kate said

moving

2009-01-13T17:03:31Z

Not only am I moving out of my apartment, I'll also now be blogging over at unsolicitedopinion.wordpress.com.

See y'all there.

Eddie Izzard proves his awesomeness once more

2009-01-08T21:38:40Z

Eddie performs show for dude in hospital, because he is the best.

Yes, Virginia, there Is a Climate Change

2009-01-05T04:04:34Z

A friend emailed me this HuffPo article Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted by Harold Ambler, which I could not wait until morning to refute. Or rather, find the scientific refutations and quote them.

In point form:

- It’s all a big lie: Actually, the science is in. “Global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great many global indicators.” (grist.org has a list of indicators with links to observational data), not just in the conclusions from the IPCC (I’ll get to the challenge on the methodology in a minute), and ALL the international organizations that support their findings.

In a review of studies published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change, none were found to dispute its validity. ”The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.” as reported in Science Magazine, 2004.

- Semantics of the term ‘Climate Change’ and the ‘Mann Hockey-Stick’ controversy: Yes, the climate is always a-chagin’. But. (from grist.org)

"Noting that something happened before without humans does not demonstrate that humans are not causing it today.
For example, we see in ice core records from Antarctica and Greenland that the world cycled in and out of glacial periods over 120Kyr cycles. That climate cycle's timing is fairly well understood to be caused by changes in the orbit of the earth, though the mechanism behind the response has not been conclusively established. These orbital cycles are regular and predictable and they are definitely not the cause of today's warming. The other important difference between the glacial-interglacial cycles and today is the rapidity of the current change. The rate of warming is on the order of 10 times faster today than in the ice cores.
Such rapid warming on a global scale is quite rare in the geological record, and while it may not be entirely unprecedented, there is strong evidence that whenever such a change has happened, whatever the cause, it was a catastrophic event for the biosphere".

And the hockey stick thing – (read about the controversy in depth here), but what you need to know is “there are dozens of other temperature reconstructions. They tend to show more variability than the original hockey stick (their sticks are not as straight), but they all support the general conclusions the IPCC TAR presented in 2001: late 20th century warming is anomalous in the last one or two thousand years, and the 1990s were likely warmer than any other time in that period.” (from link cited above, 2006).

- CO2 follows temperature, rather than leads: I recommend this article from realclimate.org (2007) for the full scientific explanation, but basically, CO2 acts as an amplifier once a warming event has taken place, exaggerating the effect and producing a feedback loop. "The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. By the way, the lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds rather closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback."

- Water Vapour makes a way bigger difference: “Atmospheric levels of water vapor, (...) cannot be directly controlled by people; rather, they are determined by temperatures. The warmer the atmosphere, the more water vapor it can hold. As a result, water vapor is part of an amplifying effect. Greenhouse gases like CO2 warm the air, which in turn adds to the stock of water vapor, which in turn traps more heat and accelerates warming. Scientists know this because of satellite measurements documenting a rise in water vapor concentrations as the globe has warmed.
The best way to lower temperature and thus reduce water vapor levels is to reduce CO2 emissions.” from the Environmental Defense Fund

- The Counter-theories – Svensmark, the Maunder Minimum, and sun spots: Svensmark’s experiment suggested that cosmic rays play a big part in cloud cover, and therefore daily weather and temperature trends. But “to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades - which is tricky, because there hasn't been” (which is just the last of a few complaints on the conclusion that Svensmark draws, itemized here - realclimate.org, 2006). You can read more about the problem with the ‘sun spot’ theory here.

- Climate is complicated: Yeah, it is, but it’s not the same as predicting the weather. Several models (even from days of yore) have been, over time, proven correct, the point being that modeling is possible and valid though, obviously, like all science (on anything), always imperfect. That doesn’t mean the general idea and observations (on so many, many fronts) are wrong, it just means they aren’t perfectly exact.

- Stop worrying about the Arctic, it melts and re-grows all the time: Yes, but what we have now is an ongoing loss (see this graph from the National Snow and Ice Data Center), moreover, glacier patterns aren’t proof of global warming, but it “is just one piece of evidence that is consistent with global warming.” grist.org, 2006.

Sure, it feels better to say that it's a natural trend and technology will take care of us and I really like my car, and any scientifically minded person will freely acknowledge that they might be wrong. But if they're not, who wants to be the guy who screwed over everyone's grandkids because he just couldn't take the bus? (or vote for government officials who would use tax dollars to increase funding to green programmes, or support green businesses, or recycle, or or or).

Fun additional reading – debunking Wired’s weird ‘green’ science from last summer (wherein readers were told that AC took less energy that heat, endangered species were bad, and they need not be ashamed of their SUV - conclusions largely attributable to bad math, bad methodology, and, well, egotism). I was quite disappointed with them, I usually enjoy the mag. It was such a shock to see that issue.

images from www.middlebury.edu, columbia.edu, www.ehponline.org,

The year in review meme

2009-01-02T17:26:00Z

from girldetective

1. What did you do in 2008 that you'd never done before?
Went to New Zealand. Had jobs in my field.

2. Did you keep your New Years' resolutions and will you make more for next year?
I don’t remember. I have a vague idea of trying to be more optimistic, and to do something creative.

3. Did anyone close to you give birth?
My best friend Rachel is pregnant.

4. Did anyone close to you die?
No

5. What countries did you visit?
The US (California, North Carolina, Virginia), and New Zealand.

6. What would you like to have in 2009 that you lacked in 2008?
More courage and inspiration.

7. What date from 2008 will remain etched upon your memory, and why?
There isn’t one.

8. What was your biggest achievement of the year?
Being fired from the Women’s Post for publishing a ‘negative’ review.

9. What was your biggest failure?
Being fired from another job for no rational reason.

10. Did you suffer illness or injury?
Nope.

11. What was the best thing you bought?
Tickets to California to see Rachel, and the trip to NZ.

12. Whose behavior merited celebration?
Elizabeth May

13. Whose behavior made you appalled and depressed?
Stephen Harper. People who voted for Prop 8.

14. Where did most of your money go?
Airplane tickets.

15. What did you get really, really, really excited about?
Traveling. My career-related jobs.

16. What song will always remind you of 2008?
MIA’s Paper Planes

17. Compared to this time last year, are you:
i) Happier or sadder? Hmm, I’m melancholy at the moment, but I don’t think it’ll last.
ii) Thinner or fatter? Thinner, by about 10lbs, thanks to biking everywhere in the spring and summer.
iii) Richer or poorer? Richer. I’m hoarding cash to move to the UK (which I will have to dip into now, as I’m unemployed).

18. What do you wish you'd done more of?
Writing. Doing creative stuff.

19. What do you wish you'd done less of?
Worrying.

20. How did you spend Christmas?
With my family in NC, visiting my friends Katie and Inez, eating a lot of bread, cheese, cookies and chocolate.

21. Did you fall in love in 2008?
Already was.

23. How many one-night stands?
None. Obviously.

24. What was your favourite TV program?
Mad Men. And Dancing with the Stars.

25. Do you hate anyone now that you didn't hate this time last year?
No.

26. What was the best book you read?
Disgrace by Coetzee

27. What was your greatest musical discovery?
This guy - Ukelele + Beatles = Awesome.

28. What did you want and get?
A trip to Stratford for my birthday. Jobs related to my career. A visit with Rachel, a visit from Inez, and, I think I’ve mentioned, my trip to NZ.

29. What did you want and not get?
To move to the UK.

30. What was your favorite film of this year?
Man on Wire, There Will Be Blood.

31. What did you do on your birthday, and how old were you?
I went to Stratford and saw Trojan Women and Taming of the Shrew for my 28th bday.

32. What one thing would have made your year immeasurably more satisfying?
An ever-flowing river of cash to support my travel addiction.

33. How would you describe your personal fashion concept in 2008?
“This is comfortable” and “I can walk in these”.

34. What kept you sane?
Brain chemistry.

35. Which celebrity/public figure did you fancy the most?
Famous people don’t really do it for me.

36. What political issue stirred you the most?
War. Everywhere.

37. Who did you miss?
My friends in the U.S. who I hardly ever get to see.

38. Who was the best new person you met?
My coworkers at Next Film.

39. Tell us a valuable life lesson you learned in 2008:
It is surprisingly restorative to spend an evening knitting with a bunch of lady-friends.

40. Quote a song lyric that sums up your year:
“I’m leaving on a jet plane/ don’t know when I’ll be back again”

Killjoy Priest

2008-12-24T02:02:05Z

The BBC's David Willey reports that a priest in Rome told the kids that Father Christmas (and Befana, the New Year's present-bringing fairy) are make-believe.

"I told the children that Father Christmas was an invention that had nothing to do with the Christian Christmas story," he said. (...) The priest said he had never intended to hurt anyone, but it was his duty to distinguish the reality of Jesus from the story of Father Christmas which was a fable just like Cinderella or Snow White.

My favourite part of that is "the reality of Jesus". Naturally, this concern for the truth failed to extend to admitting that the Christian Christmas story is also a fable just like Cinderella or Snow White. Or is the truth not as important as "The Truth"?

Besides, St. Nicholas is a Christian saint. He got lumped in with the mythology that the Church foisted onto the winter solstice festivals as the holiday evolved.

You'd think that the men of the Church would be all for this practice in magical thinking - all faith would collapse without it. If you start telling the kids that it's not possible for a fairy or a Saint to deliver a bunch of goodies in the middle of the night once a year, why in the world would they think it possible for some entity to create the universe and everything in it in a week? For the entire global population to have sprung from two people (hello incest) over the course of 5000 years?

Oh, the church. Always finding new ways to spread the joy of the season.

book reviews

2008-12-16T16:14:43Z

In the Quill and Quire:

The White Space Between and The Tristan Chord

Nothing says Christmas like gender stereotypes!

2008-12-16T01:23:16Z

image from http://home.wangjianshuo.com/archives/20041224_merry_christmas.htm

I have forgotten how to shop. Living on a tight budget for a few years has made spending money on anything other than food and the occasional book/movie/play terrifying. Wandering through a crowded mall on a Saturday looking for shoes or pants or whatever I happen to need becomes an angst-ridden nightmare where the bag-clutching masses text rather than speak to the friends with whom they are shopping, ignoring the techno or muzak (depending on the shop) which must be aiming to inspire spending rather than fleeing (which is what I usually find myself doing).

All of this is made exponentially more traumatizing during the holiday season (the entire merit of which is lambasted by Christopher Hitchens at slate.com), where it is virtually impossible to justify the purchase of whatever gifts one feels obligated to purchase to show love and appreciation that might otherwise go unspoken (or un-demostrated-via-materialist-means), and where, chances are, one will overspend or forever be burdened with guilt, chastising oneself as a miser.

I do like giving my friends and family gifts, but the pressure, particularly when one has no 'perfect' gift in mind, is extreme. And so, like many mildly agoraphobic people, I turn to the internet for cheap shopping, and ideas, and am promptly met by a wall of age and gender stereotyping.

Many shopping sites have "suggestions" for those, like myself, who are out of ideas (I can always think of a book or three, but they have a nasty habit of going out of print). And to help with navigation, the lists are organized by sex, relationship (mom/dad/girlfriend/etc), like on amazon.com, or star sign - (what cancerian wouldn't want family tree software?) still divided by sex, by the way (apparently male cancers prefer barbecues to lingerie).

Judging from amazon's lists, your boyfriend/husband probably likes music, video games, sports, power tools, and titanium jewelry. Yes, specifically titanium. Your girlfriend, on the other hand, likes lingerie, bracelets, handbags, chick lit, chick flicks (both of which I would normally put in quotation marks, because I don't consider 'chick' a genre), and decorative boxes.

Moms appear to be interested in cooking, gardening, and wearing pajama sets while enjoying a foot massager. Dads have more intellectual pursuits, like documentaries, history, exotic meat and game, and prefer back massagers.

Siblings, friends, and coworkers are nowhere to be found - perhaps amazon assumes that people will check the closest appropriate age/gender category and go from there.

This kind of stereotyping is obviously blatantly sexist. Men cook, women watch documentaries, either partner in a relationship might be interested in power tools, but while amazon recommendations software uses your specific purchasing history (and that of the rest of its clients - probably with a heavy dose of publisher-generated, and paid for, genre-association - Oprah counts as a genre) to make suggestions based on what you, individually, actually like, the gift lists resort to very basic gender stereotyping - a logic that assumes the stereotype is a "safe assumption", and that more people fit in those broad categories than not.

I'd love to see a site that sells as much variety of product as amazon make truly helpful, individualized recommendations - have a form where I can enter magazine titles, book titles, dvds, electronic items, etc - and make me a list based on that. Don't give me some advertiser-generated short list of 'moms do chores! men like meat!' dimension.

At least in the mall a barbecue is just a barbecue, surrounded by other large cooking implements and outdoorsy furniture. Of course, it's probably also surrounded by the endless chorus of "Last Christmas, I gave you my heart/The very next day, you gave it away".

meme

2008-12-05T00:29:40Z

meme
Originally uploaded by Katherine W.

1. Answer each of the questions below using the Flickr Search engine. 
2. Choose a photo from the first three pages.
3. Copy the URL of your favorite photo into this site: http://bighugelabs.com/flickr/mosaic.php .
4. Share!

The questions:
my name / favorite food / hometown
favorite color / celebrity crush / favorite drink
dream vacation / favorite dessert / what I most want to be when I grow up
what I love most in the world / one word that describes me / my username

OBAMA

2008-11-05T15:16:18Z

As I imagined last night, the headline of the New York Times if Obama won. (link to the image, I can't upload a screen capture).

Even if Obama doesn't achieve half of the change people are pining for, the election marks a major shift in the American mindset. They care again. Not all of them, granted, but depending on who you ask, it's either the best percentage turnout since the 1960s or 1908, with a higher representation of non- "white male" voters.

So hey, dig on that representative democracy. Though I still think the Electoral College needs rethinking. Kinda like that 'first past the post' system we have.

It makes our election here, despite some fantastic debates, look rather pathetic. I'm hoping Obama's election will mark a sea change, not just in American politics, but in global politics. The country is still hanging on to superpower status, by its fingernails, so events in the US influence and can conceivably inspire people elsewhere.

Maybe idealism can make a comeback.

since when do we live in south park?

2008-09-16T15:56:04Z

"Kudos to Governor Palin for standing up to dermatologists"

Palin installed a tanning bed in the governor's mansion in Alaska.

Her decision is defended by the Indoor Tanning Association.

Yes, the manufacturers of tanning beds are leaping to defend a VP nominee.

The fact that she hasn't been laughed off the ballot makes me very afraid for my friends to the south.

I honestly thought McCain on the ticket would translate into a win-win scenario, at long last, for the US.

Alas, extremists are apparently a vocal and mobile voting bloc. Or conservative Americans choose to be painfully ill-informed and ostrich-like in their politics.

Either way, troubling.

(p.s. the livejournal spell-check suggests "Plain" for "Palin")

Depression and Melancholia are not the same thing

2008-08-23T16:56:47Z

I posted this on open salon, but I thought I should post it here, too.

I am getting really frustrated with the articles (this is one from Eric Wilson, an English professor at Wake Forest U, published in the Chronicle Review) decrying the obsession with happiness, often under the guise of defending melancholia as a natural response to a complicated world and a source of great art and human achievement. True as that might be, rather than focusing on that aspect of the argument, these writers cross an important line when they conflate self-help aficionados with people who have genuine medical, psychological problems (as if “mild depression” is somehow a “galvanizing” melancholia free from the apathy that attends deeper depression). Though they claim to be perfectly accepting of people with ‘serious’ depression, and medicating to stop these people harming themselves or others, they then move quickly on to claim that vast swathes of the population taking drugs for mood disorders are doing so because they don’t like feeling ‘bad’ about the world.

Firstly, neither the English professor at Wake Forest nor any other writer, has a way of knowing what the majority of people taking prescription medication for depression feel, or what symptoms they reported to get this prescription. To claim that most, or “many” seek a pill to stop feeling sad is impossible for him to verify without taking a statistically accurate poll of patients and doctors. He may wonder why “so many people experiencing melancholia are now taking pills simply to ease the pain”, but as he has no proof that this is actually the case, his entire argument is without foundation.

Secondly, prescriptions for pharmaceuticals are not handed out like free samples of Coke – in order for a medical professional to write the prescription, criteria have to be met. Criteria reached from years of study, agreed upon by medical boards and supported by the medical community, ever-evolving as more research is done on various treatments as they become available (including therapy, medication, and lifestyle changes). The focus of this diagnostic is establishing whether the symptoms, often including physiological change – i.e. pain - described are not normal (clinically normal, not determined by the currently hip self-help book normal) given the circumstances (i.e. it would be considered normal to feel very sad after the death of a loved one) and whether they interfere with daily functioning.

Doctors go to medical school for a long time. They, not freelance writers with a thing for Keats, are trained to tell the difference between melancholy and depression. They, not freelance writers, have the individual patient in front of them and has the necessary information to conclude whether medication would result in a better quality of life for the patient. The goal of medical treatment for depression and anxiety is not total and utter calm and contentment under all circumstances. It is adjusting brain chemistry so people can function.

Thirdly, whatever perception the world at large might have about who ask for SSRIs, it’s important to remember that by and large, people aren’t going to the doctor because the headline news about Iraq makes them sad, people are going because they can’t focus on anything else – they can’t get past it. Depending on the disorder, this may mean not being able to get out of bed, not exhibiting interest in anything or feeling motivated to do anything (literally – like eat or go outside), obsessive-compulsive rituals, over-anxious responses to normal stimuli (like envisioning being kidnapped while on the way home from the grocery store) which interferes with their normal daily life. It’s also important to remember that people seek help when they feel a tangible change, an entrenched shift that gets worse with time, rather than your average mood swing that changes with a sunny day or a bad haircut.

Lastly, it’s important to bear in mind that anti-depressants are meant to be taken for brief periods, not permanently. The current assumption is that, for those with mood disorders, brain chemistry periodically changes, perhaps in response to certain events or environmental shifts, perhaps just because, in such a way that people over- or under-respond to certain stimuli or stressors that creates a marked difference in day-to-day functioning. Pills are prescribed (usually with suggestions for diet and exercise, and often with recommendations for therapy) to restore a normal responsiveness, hopefully within a few months, at which point they are weaned off the medication, having attained and sustained normal mood and functionality – this doesn’t mean never sad, this means never unremittingly, overwhelmingly sad.

There is an argument to be made against over-prescription in general, but that argument has more to do with the need for prevention and a shift in a culture that demands too much, contributes to social isolation, and exposes people to all kinds of biological and chemical stressors that could affect brain chemistry and behavior; that is an argument that does not deny the symptoms, or the diagnosis, but looks for a cause, that links cultural norms with the prevalence of heart disease and mood disorders, that addresses the carcinogens suffusing the environment and wonders if there isn’t a potential mental effect – the brain is part of the human body as much as any other organ, if not more so – functioning as it does as a kind of Grand Central Station.

That argument has nothing to do with Keats’ inspiration in the face of tuberculosis, and everything to do with Churchill’s black dogs.

I am sick and tired of the implication in these articles that rather than taking medication to get through the day, people should be ‘using’ their depression, sorry, “melancholia”, to make art. Chances are if they’re really depressed, they don’t give two shits about art, they don’t want to ‘express’ their feelings, or use their anger to make the world better. They don’t want to get out of bed or leave their house or turn on the TV – they simply don’t want to engage with the world. The self-help “happiness obsessed” folk who these writers are attempting to chastise for fear of the complication of the real world and not-happy feelings that the acknowledgment of said complication sometimes engenders are not the people looking for a happy pill. They are the ones reading Oprah’s magazine, taking vitamin supplements, and journaling to find their soul. Confusing these people with those who have a disorder diagnosed by a mental professional is logically unsound, exhibits semantic ignorance, and is simply insulting.

biff, pow

2008-05-18T00:44:10Z

I was reading that shakespeherian rag and felt compelled to respond at length to this post on violence (I have a big post in his comments section, too).

The media that surrounds us is in many ways saturated with ever-more appalling violent scenes and themes, whose appeal seems to spring from tapping into a fundamental human urge - what repels also attracts, we are horrified but cannot look away. Though our lives may be essentially quiet, violence limited to (for example) me shouting at drivers who disregard my hand signals and try to run me over in some kind of dominance display, we find the drama of intense, frightening, and life-threatening, violent action compelling.

In order to think about these portrayals of violence, rather than the ongoing violence that exists beyond our sphere of immediate experience (we know of wars in far off lands, understand that some places have secret police and oppressive dictators persecute or execute their unfortunate people, but it is not part of our life beyond its media presence), it is critical to distinguish between the ways we receive the information that we do, because our mindset as we receive the images and stories affects how we respond. Being entertained by Bruce Willis launching a car at a helicopter is vastly different than watching a documentary about Abu Ghraib. The style differs, yes, but also the intention. The way in which stories are told and received makes a difference in how we perceive the violence - is it funny? Exciting? Or a grotesque example of how the military machine can warp human, humane, perception with the simple phrase "standard operating procedure."

I posit that the catharsis we find in things like action movies and video games comes from an understanding of safety, the reassurance of a foregone conclusion - the good guys win. We have heroes and villains, simple concepts which don't apply in real life. We indulge a shared, civilized, idea that crime doesn't pay, that justice will be served in a world where there are rules. This is why politicians try so frequently to portray military intervention so simplistically - because it feeds into a desire to believe that there can be easy justice.

Violence in more complicated, yet fictional work, Othello, King Lear, or even Law and Order, has the element of catharsis (the return to some kind of equilibrium) complicated by ideas meant to challenge the simple formula of good defeating evil, usually asking questions of moral definition and examining the kind of character that exposes itself to the weakness that leads to violence and cruelty, as well as the appropriate response of the community - how does the punishment fit the crime.

In the news and in documentary film, violence is meant to shock us into action by breaching our sense of safety in our perception of the world. By introducing people to the reality of violence in the world in which they live, the knowledge becomes in many ways an obligation - even if one can take no more action than taking it into consideration during federal elections or donating to the red cross, there is something critical about keeping it in mind. It is one of the burdens of adulthood, this knowledge of the depths to which people can sink, and one of the duties is to remain aware and act, where possible. The challenge arises as people become overwhelmed by all the bad news, so to speak, that cynicism and deliberate insulation is the only way to avoid despair. Images must become more and more shocking to get past the individual's preset level of awareness of how bad things are, some places. So extreme that response is necessary. But like the economy, this increase of stakes can only be sustained for so long.

There is, I think, some degree of passivity in the face of disaster that comes from a pattern of observing violence in media (who hasn't stared at a car crash fifty yards away and thought 'how surreal, it's like a movie'). The reduced sensitivity to things that should be shocking and horrifying, and therefore provoke immediate action, is troubling. Because what it ultimately results in is apathy and inertia, springing from an acceptance of inevitability.

katesaid @ 2008-05-13T14:47:00

2008-05-13T19:29:50Z

This article from Salon points to The Athena Factor (from the Harvard Business Review), a study that finds that :

Forty-one percent of highly qualified scientists, engineers, and technologists on the lower rungs of corporate career ladders are female. But more than half (52%) drop out. Why? To better understand the scope and shape of female talent, the Athena Factor research project studied the career trajectories of women with SET credentials in the private sector. It found 5 powerful "antigens" in corporate cultures. Women in SET are marginalized by hostile macho cultures. Being the sole woman on a team or at a site can create isolation. Many women report mysterious career paths: fully 40% feel stalled. Systems of risk and reward in SET cultures can disadvantage women, who tend to be risk averse. Finally, SET jobs include extreme work pressures: they are unusually time intensive. Moreover, female attrition rates spike 10 years into a career. Women experience a perfect storm in their mid- to late thirties: They hit serious career hurdles precisely when family pressures intensify. Companies that step in with targeted support before this "fight or flight moment" may be able to lower the female attrition rate significantly. This study features 13 company initiatives that address this female brain drain. Some, for example, are designed to break down female isolation; others create on-ramps for women who want to return to work. These initiatives are likely to be "game changers": They will allow many more women to stay on track in SET careers.

(emphases mine).

(question: Don't most people (male or female) feel stalled in their work (given where the market is right now)?)

This is not a new observation, but it seems to be quite a trendy subject these days.

Susan Pinker talks about this trend (among other things) in her book The Sexual Paradox, which addresses the potential, sex-based biological differences that may explain discrepancies in career path and choices made throughout adulthood. In her work, which, I want to make clear, does not enter 'women are dumb/bad drivers/weak' territory, she talks to high-achieving women (to illustrate data, not replace it) who, after finding success in male-dominated industries, chose to scale back (i.e. work for a less competitive company for less money and fewer hours), freelance, or shift gears entirely (work part-time/full time mother/etc) not because, as is mentioned above, they felt that their environment was sexist or particularly hostile in any way , but because of their priorities.

While men (statistically) are more willing to work longer hours in more stressful environments for more money, women seem to have a cut-off point, where it simply isn't worth it on a personal level. While I have not seen many studies done on why men drop out of similar positions and professions, I imagine their reasoning would be the same - I know plenty of men who chose less stressful work precisely because of the way they define and prioritize quality of life. I suspect that the women and men who succeed in those high-yield, high-stress jobs initially get the same buzz from the demands and financial reward (and there are women who remain, again, I suspect for those reasons), but while men might, after ten years or so, find themselves wishing for more family time, less travel, or less stress in general, women in the same position probably have this underscored by pregnancy and childbirth. Educated women tend to have careers first, then children, so it follows that the lifestyle change brought about by having a family would affect both parents (assuming there are two), but the biological reality means the woman will, by definition, feel it more acutely.

What I think would be interesting to look at is the level of success women have in this high-stress careers in countries where the work ethic is not so extreme and unforgiving as that in North America. In places where the expectation is that everyone, male and female, goes home after an eight hour day, get several weeks paid vacation, gets a year of fully paid parental leave, regardless of career or place on the 'ladder', I would not be surprised to see lower numbers of 'drop-outs' over all, but also a greater gender parity.

A conclusion that no one seems to be making as a result of this kind of data is that women are, for all sorts of cultural, social and biological, reasons, more vulnerable to the extreme demands of high-stress workplaces. Rather than seeing this as a validation of sexist thinking or some sort of crisis in the realm of science and business, it should be a prompt for a wholesale rethinking of the work culture. In a society that treats income as a barometer of success, it isn't surprising that people run themselves ragged to attain more. Individuals should take this opportunity to redefine social values - when everyone, regardless of gender, makes choices designed to improve their and their community's quality of life, government and business must follow (comprised, as it is, of individuals who, in their heart of hearts, probably want to go home and have dinner with their family).

here I come

2008-04-09T18:28:27Z

Irvine, California
Originally uploaded by david888lee.

This is where I'm going! Today. For six (glorious, relaxing, sun-saturated) days, visiting my best bud Rachel, for it will be her birthday on Monday, and we've not spend quality time together in ages.

We're also planning a day trip down to San Diego, which will doubtless include some serious outside basking in the sun time. I can't wait.

I'm even looking forward to the jet lag.

I get a vacation!!! I haven't had a real one in ages. And the last one I took was only a long weekend (though excellent fun).

Just think, in another year or two, I might actually get a whole two weeks to decompress.

a misjudged lapse in cynicism

2008-03-23T01:56:08Z

I had a wonderful day yesterday. My elevated state may have resulted in a rather uncharacteristic lack of judgment. At the subway station on my way home, I was approached by a clearly upset women, fairly young (early twenties) and crying. I don't ignore people - even the most tweaked out street person demanding money will get a sincere apology unless I feel genuinely threatened. So this individual had the opportunity to regale me with quite a tale of misfortune, which ultimately amounted to her needing fifteen dollars to make up enough cash to pay a tow truck because her car wasn't working.

Given the nature of the request, the distress of the speaker, the time and location, I would ordinarily have sincerely apologized and moved on, assuming that this person was using a line on me to get enough cash for their drug or alcohol fix. I don't give out money, as a rule, I try to give money to charities instead, since, even if not all the money goes to food/blankets/etc, at least none of it goes towards physically harming another person (self-inflicted, perhaps, but still injurious).

But something, again, it's tempting to blame my lightness of mood, short-circuited my general suspicion and mistrust of any person willing to accost me in the street, and I allowed myself to entertain the possibility that this person spoke the truth. That she genuinely was in a bind and needed a good samaritan to step up so she could get home.

I caved. I gave her twenty bucks (because I didn't have change), and she promised to call me this evening (by seven - it's now nine thirty) - either to arrange for some kind of repayment or just to prove that she was honest, I'm not sure which.

Now, clearly, the evidence is in and I have played the fool. I allowed my desire to believe in the basic decency of most people to out-weigh pragmatism and realism. And what troubles me is not that I've blown twenty bucks (though I am, I admit, quite frugal - necessarily so), but that what I intended as a kindness and help was, in all probability, used for something I outright despise. By proxy, I contribute to the seedy world of drug producers and dealers, and essentially enable someone to do moderate to serious injury to their mind and body.

There is nothing to be done at this point, my cards are played and I have no say in the unintended consequences of my actions. But it does trouble me. I want so much to be good, and do good, and yet in paying someone the compliment of trusting their word, I do wrong.

It is unusual for me to be taken in, and while I know it is delusional to think I won't be fooled again, I may at least say it is unlikely to be for some time, or in the same manner. But where do our actions come from - in order to come to the decision I did, there must be some space in my experience where taking a stranger at their word was right, where trusting that people are generally honest was reinforced, where were I in the same position I would want someone to be kind and trust me. And now that is overshadowed.

Plato mentions a theory of Love - where souls are divided and spend the rest of their lives looking for their other half - and I find myself wondering if it isn't like that, but more complicated. We're not cut in half, but rather chipped, ripped, and damaged, at the hands of our family, our selves, or simple happenstance - and that in this continuing process our shape changes, so we look for people - lots of people, not just lovers - to fill in those broken places. And it feels to me, a little, that this small thing, this nothing, has just rubbed a small spot raw, contributed to the erosion of my hoarded idealism.

I have said it before and I'll say it again - cynics are just disappointed idealists. But perhaps cynicism is the only way to retain idealism, a necessary defense (a moat, a castle wall), protecting ideas from the ugly realities of the lived world, where survival, need and greed underlie even the most civil proceedings.

the other boleyn girl

2008-03-10T20:56:32Z

I'm on the popcorn panel at the National Post (from Mar. 6/08) talking about TOBG.

to summarize - good actors can't compensate for a shoddy script and poor direction.

update

2008-03-04T14:02:58Z

Apparently the op-ed in the Washington Post was meant to be tongue-in-cheek.

Yes. Oh ho. Ha Ha. How amusant. What better way to mock fainting women at Obama rallies than to consign the entire gender to the intellectual and behavioral ghetto. What could be more ironic? How could anyone take it seriously?

here, Charlotte Allen, are the various definitions of irony, that you might better achieve it in future:

1.
a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See synonyms at wit1.
2.
a. Incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs: “Hyde noted the irony of
Ireland's copying the nation she most hated” (Richard Kain).
b. An occurrence, result, or circumstance notable for such incongruity. See Usage Note at ironic.
3. Dramatic irony.
4. Socratic irony.
(from answers.com)

See, your readers would have to 'get' that you meant the opposite of what you said. We would have to think "aha, such wit, making a salutary point about women whilst seeming to denigrate them." Obviously, this is not the case.

It's such a cheap excuse. "I was being ironic." Poppycock. You thought you were being funny by getting a little extreme, but to claim you didn't mean it essentially is disingenuous.

Washington Post disguises anti-feminist rant as news

2008-03-03T21:12:35Z

Fortunately, Jessa Crispin over at Bookslut has given a synopsis far more entertaining and helpful than the original.

Ladies, we are borderline retarded, we might as well just admit it. We should not be allowed to vote, or drive cars, or do math. Not like we could if we tried! Did I mention I'm MARRIED?

Seriously, what editor, male or female, in their right mind looks at an article like this and agrees to publish it? If it was by a black man telling his fellow "negroes" to stick to basketball and talkin' ghetto, it would never see the light of day.

Media! Stop pretending that chauvinistic women
a) represent the masses or
b) are newsworthy or
c) have anything resembling "facts" "knowledge" or "science" supporting their claims

ps. media, while on the subject of dumb female columnists, please send Leah McLaren and Rebecca Eckler back to the mall and stop indulging their delusions of importance. Life is hard enough without women being paid to diss the capabilities of other women for their own gain.

katesaid @ 2008-02-22T21:07:00

2008-02-23T02:12:38Z

from the Elegant Variation blog -
a list of new ad-friendly labels for books inspired by the trend started by Chick Lit (followed by Lad Lit and 'Hic' Lit, which I think is just tacky nomenclature)

Brick Lit - Back-breaking tomes. (See Infinite Jest, Rising Up and Rising Down.)

Schtick Lit - Footnotes, characters named for colors, and other look-at-me machinations. (See Special Topics in Calamity Physics and, again, Infinite Jest.)

Mick Lit - The literature of Ireland. (See Banville, John and Ruland, Jim.)

Slick Lit - Polite, correct fiction, polished to a high sheen. (See Bridge of Sighs.)

Hick Lit - The fiction of Richard Ford (See A Multitude of Sins)

Lick Lit - Sapphic fiction. (See Oranges Are Not the Only Fruit.)

Nick Lit - Books stolen from other books. (See How Opal Mehta Got Kissed, Got Wild and Got a Life)

Prick Lit - Novels written by (Insert the Angry Young Literary Man of your choice.) Also novels with unpleasant protagonists. (See Lolita and the fiction of Richard Ford.)

Sick Lit - Novels calculated to shock or revolt. (See Fight Club)

Thick Lit - Tales of the weight-challenged. (See She's Come Undone.)

Vick Lit - Novels of animal cruelty. (See Julius Winsome.)

Quick Lit - Novels turned out with alarming frequency. (See His Illegal Self, and Oates, Joyce Carol.)

(check out the comments link for additional cleverness)

Triple Header

2008-01-28T02:59:09Z

Rare is it indeed, when one can see three excellent films within twenty-four hours.

Notes on a Scandal is one of those British films that's all about the acting - even the smallest parts are played by the right people, and the big parts, well, Cate Blanchett and Judi Dench aren't known for phoning it in.

The film is set in a high school, with Blanchett and Dench playing teachers; the former the young, attractive, married art teacher Sheba Hart and the latter a self-professed spinster and battle-ax, the subtly named Barbara Covett. The film, told from Barbara's perspective, via voice-over diary entries (a technique oft abused, but reveled in here - valuable for the clever, sinister cattiness it reveals), focuses on the friendship, of sorts, that builds between the two women, and what happens to the balance of power when Babara discovers the affair Hart has been carrying on with a student.

This film is all about expectations - what people want from other people, the dangers of assumption, and the fallout from inevitable disappointment. It exposes the kind of bald need, usually tempered in the course of maturity, for a firm identity, and love and approval for that identity. What is fascinating here is how these women warp that need, demanding this acceptance and affection without grasping the obvious - that it must be earned.

Dench is of course masterful as Barbara. Her mysterious past and viciousness are gradually revealed, showing her total volatility and grotesque, repressed and perverted neediness. Blanchett's Sheba balances a vulnerability with a pleasantly detestable self-centered edge. Her amoral behavior reads as part of an almost adolescent distress, a struggle to rebel against a role of responsible adulthood that (as all responsibility must) stymies her freedom and burdens her with the expectations and needs of her family.

It is the, if I may use the word, normal expectations that Sheba's family, and the adolescent greediness of Ted Mawson (the lucky high school charmer played by Tom Georgeson) that provide the contrast to Barbara's groundless possessiveness and Sheba's egoistic immaturity. Her husband has a right to assume loyalty, as part of the contract of a marriage. Her children are equally the result of a decision on her part - they have a right to her, in the most basic way. Ted's flirtation and manipulation are about self-gratification. The mentality that is off-putting but expected in a teen is appalling in Sheba, because one assumes some consideration of others is achieved by official adulthood; it is grounded in a disregard for consequences.

Overall a fascinating, disturbing look at the kind of greed we can only have for what others provide for us.

After seeing the above, I revisited a film I'd not seen in years (but remembered loving), Amadeus, a Milos Forman film from 1984. This marathon (160 minutes) is intense and gripping, and a surprisingly modern presentation of late 18th century Vienna (American accents and crude vernacular all around).

F. Murray Abraham plays a delightfully jealous, mincing Antonio Salieri, the unfortunate court composer who loathes Mozart (an amazing Tom Hulce) for making him constantly aware of his own mediocrity. The film is told as his confession - Salieri's envy and hatred are directed towards God, who gave the gift of magnificent composition to "a boastful, lustful, smutty, infantile boy," but determines that the boy must pay the price.

Mozart is, naturally, totally aware of Salieri's machinations, trusting the man who genuinely recognizes his genius and, to all appearances, seems to want to help him. His concerns are usually in the moment, though his constant desire for his imposing father's approval (and his inability to procure it in adulthood) drives a similar mania in him that self-hatred does in Salieri.

The path of Salieri's revenge and Mozart's rise and fall are interwoven with Mozart's pieces, the opera and concertizing create a drama that would be easy to either overshoot or fall short of, but Forman has a sure hand and, again, the acting is superb. The period costumes and settings are stuffed with detail, including a large cast of theatre performers and audience members, courtly ladies and gents, and various religious figures (the kind of numbers that would do an opera proud - as would the decadent tragedy of it all).

Genius and jealousy here are equally burdensome, in both cases, the sufferer can think of little else.

Juno has been widely praised, and I (foolishly) was rather reluctant to see it, thinking that while I enjoy the occasional teen rom-com fare, there would be little point seeing it in the theatre. Oh critics everywhere, my apologies. I'm not going to say that this film has the gravitas of Amadeus or the emotional intensity of Notes on a Scandal, but neither is this some Twinkie of a film.

No, this film charmed the bejeezus out of me. It's so quirky, so charming, so unapologetic - and earns a bittersweet but happy ending; no small task (most "happy" ending leave me enraged at their total implausibility). The titular Juno, a sassy Ellen Page, is an accidentally pregnant fifteen year old, who hunts down adoptive parents for the baby when she finds that she can't bring herself to abort.

The ensemble cast includes J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney as Juno's hilarious dad and step-mom, Jennifer Garner, surprisingly complicated and nuanced as the would-be adoptive mom, Jason Bateman as her husband, and Michael Cera as Juno's sweet, unwitting impregnator. All delightfully individual and each working through their own small concerns and conflicts rippling out and altering course as Juno's pregnancy influences each of them.

I was reminded of another surprisingly rich teen comedy, Saved! - though Juno moves more subtly and includes more adults than teens in the centre of the story. Both manage to give rich, believable and compelling stories without recourse to exaggerated drama or pain; so many movies rely on the concentration of a particular element - not sad but tragic, not death but slaughter - to evoke the kind of heightened emotion necessary for ultimate catharsis. Juno shows essentially normal people, quirky, yes, but not more so than most when they're at home, and the story is so well-crafted that it needs no farther justification.

What kills me is that this film is, sincerely, about love. I know, cue the schmaltzy music. But it views it from such an odd angle that the safety and redemption and forgiveness that everyone's too cynical these days to really speak about in public is shown, sneakily, while all the characters retain the sense of irony and cynicism we clever film-goers pride ourselves on. The down-home wisdom Simmons gives around the climax of the film isn't unfamiliar territory, but because it is exactly that obviousness that makes it so effective. We are told something as common as a bumper sticker slogan, and yet the course of the film leading up to that point allows it to hit a nerve by it's very unaffectedness.

Please don't mistake this for some kind of hallmark card or long-distance commercial, it really is quite quietly wise, and, as I said, immensely charming.

Be Warned

2008-01-25T16:12:33Z

I like to think that I'm a fair reader; I don't expect books written as light reads to magically transcend their author's aspirations and soar into the realm of magnificent literature. That said, I think it's fair to ask of any fiction (or non fiction, for that matter) a few basic things. Credible dialogue and characters spring to mind, as does a basic grasp of the English language (or whatever language in which one happens to be writing) and grammar. In Opposite of Love, a first novel from a Harvard Law grad, I anticipated nothing more than a pleasant read, primarily about relationships and how the characters respond to them, eventually reaching some small epiphany or moment that encourages self-knowledge or personal growth. I didn't expect Dostoyevsky from this chick.

I know a lot of first-timers tend to write thinly veiled accounts of their own life. This is usually moderately successful, because the characters are based on real people, they tend to behave realistically and be three dimensional and unique. The events that take place, while not necessarily hugely inventive, have the benefit of being a natural result of the circumstances presented. Unfortunately, Buxbaum, in what is probably an attempt to both protect the innocent inspirations and make the fiction more fictional, erases all the individual detail of her characters without replacing them with anything, so we're left with deflated people on the page with flat, tedious dialogue and boring, unmotivated puppets.

I read about twenty or thirty pages of this tripe, hoping that some semblance of depth would appear, in the narrator if not in her "evil boss" "evil coworker" "sweet, emotionally settled, best friend" or "sweet, emotionally settled boyfriend". She tells us that she's a commitment-phobe, rather than allowing that the intelligent reader would have gathered as much from her hysterical reaction to her boring, personality-free boyfriend's inquiry about rings. That the whole story is preceded by a confessional introduction in italics, so we know it's personal, wherein the narrator reveals that she's speaking to her unborn child. We know how it ends. If there isn't entertainment to be found in the reading, why bother?

If you see this book and are tempted by the promise of a light, romantic read, WALK AWAY.

I want my BBC

2007-09-10T21:52:53Z

I've been without tv chez-moi for about a month and a half, and I really don't miss it. I find that now I'm even more impatient with filler tv watching than ever (you know, when people need background noise or just something to do for a little while). I'd much rather read or go for a walk or do something or nothing - without the repetition and advertising and general garbage production.

That said, I've just watched the BBC doc The Root of All Evil - made with Richard Dawkins and based on his book The God Delusion, and it's reminded me (as the beeb so often does) of everything superb television can be - elegant, informative, thought provoking - generally a worthwhile endeavor and enriching, rather than vapid, draining and vaguely insulting.

If only all TV were like this. Humanity would benefit, I think.

katesaid @ 2007-08-29T17:53:00

2007-08-29T21:57:57Z

Apartment hunting is a little depressing. There's never a perfect place - although after a disappointment or two, anything safe, clean and reliable starts to look pretty appealing.

In other news, it's hot as hell (to use a tired but painfully apt phrase) and I am pining for fall.

New weather, new abode (one hopes), new season; full of potential, like all new things.

Incidentally, it is my moving-to-Canada-iversary. Yup, I've officially been here four years. Is it any wonder I want to matriculate?

you've got a plan, haven't you.

2007-08-22T15:00:12Z

I need direction. I need goals. What I need is a plan.

I am moving. I hope. I emailed about an apartment today and hopefully it will soon be all straightened out, and then I can pack up and be somewhere new and hear myself think. It's not too far - still in TO, though a bit far out on the subway line.

There's something about a new place - it holds the same potential as a blank page. The idea that it could be anything.

And then, perhaps, I can figure out what I want and how to get it.

Did I mention I've been rejected from all the film fests I've submitted to? I've decided to assume it's because the film is too long, and not because it's crap.

But - rejection does make one examine (and reexamine, and reexamine) what makes something worthwhile. Why do something if no one will see it/read it/appreciate it. What do you get from doing something? Where do you find the encouragement and motivation to keep on in the face of rejection?

But one cannot face the bleak prospect of meaninglessness on an empty stomach - I must buy some groceries and feel the hope of proper blood sugar levels.

it's a fine line

2007-07-25T16:40:13Z

What counts as wasting time? As giving up? What is the difference between safe and smart and safe and a step closer to total mental annihilation?

If I am honest (and I do try), there is something insidious in retail - the assumption of how far service and politesse goes, particularly for women (yes, all customers are secretly sexist pigs; they expect, however subconsciously, the chicks serving them, in whatever capacity, to be slightly more obsequious, more conciliatory, more smiling and interested than their male colleagues), and at what point being considerate and helpful turns into allowing people to be obnoxious and condescending, as if they had a right to, without responding.

What happens to self respect when, for the sake of the institution for which you work, you smile at those who are rude, listen politely to those who complain of things entirely beyond your control, insult you as an emblem of that mysterious, faceless thing which offends them? Is it possible to be polite and considerate and smiling when, under any other circumstances, you would either turn away or allow some reaction to their behavior appear on your face, if not in your dialogue?

I know I can be perceived as condescending. Mea culpa, I can be condescending. I try not to, and I know that I am not usually - it is a particular type of personality that inspires an instinctive froideur. I try to be mindful, I reign in the acid that begs to fill my tone, I stamp out sarcasm. What is left is the same statement, free of inflection. Flat. My face is an expressionless canvas - my interlocutor is free to think whatever they will, they receive no information from me.

I cannot push myself to perform beyond this - I can reign myself in; I cannot create affability and joviality in response to impatience and rudeness. And, frankly, I don't think I should. Because once I start that performance, once I cease to be entirely sincere (or rather, fail to be insincere), this patter will become pattern - my immediate response to a snide tone or dismissive disagreement will be a polite and interested smile, rather than the expression of my own opinion.

The implication being that (oui, je sais 'the customer is always right') this person before me is before me - in that they come first. My opinions don't matter, what matters is that they experience me as part of the scenery, and that I don't interfere with their enjoyment, or fail to meet their expectations.

I don't want to be a puppet, and I don't want to be fake for the sake of inconsiderate people who barely recognize my humanity.

I believe I should work on not being offensive when I genuinely don't mean to be rude - in that I should have more control over how I am perceived. However, I don't want this compassion and consideration and effort on my part to transform into a subconscious message that I am somehow less than these people, that my thoughts are of less value, that I am insignificant. I don't need to be of import to them, but I don't think I should have to tolerate or exhibit behavior that implies that I am inferior.

I must strike a balance - as a person, as a work in progress, I need to work on a balance of self-respect and respect for others. Yet I must defend my sense of self worth against those who would dismiss it to avoid the effort of thinking.

Je cherche.