I'm reasonably sure that, if you're dealing with a shitload of applicants, you're going to assume I'm not cut out for science and throw my application into the rejection pile.
I figured that with the rest of my application being really great, I would have a chance at some interviews, where I could explain that wild discrepancy. It's not that biology classes are just too hard for little ol' me. It's that biology classes at the school I went to SUCKED. I'm not saying that I couldn't have aced them if that's all I had time for. I'm saying they SUCKED. You are not going to learn how to do excellent science by sitting in a lecture hall at 9:30am with 300 other students. You are not going to learn how to do excellent science by struggling to do a basic lab experiment with a lab partner who's not interested in working. You are not going to learn how to do excellent science in a lab class where your grade depends on technicalities, or whether or not a really difficult experimental set-up works (especially if only two groups get it to work and the professor admits that it usually doesn't work).
You learn how to do excellent science by joining a lab and working on a project. I did some of that, mostly introductory labwork, and even though I was lost most of the time, it was the most helpful class I took to prepare me for working in science.
A lecture class with 3 tests, all of which require you to essentially read the textbook and memorize the details? Not useful professionally, and not a good way to measure ability or even learning.
So that's pretty much why my biology grades are solidly MEH. Because I don't learn by going to boring lectures interrupted by pre-meds, where the only way to ace the test is to read the book and remember everything. I learn by understanding something, and relaying my understanding back to a professor. Kind of like how Women's Studies works. We sat and talked about everything, from hardcore theory to examples of socialization and bias. We read engaging books. We were "tested" by writing papers, giving us a chance to demonstrate our understanding by making new arguments.
That's how I learn. Memorizing a biology textbook isn't useful. Being able to understand, say, privilege and explain it in a paper is useful.
But that's something to leave for interviews. I don't want to sound whiny in my personal statement. But I did need to use that personal statement as an opportunity to distinguish myself from other candidates. Like so many other applicants, I want to go into research because of a personal experience (in my case, my own illness), and I want to cure diseases. Not original! Not interesting!
Unlike a lot of applicants, though, my most important goal is to plug up the leaky pipeline***** and to increase women and people of color in the sciences in general. And so I said so in my statement. I said I was a feminist. And I made it clear that you're not going to just get another person who can do good research; you're going to get a very unique PhD student who's not hyper-competitive, who's thinking about social responsibility.
I have gotten four interviews so far (waiting to hear back from six more programs). I firmly believe that making my feminism clear in my personal statement not only helped to sort of diminish my weird GPA (and to make the Women's Studies classes look much less like filler, which they weren't! I loved those classes!), but also helped to distinguish me enough that admissions committees are taking interest.
I hope that by making it clear that being open about my feminism hasn't destroyed my personal life and career, more men and women will feel good about applying that "f-word" to themselves. No more, "I'm not a feminist, but!" How about, "I'm a feminist, and!"
* I've tried and failed to use "feminist" as an adjective and not a noun. I'll practice more, I promise.
** As far as I know, I am heterosexual, and therefore look for guys to date. I have no idea what it's like to be a guy trying to date women, or a man OR a woman trying to date someone of the same sex. Or to be a transperson trying to date. This is just a hetero-cis-woman trying to date men who like women.
*** I've been called out before for this preference, but at this point, I've stopped trying to force myself to date guys I'm not attracted to from the start. I like to date guys who graduated from a decent college, especially with STEM degrees (not necessarily exclusively, but all of my boyfriends were scientist guys, and I really like that ...). I don't refuse to go on dates with guys who don't fit that bill, but really, I can't help it :(
**** This is what the program was called at my school. I don't like that it's called that. I think it should be called "Sex and Gender Studies," or, "Sex, Gender, and Sexuality Studies." But it wasn't my decision.
***** The leaky pipeline specifically refers to the loss of women in the sciences higher up in the career ladder. That is, the higher you go (from PhD student to post-doc to assistant scientist, etc. etc.), the fewer women there are. And the fewer women you start with (i.e. a higher percent of biology PhDs go to women than do computer science PhDs), the fewer you end up with. The reasons for the leakiness include, but are not limited to, sexism in the workplace in general, the stereotype of STEM as a "male" field, and the lack of childcare options in the US.
I like asterisks.
Friday, January 14, 2011
AGAIN. Words MEAN things
Words really mean things. Just like "blood libel" does not generically mean "false accusation," the word "pogrom" does not mean "attack."
The Washington Times doesn't seem to get that. In fact, while defending Sarah Palin's speech, where she used the term "blood libel" incorrectly and offensively, the Times uses the word "pogrom" exact same incorrect, offensive way.
What the hell is a pogrom? A pogrom is a government sanctioned or condoned raid or attack on a minority, typically on their village or homes. While it can be used to describe raids against many religious and ethnic minorities, it is most commonly used to describe those raids that occurred in Russia in the early 20th century on Jewish villages and shtetls. Have you seen Fiddler on the Roof? Where Anatevka is trying to celebrate a fucking wedding and the Russian soldiers tear the place apart? That's a pogrom.
It's not a plain old attack. It's a very specific kind of attack, meant to drive out or eliminate a minority. It's not fair play in any sense--a pogrom does not occur as retaliation towards the pogrom-victim's earlier actions. A pogrom is NOT when people criticize a public figure for knowingly and offensively misusing a loaded term.
DUH.
Having two terms, both related to Judaism, misused within days of each other is really, really obnoxious, and it gets me fucking pissed off. Words mean things, people. And for the last time, if this isn't evidence that Jewish people are still disrespected in US politics in 2011, I'm not sure what would be.
The Washington Times doesn't seem to get that. In fact, while defending Sarah Palin's speech, where she used the term "blood libel" incorrectly and offensively, the Times uses the word "pogrom" exact same incorrect, offensive way.
What the hell is a pogrom? A pogrom is a government sanctioned or condoned raid or attack on a minority, typically on their village or homes. While it can be used to describe raids against many religious and ethnic minorities, it is most commonly used to describe those raids that occurred in Russia in the early 20th century on Jewish villages and shtetls. Have you seen Fiddler on the Roof? Where Anatevka is trying to celebrate a fucking wedding and the Russian soldiers tear the place apart? That's a pogrom.
It's not a plain old attack. It's a very specific kind of attack, meant to drive out or eliminate a minority. It's not fair play in any sense--a pogrom does not occur as retaliation towards the pogrom-victim's earlier actions. A pogrom is NOT when people criticize a public figure for knowingly and offensively misusing a loaded term.
DUH.
Having two terms, both related to Judaism, misused within days of each other is really, really obnoxious, and it gets me fucking pissed off. Words mean things, people. And for the last time, if this isn't evidence that Jewish people are still disrespected in US politics in 2011, I'm not sure what would be.
Eeehehehehe--Grad School
Graduate schools are obnoxious. Like I've said before, there's really nothing centralized, unlike undergraduate admissions and medical school admissions, which (while still a huge pain in the ass in many ways) make some effort to centralize the process. You've got guidance counselors and medical school advisors, who organize the mailing of recommendations. Test scores are easy to send out (although this is true for the GRE as well). There's a common application.
Graduate programs are a wreck, and not just in terms of the disorganization of applications. Most of my deadlines have passed (two programs have deadlines tomorrow), but now we're in the waiting period. Many programs are already getting back to people; I have three interviews already (including one that I got back in December--absurdly early), and one of the interviews was issued before the application deadline. Additionally, there are only so many weekends in January, February, and March, and so many people, myself included, are anxious about how quickly we're going to have to throw together schedules for these months. I know I'm extremely concerned about how much work I'm going to have to miss (1 day per local program, possibly 2 days for others). So I sought out information--when the hell should I begin to suspect I've been rejected?
I found a couple of websites, and the results? FUCKING HILARIOUS.
Getting into a PhD program is really important to me, and to other people. I've been extremely obsessive and organized about my applications, and now my interviews. But I'm also confident that I'll get in somewhere great, have a great/stressful/wtf 5-6 years, and end up with a great career. Cool.
People are freaking out, though. They're posting their "stats:" GPA, what kind of college they attended, GRE scores, years of undergraduate/other experience, publications, etc. etc. etc., in addition to all of the programs they applied to and have heard back from. People are freeeeeaking. And while I don't find anything particularly hilarious about, "I found out I was rejected from [school]. I'm disappointed," I do think it's hilarious to see people panicking about the massive Nor'easter that just hit New England, because, and I'm not kidding, they're worried that it'll impact the decision timeline from Harvard's BBS program. Now, I'm not that panicky because I didn't apply to BBS. And because my PI told me that BBS isn't even close to making any decisions. So it's hilarious to see that people are actually paying attention to Boston weather because they think that they're supposed to hear back any day now.
Anyway, am I anxious about graduate school? Yes. Do I feel panicked because I'm still waiting to hear back from 7 programs? Yes, but it's because I always get anxious during the waiting game. Also, I'm bored because I'm done with applications, and panicking is something to do. But it just tickles me a little bit to see people getting this upset and worried so early in the game. Look, everyone, almost all of us will be getting a PhD in 4-7 years. Don't worry.
Graduate programs are a wreck, and not just in terms of the disorganization of applications. Most of my deadlines have passed (two programs have deadlines tomorrow), but now we're in the waiting period. Many programs are already getting back to people; I have three interviews already (including one that I got back in December--absurdly early), and one of the interviews was issued before the application deadline. Additionally, there are only so many weekends in January, February, and March, and so many people, myself included, are anxious about how quickly we're going to have to throw together schedules for these months. I know I'm extremely concerned about how much work I'm going to have to miss (1 day per local program, possibly 2 days for others). So I sought out information--when the hell should I begin to suspect I've been rejected?
I found a couple of websites, and the results? FUCKING HILARIOUS.
Getting into a PhD program is really important to me, and to other people. I've been extremely obsessive and organized about my applications, and now my interviews. But I'm also confident that I'll get in somewhere great, have a great/stressful/wtf 5-6 years, and end up with a great career. Cool.
People are freaking out, though. They're posting their "stats:" GPA, what kind of college they attended, GRE scores, years of undergraduate/other experience, publications, etc. etc. etc., in addition to all of the programs they applied to and have heard back from. People are freeeeeaking. And while I don't find anything particularly hilarious about, "I found out I was rejected from [school]. I'm disappointed," I do think it's hilarious to see people panicking about the massive Nor'easter that just hit New England, because, and I'm not kidding, they're worried that it'll impact the decision timeline from Harvard's BBS program. Now, I'm not that panicky because I didn't apply to BBS. And because my PI told me that BBS isn't even close to making any decisions. So it's hilarious to see that people are actually paying attention to Boston weather because they think that they're supposed to hear back any day now.
Anyway, am I anxious about graduate school? Yes. Do I feel panicked because I'm still waiting to hear back from 7 programs? Yes, but it's because I always get anxious during the waiting game. Also, I'm bored because I'm done with applications, and panicking is something to do. But it just tickles me a little bit to see people getting this upset and worried so early in the game. Look, everyone, almost all of us will be getting a PhD in 4-7 years. Don't worry.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Part 150,443 in "Words Mean Things."
As you may already be aware of, words actually mean things.
I'm not going to really go into just HOW bad it is that Sarah Palin is accusing the media of "blood libel." Because it's really bad. It's appallingly and inarguably anti-Semitic.
Words mean things. If you want to say, "The media is falsely accusing me of instigating violence," then you should say that. But "blood libel" doesn't mean "false accusation." "False accusation" means "false accusation."
For those of you who are unfamiliar with "blood libel," it's the specific false accusation that the Jewish people sacrifice Christian children in order to use their blood to make bread that we then eat. Blood libel has been used for hundreds of years as an excuse to persecute, dehumanize, discriminate against, and murder Jewish people.
So unless the media is accusing Sarah Palin and the Tea Party of murdering good liberal children in order to use their blood to make bread, and then using that lie in order to persecute and murder Sarah Palin and the Tea Party over hundreds of years, it's NOT blood libel. Like, actually, factually not even close.
Words mean things. And these words? Anti-Semitic. DUH.
I'm not going to really go into just HOW bad it is that Sarah Palin is accusing the media of "blood libel." Because it's really bad. It's appallingly and inarguably anti-Semitic.
Words mean things. If you want to say, "The media is falsely accusing me of instigating violence," then you should say that. But "blood libel" doesn't mean "false accusation." "False accusation" means "false accusation."
For those of you who are unfamiliar with "blood libel," it's the specific false accusation that the Jewish people sacrifice Christian children in order to use their blood to make bread that we then eat. Blood libel has been used for hundreds of years as an excuse to persecute, dehumanize, discriminate against, and murder Jewish people.
So unless the media is accusing Sarah Palin and the Tea Party of murdering good liberal children in order to use their blood to make bread, and then using that lie in order to persecute and murder Sarah Palin and the Tea Party over hundreds of years, it's NOT blood libel. Like, actually, factually not even close.
Words mean things. And these words? Anti-Semitic. DUH.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Jared Loughner is crazy! Or something!
Saturday was going so well for me. Loki woke me up early, which was okay because I always feel more productive when I'm awake earlier in the day (translation: more time to sit in bed and do nothing). I went on a date that was really fun. I picked up some items from Walgreens that I needed. And I even straightened up my room, which has been clean for all of 2011 (usually my room stays clean for 2-3 days before returning to its usual disguise as the fourth circle of hell). I even vacuumed. And then I crawled into bed with a little green bird and looked online.
So here's what I guess I know. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who has faced numerous threats and actual acts of violence (her office was vandalized--rocks thrown, etc.), was at a Congress on your Corner event. This guy named Jared Loughner, who has had lots of issues (drug use, dropped out of college), went up to the congresswoman and shot her in the head. He then opened fire on the crowd, killing several elderly people, a Federal judge, one of the congresswoman's aides, and a 9-year-old girl. Fourteen people were injured, including Giffords, who managed to survive the gunshot to the head and has been in critical condition since Saturday. Loughner was tackled and apprehended before he could do further harm to others or himself, and now faces two counts of attempted murder, two counts of murder, and one count of the attempted murder of a congressperson.
Here are some more things I know. For a long time now, several individuals and groups on the right have been espousing violence--specifically gun violence--as the way to "take back" America. That is not to say that these people have actually taken their guns, gone to perceived enemies, and threatened to kill them. I'm talking about the rhetoric that's being used, the imagery that we're seeing. It's not a secret that these individuals and groups have been using this rhetoric and imagery, and I'm actually just mostly offended that now, they're acting like WHOOPS WE DIDN'T MEAN IT.
Head's up, people: words mean things. If what you mean to say is, "I know that right now, we feel hopeless because there are changes happening in our country we don't agree with. We need to stand up and speak out against these changes, vote for the people who will stop these changes, and introduce legislation to make the changes that we want to see," then don't say, "Don't retreat, RELOAD." Don't talk about "second amendment remedies." Don't threaten gun violence if you don't think gun violence is the answer!
Now yeah, sometimes you want to use analogies and metaphors in your rhetoric to mobilize your base. Cool. But if you're not creative enough to do that without actually threatening people at the same time, maybe you should find a different job?
Here's something I don't know: Jared Loughner's brain. I haven't met the guy or his brain. I don't have his medical history. I don't have an extremely accurate narrative describing his drug use. I really don't know.
And I don't fucking care.
Yeah, it's true, there's got to be something wrong if you think that it's acceptable for you to try to assassinate a congressperson and then open fire on a crowd. But we, as a nation, need to stop making the erroneous assumption that if you are capable of doing something almost universally accepted as wrong and evil, you must be mentally ill. There's really no reason to make this assumption, beyond, "I don't understand how someone could make this decision, unless their brains didn't work properly." Well, aren't YOU a talented psychologist?
I know people who are, as we say, mentally ill. Mental illness is a term that bothers me, since it implies that these people always have sick brains that don't work properly. But the people I know who are mentally ill are just like me, for the most part. I've never had to stop being friends with someone who's mentally ill because they've threatened me or done something horrible. And in many cases, I haven't even known about a friend's mental illness for a long time because it's not obvious.
So is Loughner "crazy?" I guess the better question is, "Well, does it even matter?"
Ask the victims--does it matter whether or not the guy is crazy? Or does your gunshot wound suck just as much?
Ask congress--does it matter whether or not the guy is crazy? Or are you still concerned that voting the "wrong" way will put your life in danger?
Ask the people and groups spouting crap about reloading and the second amendment--does it matter whether or not the guy is crazy? Or are you still thinking now about whether or not your rhetoric might have an impact you didn't want?
People are also freaking out about who's allowed to buy guns. Look, we can't have everything both ways. Either guns are hard for everyone to get or easy for everyone to get. Generally, if you're working hard to increase access to guns, people you'd rather not get a gun are going to get a gun. Make guns harder to get for everyone, including you, and then you can solve that. But clearly, this is like increasing spending without increasing taxes; what the hell are you trying to do here?
Sady Doyle at Tiger Beatdown makes an excellent point in her Arizona shooting FAQ. We don't know if Loughner is crazy, but it's pretty clear that he's stupid. She has a great takedown of his favorite books list, correctly pointing out what I noticed as well: no one who ACTUALLY understood these books would have liked all of them. Come on! We are not dealing with a genius.
So, to sum up:
1) This ruined my Saturday.
2) Being mentally ill does not make you kill people.
3) Do not use violent rhetoric if you do not mean to incite violence (also known as "words mean things").
4) It doesn't really matter very much if Loughner is mentally ill.
5) Jared Loughner is stupid.
6) Sady Doyle rules.
So here's what I guess I know. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, who has faced numerous threats and actual acts of violence (her office was vandalized--rocks thrown, etc.), was at a Congress on your Corner event. This guy named Jared Loughner, who has had lots of issues (drug use, dropped out of college), went up to the congresswoman and shot her in the head. He then opened fire on the crowd, killing several elderly people, a Federal judge, one of the congresswoman's aides, and a 9-year-old girl. Fourteen people were injured, including Giffords, who managed to survive the gunshot to the head and has been in critical condition since Saturday. Loughner was tackled and apprehended before he could do further harm to others or himself, and now faces two counts of attempted murder, two counts of murder, and one count of the attempted murder of a congressperson.
Here are some more things I know. For a long time now, several individuals and groups on the right have been espousing violence--specifically gun violence--as the way to "take back" America. That is not to say that these people have actually taken their guns, gone to perceived enemies, and threatened to kill them. I'm talking about the rhetoric that's being used, the imagery that we're seeing. It's not a secret that these individuals and groups have been using this rhetoric and imagery, and I'm actually just mostly offended that now, they're acting like WHOOPS WE DIDN'T MEAN IT.
Head's up, people: words mean things. If what you mean to say is, "I know that right now, we feel hopeless because there are changes happening in our country we don't agree with. We need to stand up and speak out against these changes, vote for the people who will stop these changes, and introduce legislation to make the changes that we want to see," then don't say, "Don't retreat, RELOAD." Don't talk about "second amendment remedies." Don't threaten gun violence if you don't think gun violence is the answer!
Now yeah, sometimes you want to use analogies and metaphors in your rhetoric to mobilize your base. Cool. But if you're not creative enough to do that without actually threatening people at the same time, maybe you should find a different job?
Here's something I don't know: Jared Loughner's brain. I haven't met the guy or his brain. I don't have his medical history. I don't have an extremely accurate narrative describing his drug use. I really don't know.
And I don't fucking care.
Yeah, it's true, there's got to be something wrong if you think that it's acceptable for you to try to assassinate a congressperson and then open fire on a crowd. But we, as a nation, need to stop making the erroneous assumption that if you are capable of doing something almost universally accepted as wrong and evil, you must be mentally ill. There's really no reason to make this assumption, beyond, "I don't understand how someone could make this decision, unless their brains didn't work properly." Well, aren't YOU a talented psychologist?
I know people who are, as we say, mentally ill. Mental illness is a term that bothers me, since it implies that these people always have sick brains that don't work properly. But the people I know who are mentally ill are just like me, for the most part. I've never had to stop being friends with someone who's mentally ill because they've threatened me or done something horrible. And in many cases, I haven't even known about a friend's mental illness for a long time because it's not obvious.
So is Loughner "crazy?" I guess the better question is, "Well, does it even matter?"
Ask the victims--does it matter whether or not the guy is crazy? Or does your gunshot wound suck just as much?
Ask congress--does it matter whether or not the guy is crazy? Or are you still concerned that voting the "wrong" way will put your life in danger?
Ask the people and groups spouting crap about reloading and the second amendment--does it matter whether or not the guy is crazy? Or are you still thinking now about whether or not your rhetoric might have an impact you didn't want?
People are also freaking out about who's allowed to buy guns. Look, we can't have everything both ways. Either guns are hard for everyone to get or easy for everyone to get. Generally, if you're working hard to increase access to guns, people you'd rather not get a gun are going to get a gun. Make guns harder to get for everyone, including you, and then you can solve that. But clearly, this is like increasing spending without increasing taxes; what the hell are you trying to do here?
Sady Doyle at Tiger Beatdown makes an excellent point in her Arizona shooting FAQ. We don't know if Loughner is crazy, but it's pretty clear that he's stupid. She has a great takedown of his favorite books list, correctly pointing out what I noticed as well: no one who ACTUALLY understood these books would have liked all of them. Come on! We are not dealing with a genius.
So, to sum up:
1) This ruined my Saturday.
2) Being mentally ill does not make you kill people.
3) Do not use violent rhetoric if you do not mean to incite violence (also known as "words mean things").
4) It doesn't really matter very much if Loughner is mentally ill.
5) Jared Loughner is stupid.
6) Sady Doyle rules.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)