Second day at work: more extremes than the first. On one hand, during the second half of the day I became slightly more talkative and social, so perhaps I'm beginning to break the "mute, personality-less girl" thing I had going for the first day and a half. On the other hand, I feel fairly incompetent. I was given an article topic today and spent so much time frittering away, doing background research, that I didn't email or call any of the researchers involved until around 3:30 in the afternoon...far too late to expect a response. My real reason for not calling earlier was that I was too afraid to cold call people, as I didn't know that was done, too afraid to leave messages, because I didn't know if that was a good idea, and too afraid to ask my boss what to do, because I'd rather not seem clueless. But of course I wound up asking later in the day, and yes, I cold call, yes, I leave messages and follow those up with emails. Makes tons of sense. Just asking makes even more sense. I'm slowly getting the sense that my boss is disappointed in me already. I don't have great ideas for how to slant articles...they ask me "so what would your take be?" as if I've ever figured out how to angle a topic. I haven't. Ever. The YDN articles were always assigned to me and I'm too chicken-shit to write op-eds. But apparently I'm going to start angling them now. And how.
On the first hand, again, my two article topics thus far are pretty cool. People who are frequent users of drugs tend to have physical responses when they enter the location where they usually use. This is why people overdose in foreign places...it takes more to get them high in their usual locale, so they use their habitual dosage elsewhere, and it's too much. A few researchers found a way to stop this environmental memory-making in cocaine-using rats. That's the first cool article. As for the second article....I CAN'T TELL YOU! Na na n'naa na! It's embargoed until next Monday, when it will appear on the brand-spanking-new Seed site in all of its embargo-lifted glory.
But right now I'm feeling really nervous. I didn't get enough done today, I haven't had much of a social life these past few weeks. I even interrupted vaughan's reading at slave to talk to him, which I very rarely do, because I've been so socially deprived and seeing a friend without the mind-numbing schlepp to the city or farther was about the most exciting thing that's happened in a long time. I'm not sure about this work, and I hate feeling like a disappointment. I don't feel really invested yet...hopefully when I'm producing, and that work is going up onto a website, I'll naturally take more pride in my work. But right now I'm feeling negative emotions that haven't cropped up in the past year or two.
Also, I've begun to realize one luxury I had this summer (aside from the general vast amounts of free time). I was able to take a step back and prioritize according to what I believe is important, not what the world believes is important. And since I had been in that state of prioritizing goodness, security in oneself and intellectual curiosity for so many months, I forgot that what the world prioritizes is quality of output. And not overall quality of output: quality of output in projects that specifically affect them. You are valued if you do what you do well. This is something I've never valued in people. I mean, I love excellent work. I laud awesome novels, movies, songs, performances, businesses, etc. I trash things, generally, because I hate them...not because they're of poor quality. And I always, in some way, admire things I hate. I'm more likely to be extremely dismissive of genres, not specific works. Hearing the other young editorial folk talk about how bad different articles are is a huge shock back into reality. Then there's the dorky editorial assistant who seems ever so slightly ostracized because his comments are sometimes out of place and overly exuberant. Thus far, props to him.
Tuesday, September 27, 2005
Monday, September 26, 2005
Immersion
I began work today. I'm an adult. Pause. Pause ... Pause. OK, now you can burst out laughing.
Today was "get acquainted with all the science that's happened in the past week" day. I think I doubled my knowledge of technology, learning how to get and browse RSS feeds and use an awesome bookmarking service called del.icio.us (oh, what an economical use of an extension!). It's actually pretty awesome...works much like the gmail tagging system, but as many people as would like to can view the server and anyone with the password can edit it. I'll link you all to our main site when it gets up and running, which will be next Monday. I'll be writing one article per day. That's crazy. I mean, I can probably research via the internet and write up that quickly, but any and all interviewing and fact checking will make this one hell of a process. I'm looking forward to the challenge, though.
More than anything, I'm looking forward to the immersion in a field. I'm going to spend the next two months eating, drinking and breathing science news. I will be a science news machine. I think that's pretty exciting...to really gain a solid background in a specific field in a two month period. Now, of course, as soon as I start slacking off, assuming I don't continue directly with science news after it ends, my knowledge base will become completely outdated. Maybe they'll hire me and I'll continue with the whole thing...who can tell what the future holds?
The atmosphere was all right...hopefully I'll warm up to the people and all. Two things have to change: 1. I need to be friendlier. I'm not a friendly person. I'm a nice person, and I'm a good friend, and I'm very dynamic when I'm around my friends, but I'm crap with strangers and people I only know moderately. I just need to loosen the fuck up. 2. I need to not feel greasy. Whenever I wake up to early, I feel greasy. Sure, not immediately after my shower, but somehow I grime up over the course of the day. This just doesn't happen when I sleep until 11, but it really makes me feel incompetent and groggy for the entire day. I never woke up today. If I felt awake, that would help the friendliness. Damn the grime!
I'm not in much of a mood for writing tonight. Tomorrow my hands will be bound to the keyboard and I will be Seed's article grinding bitch. That will probably either make me totally sick of writing come the evenings or make me ache to philosophize in my writing and use beautiful, florid, masturbatory language. I think we can all bet on the latter.
Today was "get acquainted with all the science that's happened in the past week" day. I think I doubled my knowledge of technology, learning how to get and browse RSS feeds and use an awesome bookmarking service called del.icio.us (oh, what an economical use of an extension!). It's actually pretty awesome...works much like the gmail tagging system, but as many people as would like to can view the server and anyone with the password can edit it. I'll link you all to our main site when it gets up and running, which will be next Monday. I'll be writing one article per day. That's crazy. I mean, I can probably research via the internet and write up that quickly, but any and all interviewing and fact checking will make this one hell of a process. I'm looking forward to the challenge, though.
More than anything, I'm looking forward to the immersion in a field. I'm going to spend the next two months eating, drinking and breathing science news. I will be a science news machine. I think that's pretty exciting...to really gain a solid background in a specific field in a two month period. Now, of course, as soon as I start slacking off, assuming I don't continue directly with science news after it ends, my knowledge base will become completely outdated. Maybe they'll hire me and I'll continue with the whole thing...who can tell what the future holds?
The atmosphere was all right...hopefully I'll warm up to the people and all. Two things have to change: 1. I need to be friendlier. I'm not a friendly person. I'm a nice person, and I'm a good friend, and I'm very dynamic when I'm around my friends, but I'm crap with strangers and people I only know moderately. I just need to loosen the fuck up. 2. I need to not feel greasy. Whenever I wake up to early, I feel greasy. Sure, not immediately after my shower, but somehow I grime up over the course of the day. This just doesn't happen when I sleep until 11, but it really makes me feel incompetent and groggy for the entire day. I never woke up today. If I felt awake, that would help the friendliness. Damn the grime!
I'm not in much of a mood for writing tonight. Tomorrow my hands will be bound to the keyboard and I will be Seed's article grinding bitch. That will probably either make me totally sick of writing come the evenings or make me ache to philosophize in my writing and use beautiful, florid, masturbatory language. I think we can all bet on the latter.
Friday, September 23, 2005
So Why So Sad
I'm experiencing a brief bout of post-job-acceptance depression and anxiety. I imagine it's natural, as that's the typical diagnoses for reactions with specific stimuli. I don't have any question about whether I made the right choice in taking the internship, even though I received a lovely call from GLAAD yesterday inviting me in for an interview. I just wonder how competent I will be. I know I'm a smart kid, I really do, but everyone there seems to have more background in both science and journalism than I do. My co-intern sent me a quick, friendly email today introducing himself. I googled the guy, and he's in the middle of getting his Ph.D. in biomedical engineering. And he's also taking this unpaid internship in New York. I'm in good company, which makes me question my abilities even more. OK, my computer's behaving very badly, so I'm going to restart and hope that internet explorer doesn't continue to randomly disappear.
Thursday, September 22, 2005
Let's Make Like Poland...
...and get occupied.
So, I'm interning with Seed...it's official. I'm really very excited about this whole deal. I grabbed a copy of their magazine yesterday, while I was interviewing with their child-prodigy President/Founder/CEO. It's great. To borrow a word from the debaters, it's dorktastic. They label their issues with the spectrum lines of the element whose atomic number corresponds to the issue number. I mean, that may not beat the dorktasticness of singing Pascal's Triangle, but it comes close. And I'm actually going to get to research and write on a daily basis...generally fill their brand-spanking-new website with content. I'll keep all ye faithful blog readers updated on the status of the site.
Meanwhile, I might have to kill my uncle (ooh, how Hamlet!) for getting me hooked on Su Doku. For those of you out of the puzzle circle, Su Doku is a logic game. You are given a 9 square x 9 square board, broken up into nine 3 x 3 blocks. Most of the squares are blank, but you are given a few numbers as clues. In the solution, each of the rows, columns and blocks will contain the numbers 1-9, each once and only once. You have to fill them in. Go! The puzzles range from pretty darn easy to pretty darn impossible. But they're all doable and require only your clear thinking and wit. I'm in love. Crossword puzzles: you are now my thing on the side.
So, I'm interning with Seed...it's official. I'm really very excited about this whole deal. I grabbed a copy of their magazine yesterday, while I was interviewing with their child-prodigy President/Founder/CEO. It's great. To borrow a word from the debaters, it's dorktastic. They label their issues with the spectrum lines of the element whose atomic number corresponds to the issue number. I mean, that may not beat the dorktasticness of singing Pascal's Triangle, but it comes close. And I'm actually going to get to research and write on a daily basis...generally fill their brand-spanking-new website with content. I'll keep all ye faithful blog readers updated on the status of the site.
Meanwhile, I might have to kill my uncle (ooh, how Hamlet!) for getting me hooked on Su Doku. For those of you out of the puzzle circle, Su Doku is a logic game. You are given a 9 square x 9 square board, broken up into nine 3 x 3 blocks. Most of the squares are blank, but you are given a few numbers as clues. In the solution, each of the rows, columns and blocks will contain the numbers 1-9, each once and only once. You have to fill them in. Go! The puzzles range from pretty darn easy to pretty darn impossible. But they're all doable and require only your clear thinking and wit. I'm in love. Crossword puzzles: you are now my thing on the side.
Monday, September 19, 2005
Letter
This letter was in response to Lisa Randall's awesome editorial in the Times yesterday, which can be found here.
Dear Prof. Randall,
Thank you so much for your editorial in the New York Times yesterday. You very clearly articulated several points I've been making to fellow students, family and strangers in coffee shops for years.
I have to say that I am, sadly, pessimistic about some of your proposals. I believe scientific ideas will continue to be named and misnamed in their early stages of development using convenient and often colloquial terms.
From some of my conversations about the Big Questions in science, I've gathered that non-scientists give science credit on a couple of bases: its intuitiveness and its history of past successes. The notion of force and anthropomorphized descriptions of disease are fairly intuitive. Getting man to the moon and curing disease have been impressive successes, great PR. But because their faith in science is contingent on results and intuitiveness, not based on a deep belief inthe scientific method(s), it dwindles when faced with seriously unintuitive or non-productive ideas, such as cosmological theories or string theory. The dwindling has begun, and I doubt it will stop until we have a complete, workable theory for something the public considers significant.
I would love more people to be able to accept the complexity of science and the fact that "incomplete" does not mean "wrong." However, given the current political climate and state of the union, scientists telling non-scientists to "just trust us, we've been doing this for hundreds of years and know what's best," isn't going to fly. I really wish I knew of some way to make people accept science as it is and to understand that its weaknesses do not invalidate it. I just don't think asking them is going to do it. We need...collateral? a breakthrough? I don't know.
Anyway, I'm sorry for taking up your time if you've read this the whole way through. I didn't mean to sling my pessimism at you for so many paragraphs. Thank you again for bringing such important ideas to a large audience.
sincerely yours,
Maggie XXX [best not to have the last name in the blog]
(Yale '05, B.S. in Physics)
She sent me a very nice response:
Thank you for your thoughtful message. I wish I knew the answers. I personally decided to at least try to make it possible to understand more complex theories by writing a book and investigating what can be done. In any case, it's not just science these days, but everything that is overly simplified in the media. I hope it improves.
Best, Lisa Randall
Why, Professor Randall...write about science for the general public? What a splendid idea. I think I'll try it. (Come on Seed, take me on board, baby.)
Dear Prof. Randall,
Thank you so much for your editorial in the New York Times yesterday. You very clearly articulated several points I've been making to fellow students, family and strangers in coffee shops for years.
I have to say that I am, sadly, pessimistic about some of your proposals. I believe scientific ideas will continue to be named and misnamed in their early stages of development using convenient and often colloquial terms.
From some of my conversations about the Big Questions in science, I've gathered that non-scientists give science credit on a couple of bases: its intuitiveness and its history of past successes. The notion of force and anthropomorphized descriptions of disease are fairly intuitive. Getting man to the moon and curing disease have been impressive successes, great PR. But because their faith in science is contingent on results and intuitiveness, not based on a deep belief inthe scientific method(s), it dwindles when faced with seriously unintuitive or non-productive ideas, such as cosmological theories or string theory. The dwindling has begun, and I doubt it will stop until we have a complete, workable theory for something the public considers significant.
I would love more people to be able to accept the complexity of science and the fact that "incomplete" does not mean "wrong." However, given the current political climate and state of the union, scientists telling non-scientists to "just trust us, we've been doing this for hundreds of years and know what's best," isn't going to fly. I really wish I knew of some way to make people accept science as it is and to understand that its weaknesses do not invalidate it. I just don't think asking them is going to do it. We need...collateral? a breakthrough? I don't know.
Anyway, I'm sorry for taking up your time if you've read this the whole way through. I didn't mean to sling my pessimism at you for so many paragraphs. Thank you again for bringing such important ideas to a large audience.
sincerely yours,
Maggie XXX [best not to have the last name in the blog]
(Yale '05, B.S. in Physics)
She sent me a very nice response:
Thank you for your thoughtful message. I wish I knew the answers. I personally decided to at least try to make it possible to understand more complex theories by writing a book and investigating what can be done. In any case, it's not just science these days, but everything that is overly simplified in the media. I hope it improves.
Best, Lisa Randall
Why, Professor Randall...write about science for the general public? What a splendid idea. I think I'll try it. (Come on Seed, take me on board, baby.)
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Just the perfect blend...ship...
I hung out with Greg today, and we saw a showcase of songs from NYU Musical Theater alums, including those of our musical theater instructor. The show was of somewhat varied quality. I'm happy to say that Sam's numbers were among the best, with due credit to the awesome Laura Bell Bundy, who performed them. I also realized I say some HORRIBLE things around Greg. I could be lynched for some of my comments (for anecdotes, drop an IM). Some people say they like their friends or their boyfriends because they like who they are around them. I suppose this is a valid point. I even suppose that, in a way, I really like myself when I'm around the friends I say horrible things to (greg, vaughan, cat). But I think there's another aspect of friendship, which is that your close friends always give you the benefit of the doubt. A close friendship allows you the luxury of making truly borderline comments without a friend losing faith in your overall goodness. I think with these friends, especially, I have that kind of understanding: They know I'm a generally good person. I know they're generally good people. So we have knowledge of a certain half-joke that underlies our conversation. The bad comments we make aren't said without any sincerity, but they're not really vicious. More often then not, they're casual observations framed in the most biting style, as to create the greatest amusement for the other person. We don't have to laugh or express ourselves with extreme sarcasm or levity in order to clarify that we're not totally serious. The more sincere the tone, the more amusing the effect. It's the trust that makes it work. I appreciate that...so thank you, friends, for letting me be awful.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
The Newest Possibilities
So, this week I've applied for two positions that I'm pretty excited about:
1. Editorial Intern with Seed Media Group. The description of the position is: Editorial Intern (Web)The Editorial Intern (Web) will turn out breaking science + culture news on a daily basis. This is an in-the-trenches opportunity to help build a news outlet as well as inhabit it as a beat reporter. Experience meeting tight deadlines a bonus; ability to take a slightly unconventional view a must.
I mean, that sounds just about perfect. This Seed group sprung forth from the loins of Seed Magazine, this pretty funky science magazine that Henry Kaiser interned for last year. They're all about science and they're all about criticizing the right's mishandling of science. I mean, I'm giddy about physics, I jerk off to cog sci, and I tear down walls (cell walls, damn you!) for stem cell research. I think I'll fit in well amongst these people. The interview's tomorrow, with a guy whose second google hit is a website called octacock (a play on octopussy, no doubt, although I haven't gotten a good sense of their site yet).
2. GLAAD National News Media Fellowship. To rip a bit from their website: "The National Fellow is primarily responsible for supporting GLAAD's National News program through monitoring print and broadcast media and sustaining relationships with national news reporters, editors and producers. -Plan, write, edit, and proof written materials including releases, alerts, letters to media professionals and other documents as needed. -Monitor assigned national media outlets on a daily basis and compiles coverage of GLAAD's work and issues pertaining to the LGBT community. " Etc.
If I'm thinking about law school...and I am...this would be a kind of great opportunity for me to do what I like, with an organization I like, for a cause I like, that would provide something on my resume to give to lambda legal after a year of law school that they would like. I would be pretty darn excited to do this and work with them, although I'm curious whether they'd object to my rampant heterosexuality. I tend to be fairly un-PC, which is fine when I'm talking about women ('cause, you know, I am one), but works a little less well when I'm talking about queer folk ('cause, you know, I'm not one by any typical standard). Hopefully they'll believe that this is because I accept homosexuality fully enough that I feel I can discuss it...I don't have to sidestep it out of deference to the experts. I mean, I don't think that would be a good way to handle any issue...but if you really plan on being a douche, sidestepping might be a good idea.
I hate defining myself as "straight." I tend to just go with "hetero." Although, let's be honest, I'm about as straight as they come. I'll only kiss people I have an emotional attachment to, and only hook up inside a monogamous relationship. I'm into nothing kinky, can't stand the mixing of pleasure and pain, and I never get bored with repetition, so the ultimate conclusion of a regular sexual routine would suit me fine. It's true, I watch gay porn, but I'm into that at least as much for the dynamic between the characters as I am for the sex. Television studios know that once the two characters in a show get together, the show's done. Porn's the same way for me. The climax is when the characters first kiss...not when they climax. Good porn, in my opinion, is the porn that can keep this dynamic going throughout the sex, so the viewer gets the characters physical and emotional excitement. Wow, I'm such a girlie girl.
1. Editorial Intern with Seed Media Group. The description of the position is: Editorial Intern (Web)The Editorial Intern (Web) will turn out breaking science + culture news on a daily basis. This is an in-the-trenches opportunity to help build a news outlet as well as inhabit it as a beat reporter. Experience meeting tight deadlines a bonus; ability to take a slightly unconventional view a must.
I mean, that sounds just about perfect. This Seed group sprung forth from the loins of Seed Magazine, this pretty funky science magazine that Henry Kaiser interned for last year. They're all about science and they're all about criticizing the right's mishandling of science. I mean, I'm giddy about physics, I jerk off to cog sci, and I tear down walls (cell walls, damn you!) for stem cell research. I think I'll fit in well amongst these people. The interview's tomorrow, with a guy whose second google hit is a website called octacock (a play on octopussy, no doubt, although I haven't gotten a good sense of their site yet).
2. GLAAD National News Media Fellowship. To rip a bit from their website: "The National Fellow is primarily responsible for supporting GLAAD's National News program through monitoring print and broadcast media and sustaining relationships with national news reporters, editors and producers. -Plan, write, edit, and proof written materials including releases, alerts, letters to media professionals and other documents as needed. -Monitor assigned national media outlets on a daily basis and compiles coverage of GLAAD's work and issues pertaining to the LGBT community. " Etc.
If I'm thinking about law school...and I am...this would be a kind of great opportunity for me to do what I like, with an organization I like, for a cause I like, that would provide something on my resume to give to lambda legal after a year of law school that they would like. I would be pretty darn excited to do this and work with them, although I'm curious whether they'd object to my rampant heterosexuality. I tend to be fairly un-PC, which is fine when I'm talking about women ('cause, you know, I am one), but works a little less well when I'm talking about queer folk ('cause, you know, I'm not one by any typical standard). Hopefully they'll believe that this is because I accept homosexuality fully enough that I feel I can discuss it...I don't have to sidestep it out of deference to the experts. I mean, I don't think that would be a good way to handle any issue...but if you really plan on being a douche, sidestepping might be a good idea.
I hate defining myself as "straight." I tend to just go with "hetero." Although, let's be honest, I'm about as straight as they come. I'll only kiss people I have an emotional attachment to, and only hook up inside a monogamous relationship. I'm into nothing kinky, can't stand the mixing of pleasure and pain, and I never get bored with repetition, so the ultimate conclusion of a regular sexual routine would suit me fine. It's true, I watch gay porn, but I'm into that at least as much for the dynamic between the characters as I am for the sex. Television studios know that once the two characters in a show get together, the show's done. Porn's the same way for me. The climax is when the characters first kiss...not when they climax. Good porn, in my opinion, is the porn that can keep this dynamic going throughout the sex, so the viewer gets the characters physical and emotional excitement. Wow, I'm such a girlie girl.
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Penguins
It has been too long! I will write a fuller update later today, including a discussion of a couple really cool jobs/fellowships/internships I've applied to, but for now, check out these articles:
March of the Conservatives: Penguin Film as Political Fodder
Central Park Zoo's Gay Penguins Ignite Debate
"Or as Laura Kim, a vice president of Warner Independent, put it: 'You know what? They're just birds.'
Oh, but they have become so much more than that." --Jonathan Miller of the New York Times
March of the Conservatives: Penguin Film as Political Fodder
Central Park Zoo's Gay Penguins Ignite Debate
"Or as Laura Kim, a vice president of Warner Independent, put it: 'You know what? They're just birds.'
Oh, but they have become so much more than that." --Jonathan Miller of the New York Times
Friday, September 09, 2005
Something Is Wrong
I'm beginning to get concerned about this whole "unemployment" thing. While I don't mind that I don't actually have a job yet, I am pretty concerned that it's been over a month since my last interview, and I've actually applied for many more jobs since that interview than I had before. At the beginning of the summer, the interviews came rolling in...I had four interviews; about one for every three resumes I sent in. I must have applied for at least 15 jobs since my last interview, and I haven't heard word from any of them. I don't think I changed anything since then. I should be getting about the same response. Alas, I am not...and it worries me. Maybe I've added some huge typo to my resume? I'm scared to look. What could possibly be going wrong?
Wednesday, September 07, 2005
Being Disadvantaged (and insecurity in general)
An incident last night reminded me of a conversation I had with Vaughan a couple of weeks ago. We were discussing that time-old wonder of almost all couples being comparably good-looking. It's not uniformly true, I'm sure (I think I got the better end of the deal with Mike), but glancing around New York, I conclude the standard deviation is pretty small. I had always assumed that this was a simple evolutionary thing: you find the mate with the best looking face you can, and this pairs people up approximately according to looks. Vaughan mentioned a slightly different idea: the person who's the less attractive one in a couple with a large "looks gap" often becomes needy and clingy and constanty demanding of reassurance. This is a real drag on the better looking person and their relationship as a whole. If one person feels unworthy of the other person, the relationship can't work.
At first I couldn't believe that he was almost categorically putting the blame on ugly people. Then came last night's incident.
I was sitting on a reasonably crowded 6 train, and across from me, next to the door, was a woman with a cane, probably in her late 50s or early 60s. She had her cane somewhat precariously balanced on the pole next to the door. At one stop, a woman, probably around 35-40, walked on, brushed the older woman's cane and kept walking. Immediately the woman with the cane swoops down to pick it up and starts yelling at the younger woman. "Hey, when you knock over someone's cane you pick it up! Do you understand? Do you realize I can't walk without this cane? You have no respect for an older handicapped person! You young people, you don't have any manners. Schmuck! Bitch!" The other woman kinda muttered under her breath. But I was thinking, "Wow, this handicapped woman's a real dick!" Sure, it sucks to be disabled. Sure, that can piss you off and put you in a perpetually bad mood where you harass people on the subway in an obnoxiously loud voice and rude tone. But once, you're at that point, who cares if it's because you've suffered, you are legitimately being a dick! Perhaps this woman was sort of a pain beforehand, but I would guess that her disability exacerbated her irritable personality, as it would for many, many people.
And I believe this is the true ill done to people by having some disadvantage. The biggest problem with the handicap was not that she could walk, it's that it turned her into a genuinely unpleasant person. The problem with being physically unattractive is not that you're hard on the eyes, but rather that you become insecure about your looks and that affects all parts of your personality. I would say that Vaughan was probably right, to a degree. The less attractive people likely become worse boyfriends and girlfriends because they're insecure about their looks.
Insecurity is one of the most powerful forces. Any person who is fully secure comes off very, very well. Insecurities manifest themselves in so many little and big ways: arrogance, obnoxiousness, shyness, smugness, shyness with outbursts of smugness, fascism, whatever. Worst of all, I don't think there's any reliable method of eliminating insecurity. It's a lifelong goal, I suppose...
At first I couldn't believe that he was almost categorically putting the blame on ugly people. Then came last night's incident.
I was sitting on a reasonably crowded 6 train, and across from me, next to the door, was a woman with a cane, probably in her late 50s or early 60s. She had her cane somewhat precariously balanced on the pole next to the door. At one stop, a woman, probably around 35-40, walked on, brushed the older woman's cane and kept walking. Immediately the woman with the cane swoops down to pick it up and starts yelling at the younger woman. "Hey, when you knock over someone's cane you pick it up! Do you understand? Do you realize I can't walk without this cane? You have no respect for an older handicapped person! You young people, you don't have any manners. Schmuck! Bitch!" The other woman kinda muttered under her breath. But I was thinking, "Wow, this handicapped woman's a real dick!" Sure, it sucks to be disabled. Sure, that can piss you off and put you in a perpetually bad mood where you harass people on the subway in an obnoxiously loud voice and rude tone. But once, you're at that point, who cares if it's because you've suffered, you are legitimately being a dick! Perhaps this woman was sort of a pain beforehand, but I would guess that her disability exacerbated her irritable personality, as it would for many, many people.
And I believe this is the true ill done to people by having some disadvantage. The biggest problem with the handicap was not that she could walk, it's that it turned her into a genuinely unpleasant person. The problem with being physically unattractive is not that you're hard on the eyes, but rather that you become insecure about your looks and that affects all parts of your personality. I would say that Vaughan was probably right, to a degree. The less attractive people likely become worse boyfriends and girlfriends because they're insecure about their looks.
Insecurity is one of the most powerful forces. Any person who is fully secure comes off very, very well. Insecurities manifest themselves in so many little and big ways: arrogance, obnoxiousness, shyness, smugness, shyness with outbursts of smugness, fascism, whatever. Worst of all, I don't think there's any reliable method of eliminating insecurity. It's a lifelong goal, I suppose...
Monday, September 05, 2005
The Weekend
Wow, I haven't posted since I went to Yale for the evening. I think it's about time! Unfortunately, the time lapse means this will be more of a summary post than a content post.
My weekend has been absolutely lovely. Friday night I hopped off to Yale to see Safety Mix perform and see Caleb...not perform. The mix was pretty darn good. Lauren Hackney turned the audience quirk suggestion of Hurricane Katrina into tasteful hilarity. Molly's quirk of "has delayed reactions" just worked incredibly well. Of course, Austin's usual commitment to character made his every move a pleasure to watch. And at the end I got to participate in pick-up lines, where I received a few laughs and a few groans. Very exciting. The evening started out with an Ivy Noodle dinner with Caleb, after which we got coffee at K2? and walked with it up to science hill where we sat at a picnic table under the stars. Aw. After the show and a brief stop at the Dwight Hall Jam, where I had several musical orgasms listening to Shades sing Amen/We Shall Overcome, we went to Caleb's friends' place. First we hung out at a party with loud music and bad beer, then chilled with the friends and drank scotch. They were good folks, especially Nat, the one Caleb knows from math classes. He, too, is hot, and he, too, has a girlfriend. Unlike Caleb (thank God) he chain smokes like a mo-fo. One of the other friends was pretty cool...he was the scotch collector. The other seemed cool at first, but his cynicism started to piss me off pretty quickly. We headed back to Caleb's room and played a non-competitive (at my request) game of chess before drifting off to sleep. In the morning there was breakfast at the copper kitchen, then I chilled with Reiman and, eventually, Claire at Reiman's enormous new apartment.
Seeing both Caleb and Reiman was really cool. Things are always better with Reiman when I'm not taking classes with him and there's nothing to prove. As of now, there's absolutely nothing to prove and just shootin' the ol' bull with him was a joy. Yay, Reimamurti. Caleb is as awesome as ever and, of course, as taken as ever. Some people seem to think--it's not a poor assumption--that I hate Leslie, even though I've never met her. While I'll play along, I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, I actually have nothing but warm feelings for her. I would never have started the emotionally intimate and generally flirtatious relationship I have with Caleb if I wasn't comfortable in the fact that he's unavailable. If he were single I would have thought "no need, out of my league...don't want to scare the boy" and probably just had a few superficial chats in the dining hall. Since he's taken, I had no problem bonding with him...I'm certainly not out of his league for friendship. I'm not out of anyone's league for friendship. I'm awesome. Second reason why I'm grateful for Leslie's presence: Caleb really seems to like her, and he's loyal to her, and that makes me feel good about Caleb's attitude toward women. I could never date the vast majority of my male friends because I see the way they think about women, and while they're not, like, abusive, I just wouldn't want to be on the other end of their confused and somewhat messed up feelings. Caleb thinks lots of girls are attractive, but he really cares about his girlfriend and is committed to her. That's the kind of attitude I'm looking for in a man. Plus, Leslie's a park ranger. How cool is that?
The rest of the weekend was pretty chill. Lots of fun at two very relaxing parties: Alisa's apartment warming and Adam's birthday. My friends have great taste in friends. Both parties had a very warm feel, where everyone was dorky and nobody trying to seem too cool. I'm not going to be best friends with all of the attendees, but I felt comfortable with them. It was also good to see Josiah at Adam's party. I feel like I'd have a crush on him if I knew him better. But he's going to Costa Rica to write speeches for the once and (possibly) future president. Sweet to the sweet.
Yesterday I met Greg for coffee at Slave and showed him around The Chester. He and Vaughan finally met, albeit extremely briefly. V pointed out a benefit concert performance of On The 20th Century. I totally want to go, but the cheapest tickets still available are $250. And that's a little much. And by a little I mean at least $150 too much.
Well, there's the summary. Tomorrow I'll think.
My weekend has been absolutely lovely. Friday night I hopped off to Yale to see Safety Mix perform and see Caleb...not perform. The mix was pretty darn good. Lauren Hackney turned the audience quirk suggestion of Hurricane Katrina into tasteful hilarity. Molly's quirk of "has delayed reactions" just worked incredibly well. Of course, Austin's usual commitment to character made his every move a pleasure to watch. And at the end I got to participate in pick-up lines, where I received a few laughs and a few groans. Very exciting. The evening started out with an Ivy Noodle dinner with Caleb, after which we got coffee at K2? and walked with it up to science hill where we sat at a picnic table under the stars. Aw. After the show and a brief stop at the Dwight Hall Jam, where I had several musical orgasms listening to Shades sing Amen/We Shall Overcome, we went to Caleb's friends' place. First we hung out at a party with loud music and bad beer, then chilled with the friends and drank scotch. They were good folks, especially Nat, the one Caleb knows from math classes. He, too, is hot, and he, too, has a girlfriend. Unlike Caleb (thank God) he chain smokes like a mo-fo. One of the other friends was pretty cool...he was the scotch collector. The other seemed cool at first, but his cynicism started to piss me off pretty quickly. We headed back to Caleb's room and played a non-competitive (at my request) game of chess before drifting off to sleep. In the morning there was breakfast at the copper kitchen, then I chilled with Reiman and, eventually, Claire at Reiman's enormous new apartment.
Seeing both Caleb and Reiman was really cool. Things are always better with Reiman when I'm not taking classes with him and there's nothing to prove. As of now, there's absolutely nothing to prove and just shootin' the ol' bull with him was a joy. Yay, Reimamurti. Caleb is as awesome as ever and, of course, as taken as ever. Some people seem to think--it's not a poor assumption--that I hate Leslie, even though I've never met her. While I'll play along, I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, I actually have nothing but warm feelings for her. I would never have started the emotionally intimate and generally flirtatious relationship I have with Caleb if I wasn't comfortable in the fact that he's unavailable. If he were single I would have thought "no need, out of my league...don't want to scare the boy" and probably just had a few superficial chats in the dining hall. Since he's taken, I had no problem bonding with him...I'm certainly not out of his league for friendship. I'm not out of anyone's league for friendship. I'm awesome. Second reason why I'm grateful for Leslie's presence: Caleb really seems to like her, and he's loyal to her, and that makes me feel good about Caleb's attitude toward women. I could never date the vast majority of my male friends because I see the way they think about women, and while they're not, like, abusive, I just wouldn't want to be on the other end of their confused and somewhat messed up feelings. Caleb thinks lots of girls are attractive, but he really cares about his girlfriend and is committed to her. That's the kind of attitude I'm looking for in a man. Plus, Leslie's a park ranger. How cool is that?
The rest of the weekend was pretty chill. Lots of fun at two very relaxing parties: Alisa's apartment warming and Adam's birthday. My friends have great taste in friends. Both parties had a very warm feel, where everyone was dorky and nobody trying to seem too cool. I'm not going to be best friends with all of the attendees, but I felt comfortable with them. It was also good to see Josiah at Adam's party. I feel like I'd have a crush on him if I knew him better. But he's going to Costa Rica to write speeches for the once and (possibly) future president. Sweet to the sweet.
Yesterday I met Greg for coffee at Slave and showed him around The Chester. He and Vaughan finally met, albeit extremely briefly. V pointed out a benefit concert performance of On The 20th Century. I totally want to go, but the cheapest tickets still available are $250. And that's a little much. And by a little I mean at least $150 too much.
Well, there's the summary. Tomorrow I'll think.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Feelings, Nothing More...
This hurricane on the Gulf Coast is one of the worst things to happen to America in a long time. It will have horrible, long-term effects on more people than 9/11 (although fewer deaths), and one of the country's great cities with awesome history is under water. Nobody denies it: this really, really sucks.
Then why don't I feel anything? Why didn't I feel anything after the tsunami? Why, aside from a little bit of shock and sadness at, I won't lie, the damage done to the skyline, didn't I feel anything after September 11th? I would guess it's the impersonality of it all. I feel sad that Eric Seymour's childhood home is probably gone...and that's about it. I don't know people in New Orleans. I think this shows a lot about how people are wired, and some of it is not entirely flattering. We need a story. We need a face. These are the things that effect our emotions. Death tolls do not.
If I could ditch one aspect of human nature, it would be the in-group/out-group impulse. Any psychologist or non-vegetative person will tell you that people are interested in labeling themselves "us" and labeling someone else "them." I really hate this impulse. I want to feel equally bad when Africans or Middle Easterners are killed as when Americans are killed. I want to feel as bad when children or old people are killed as I do when college students are killed (does anyone else besides me get more upset about the deaths of 21-year-olds than about the deaths of 5-year-olds?). But even that gradient between people who are in my in-groups and people who are outside is very little. I mean, September 11th killed plenty of young, smart, Jewish New Yorkers, and I didn't cry over them. In order for me to feel truly upset, I have to know the person. And even if I know the person, I have to think about the person in order to cry over them. Emotional triggers are very bizarre indeed.
Then why don't I feel anything? Why didn't I feel anything after the tsunami? Why, aside from a little bit of shock and sadness at, I won't lie, the damage done to the skyline, didn't I feel anything after September 11th? I would guess it's the impersonality of it all. I feel sad that Eric Seymour's childhood home is probably gone...and that's about it. I don't know people in New Orleans. I think this shows a lot about how people are wired, and some of it is not entirely flattering. We need a story. We need a face. These are the things that effect our emotions. Death tolls do not.
If I could ditch one aspect of human nature, it would be the in-group/out-group impulse. Any psychologist or non-vegetative person will tell you that people are interested in labeling themselves "us" and labeling someone else "them." I really hate this impulse. I want to feel equally bad when Africans or Middle Easterners are killed as when Americans are killed. I want to feel as bad when children or old people are killed as I do when college students are killed (does anyone else besides me get more upset about the deaths of 21-year-olds than about the deaths of 5-year-olds?). But even that gradient between people who are in my in-groups and people who are outside is very little. I mean, September 11th killed plenty of young, smart, Jewish New Yorkers, and I didn't cry over them. In order for me to feel truly upset, I have to know the person. And even if I know the person, I have to think about the person in order to cry over them. Emotional triggers are very bizarre indeed.
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Minimal Expectations
I'm thinking back to last week, when we were watching Love Actually during the girls' reunion. In one scene, Emma Thompson recognizes that her husband, Alan Rickman, is the object of his secretary's advances and not far from succumbing to them. She says something to him like "That (whatever her name is) is very pretty. Be careful about that." Jess turned to the rest of us and said, "Can you imagine having to say that to your husband?" I realized then that, able to imagine it or not, I actually expect to say something like that to my husband at some point. Perhaps better, perhaps worse, I instead expect to confront the issue of the difficulty of monogamy for a man head-on, and possibly give him Lady Chatterly's husband-esque permission to find satisfaction elsewhere, given guidelines I'm almost comfortable with. Is this really weird? Yes! I think it is! But am I in any way wrong? Am I pessimistic or just being bizarrely realistic?
I quote a Dan Savage column from October 19, 2004, "You know what? Sooner or later everyone gets cheated on. Some researchers put the odds of one or both partners in a long-term relationship cheating at 80 percent. Toss in the likelihood of being cheated on in a short-term relationship, IDEAS, and the odds that you will be cheated on sooner or later climb to 100 percent. It sucks, sister, but there's not a lot you can do about it. " Considering I plan on having relatively few long-term partners (if the past is any indication of the future), I think that if someone will cheat on me, it will probably be my husband. Savage goes on to advise people to "be in denial about the likelihood, if not the certainty, that some guy, someday, is going to cheat on you." I'm not much one for denial, although I'm happy to practice it when something bugs me on a really deep level, but right now this is still hypothetical and not at all personal.
I know I'll feel differently about the inevitability of adultery when I'm actually in a long-term relationship. After dating Mike, I know I have more of a jealous streak than I'd like to admit. No, Mike didn't cheat on me, he was a very good boyfriend, but when he'd even mention that another girl was cool, I would start to just barely fume. And like the girly-girl that I am, the emotional connection is much more important to me than the sexual one. If I were to arrange for my (future, hypothetical) husband's adultery, it would certainly be something anonymous, with prostitutes or one night stands or something. And lots of protection.
It's a somewhat grim outlook for the future. Possibly all the grimmer because I could never, ever see myself having the desire to cheat on someone I was in a decent relationship with. I don't know, kids, comment on this one if you have anything to say. I'm hungry for lunch.
I quote a Dan Savage column from October 19, 2004, "You know what? Sooner or later everyone gets cheated on. Some researchers put the odds of one or both partners in a long-term relationship cheating at 80 percent. Toss in the likelihood of being cheated on in a short-term relationship, IDEAS, and the odds that you will be cheated on sooner or later climb to 100 percent. It sucks, sister, but there's not a lot you can do about it. " Considering I plan on having relatively few long-term partners (if the past is any indication of the future), I think that if someone will cheat on me, it will probably be my husband. Savage goes on to advise people to "be in denial about the likelihood, if not the certainty, that some guy, someday, is going to cheat on you." I'm not much one for denial, although I'm happy to practice it when something bugs me on a really deep level, but right now this is still hypothetical and not at all personal.
I know I'll feel differently about the inevitability of adultery when I'm actually in a long-term relationship. After dating Mike, I know I have more of a jealous streak than I'd like to admit. No, Mike didn't cheat on me, he was a very good boyfriend, but when he'd even mention that another girl was cool, I would start to just barely fume. And like the girly-girl that I am, the emotional connection is much more important to me than the sexual one. If I were to arrange for my (future, hypothetical) husband's adultery, it would certainly be something anonymous, with prostitutes or one night stands or something. And lots of protection.
It's a somewhat grim outlook for the future. Possibly all the grimmer because I could never, ever see myself having the desire to cheat on someone I was in a decent relationship with. I don't know, kids, comment on this one if you have anything to say. I'm hungry for lunch.
Worse Things
I'm making an executive decision that I'm too tired to actually discuss the true horrors of the day: the inundation of New Orleans and costal Mississippi and the trampling/drowning of almost 1000 Shiite pilgrims. So instead I'm going to talk about a smaller horror that's closer to home.
A few days ago my fellow Rumpus staffer, [NAME DELETED], was arrested on charges of first degree sexual assault, aka rape. I'm not exactly close with X, but here's what I know about him: he's smart, he gets drunk on weekends, he hooks up with a lot of women, and he's pretty damn good-looking. He always seemed like a decent enough guy, and I never would have expected this of him, but I'm not running to say "No! It couldn't possibly have happened!"
So the question arises: what do you do with someone before a trial? After a trial whether or not they're convicted. I mean, the law says that if you're convicted, you committed the crime, but juries make mistakes. The thought that someone would be labeled a rapist for the rest of his life and jailed and 0stracized and such when he didn't commit the crime is so saddening. And if he's let go but did commit the crime, how can we treat him normally? How do we know? Will people be wary around him for the rest of college and his life? If you saw a man who had just been arrested for rape and was out until his trial, would you shake his hand? Are people really innocent until proven guilty?
Since I'm tired, I'll free-associate. We shake the hands of people we meet for the first time as a gesture of trust and camaraderie. It's a way of putting yourself on the same level with that person. But how many of the people I know are deserving of my handshake? I believe it was Winston Churchill who said (I'm paraphrasing) "The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter." I think the best argument against hand shaking is a few years with the average person. Even the average person who's hand you'd shake. He probably has some really unsavory views, some really disgusting habits, and is casually abusive to people without realizing it. We have to assume the majority of men whose hands we shake enjoy porn and have masturbated within the past few days at longest (I know nothing about the masturbatory habits of 30-70 year old married men, I admit it. No, that wasn't an invitation to tell me). A lot of them don't use soap to wash their hands after they go to the bathroom. I've mentioned before that one of my favorite books of all time is "Everybody Poops." It's a great thing to remember, but it can be awful. Every time you shake someone's hand you're shaking the hand of a pooper.
This brings me, rather circuitously, to an issue I have...the inability to view anonymous people as full people. When I hear about someone's girlfriend, I always picture an ill-formed girl who doesn't sweat, doesn't have much of a personality, doesn't have distinguishing features. Which means I'm always shocked at just a little disgusted when I meet the girl. "Oh, when you talked about your girlfriend, you didn't mean 'Platonic ideal of girlfriend that would actually add nothing to your life in terms of fulfillment, you meant this weirdo chic who probably challenges you and is making you crazy." I feel this way with guys, too. Which is why (by "why" I mean "a very small one of many reasons why") I have to be really inspired to be attracted to someone. When I see a guy, he's a hairy, sweaty person with awkward bone structure. I have to already love someone as a friend to be able to take his humanness as an endearing quality and not as totally repulsive. Which isn't to say he still doesn't have to have a great smell. He does. Oh, he does.
A few days ago my fellow Rumpus staffer, [NAME DELETED], was arrested on charges of first degree sexual assault, aka rape. I'm not exactly close with X, but here's what I know about him: he's smart, he gets drunk on weekends, he hooks up with a lot of women, and he's pretty damn good-looking. He always seemed like a decent enough guy, and I never would have expected this of him, but I'm not running to say "No! It couldn't possibly have happened!"
So the question arises: what do you do with someone before a trial? After a trial whether or not they're convicted. I mean, the law says that if you're convicted, you committed the crime, but juries make mistakes. The thought that someone would be labeled a rapist for the rest of his life and jailed and 0stracized and such when he didn't commit the crime is so saddening. And if he's let go but did commit the crime, how can we treat him normally? How do we know? Will people be wary around him for the rest of college and his life? If you saw a man who had just been arrested for rape and was out until his trial, would you shake his hand? Are people really innocent until proven guilty?
Since I'm tired, I'll free-associate. We shake the hands of people we meet for the first time as a gesture of trust and camaraderie. It's a way of putting yourself on the same level with that person. But how many of the people I know are deserving of my handshake? I believe it was Winston Churchill who said (I'm paraphrasing) "The best argument against democracy is five minutes with the average voter." I think the best argument against hand shaking is a few years with the average person. Even the average person who's hand you'd shake. He probably has some really unsavory views, some really disgusting habits, and is casually abusive to people without realizing it. We have to assume the majority of men whose hands we shake enjoy porn and have masturbated within the past few days at longest (I know nothing about the masturbatory habits of 30-70 year old married men, I admit it. No, that wasn't an invitation to tell me). A lot of them don't use soap to wash their hands after they go to the bathroom. I've mentioned before that one of my favorite books of all time is "Everybody Poops." It's a great thing to remember, but it can be awful. Every time you shake someone's hand you're shaking the hand of a pooper.
This brings me, rather circuitously, to an issue I have...the inability to view anonymous people as full people. When I hear about someone's girlfriend, I always picture an ill-formed girl who doesn't sweat, doesn't have much of a personality, doesn't have distinguishing features. Which means I'm always shocked at just a little disgusted when I meet the girl. "Oh, when you talked about your girlfriend, you didn't mean 'Platonic ideal of girlfriend that would actually add nothing to your life in terms of fulfillment, you meant this weirdo chic who probably challenges you and is making you crazy." I feel this way with guys, too. Which is why (by "why" I mean "a very small one of many reasons why") I have to be really inspired to be attracted to someone. When I see a guy, he's a hairy, sweaty person with awkward bone structure. I have to already love someone as a friend to be able to take his humanness as an endearing quality and not as totally repulsive. Which isn't to say he still doesn't have to have a great smell. He does. Oh, he does.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)