The problem with Dear Prudence

Every since Emily Yoffe took over Slate's Dear Prudence column, I've felt the quality of the advice has declined. I think I've figured out why: When the letter-writer is in a situation that Prudie has been in before, but Prudie felt differently in that situation, she is completely incapable of empathizing with the letter-writer. When Prudie and the letter-writer feel the same way in the same situation, it's fine. When Prudie has no first-hand experience with the LW's situation, it's generally decent. But when Prudie felt differently in the same situation, she essentially tells the LW that they should be feeling differently.

The most prominent example I can think of is when a childfree LW asked for advice on dealing with people who nag her to have children. Prudie responded essentially by bingoing her. In a later article, she then confessed that she initially didn't want children, but had them because it was a dealbreaker for her husband. (I wonder how her children feel about that?) It seems she's completely unable to see beyond this and give her reader some practical advice on how to stop the bingoing.

Then today, someone wrote asking how to deal with her boyfriend's family, and Prudie said that her family is just like that and she loves it, so the reader should just sit back and enjoy it. She can't see beyond her own enjoyment of the situation and put herself in the shoes of someone who hates it.

So, Prudie, if you'd react differently in the reader's situation and can't put yourself in their shoes, don't use that letter. Use letters where you can identify with the reader. Don't tell the reader to feel differently, take what they do feel as a given, and give them some practical advice.

Highrises vs. street life

Public space advocates tend to say that residents of highrises are removed from street life. I just don't get that. Now it's possible I'm missing something - I've lived in a highrise in a neighbourhood that has street life, and I've lived in houses or lowrises in areas without street life - I've never experienced the lowrise + street life combination. But where I am now, in a highrise in a vibrant neighbourhood, I don't feel removed from street life. I experience it whenever I go out. Every day I walk down busy streets filled with pedestrians and bars and cafes and shops and people walking dogs and babies - everything that public space should be. The fact that my home is 14 storeys off the ground doesn't affect that.

Actually, living in a highrise helps me enjoy living in a busy neighbourhood. I feel safer higher up. I can sleep with an open window at little risk, I don't have all that street life parading right past my door, and if people leave litter or vandalize it doesn't affect me. The summertime last-call crowd is a distant buzz, not a mob of rabble milling about right outside my bedroom window. If I lived in a house, or a ground floor or second floor apartment, I might feel less safe, less welcoming of the busy street life. I might want to move to a quieter neighbourhood. But as it stands, I get to enjoy the safety and vibrancy of robust public space when I'm out in public, and I get to enjoy the safety and privacy of a certain degree of isolation when I'm in my private space.

Random thoughts for today

1. Yet another reason why it's a good thing I'm childfree: There was a little baby in a stroller. The baby was lying on her back, and several brightly-coloured toys were dangling above her. The baby reached up one chubby little arm and grabbed one of the toys with her impossibly-tiny hand, turning it back and forth as though she were inspecting it. The first thought that pops into my head: "Awwww, that's just like a real person!"

2. Whenever I see a floppy-eared dog, I find myself saying "Hello Mr. Floppy-Ears!" (Without even first checking whether the dog is, in fact, male!) The problem is that this might result in any dog I adopting ending up with the name Mr. Floppy-Ears, which is hardly a dignified name for a dog. Maybe I should get a floppy-eared bunny first, just to get the Mr. Floppy-Ears name out of my system. I think a bunny could handle such an undignified name more than a dog.

3. Stéphane Dion thinks his knapsack is just neato, with all the nifty pockets and everything (unfortunately I can't seem to google up a picture of said knapsack:

"Have I ever shown you what a great knapsack this is?" Dion asked Wilfert about a year ago. The two men were having a meeting and Dion simply had to extol the virtues of the carry-all, with all its neat pockets and compartments. "This is the best knapsack I've ever had."

I try very hard not to judge politicans on their superficial image, but there's just something terribly endearing about a political leader who's so dorky that I can identify with him. I don't much like those "Which party leader would you most like to have a beer with?" polls, but I think I'd actually enjoy sitting down and having a drink with this guy.

4. There's also a bit of a "Dion needs a makeover" thing going around, and one thing people keep citing is his glasses. But they're rimless! Isn't that supposed to be fashionable? I know it's not the very most latest fashion ever, but it's really quite recent. Does this mean they're on the way out? Should I rethink my plan of splurging on rimless when I get new glasses in January?

FBORFW plot hole

General consensus is now that For Better or For Worse is pointing towards Elizabeth and Anthony ending up together. But there's a big question about that: why did Lynn Johnston introduce the Paul character if she wanted Liz and Anthony together? If Paul wasn't there, Liz could come back south and she and Anthony could end up together with hardly any contrived-ness (apart from the fact that Anthony was inexplicably married and had a kid and divorced all while he was allegedly still in love with Liz, which makes him look far less sympathetic. And Anthony's mustache which...the only time I've ever seen a mustache on a man his age is in the most wanted list.)

But with Paul around, the whole thing comes across as looking contrived. I've already blogged about how the set-up with Paul was completely contrived and borderline creepy. I've already blogged about how Liz coming back south doesn't look good on her. And now the recent strip where the parents dis Paul and try to push Liz towards Anthony just makes them look stupid. Anthony is there because he's a witness. Paul is not there because he lives over 1,000 km away, the trial has been stretching on for months, Paul is one of very few cops in a very small town so getting time off isn't that easy, and he just transferred there and has just applied to transfer again (because of Liz). Dissing him because he can't drop everything and come south makes the parents look clueless.

But if Paul didn't exist, Liz could be made lonely and that could be spun as a compelling excuse to come back south (rather than Paul being a compelling excuse to stay up north.) Anthony's presence could be spun into romance without making Liz into a cheater (or making Paul cheat on her). The parents wouldn't have to look totally clueless. All the characters would get to be far more sympathetic than they are now - now they look thoroughly unsympathetic.

I'm hoping Lynn Johnston will still surprise us and end the strip in a way I totally can't see coming. It would be a shame to see such a venerable comic strip end with all the characters looking like idiots.

I did something cool

I just realized that I did something cool a few days ago. I was attending a presentation by a senior executive in the organization for which I work. As he was talking, I noticed something was missing from a particular point that he made, so I raised my hand, spoke up, and contributed something fruitful to the discussion. I did this twice, without hesitation, and it didn't even occur to me that this was anything special until just now, several days later, when I remembered that one of my much more senior colleagues was nervous and stuttering when doing the same thing.

An enormous part of the credit goes to my employer for creating an environment in which my contributions feel welcome, but still, I couldn't do this three years ago!

Poison Control

Why isn't Poison Control part of 911? When you have to call Poison Control it's an emergency, but it's this random 7/10 digit number that no one knows offhand.

Why would anyone buy an 8 gig iPod?

The 8 gig iPod Nano costs the same as the 30 gig iPod video. So why would anyone buy the 8 gig? I want a red one and I was happy to see it's now available in 8 gigs because 4 might be too small for me, but a pretty pretty colour and $10 to AIDS isn't enough to make me buy 22 fewer gigs for the same price!

Describing accents

Today, I found myself describing someone's accent as being "like cut glass," because that's the expression that first came to mind when I heard her accent. Then I realized that I don't actually know what the expression means. I've heard it before, as applied to accents, but I couldn't tell you what kind of accent it was being applied to. It occurred to me today when hearing someone speak, but I have no idea whether or not my interpretation of the expression is the same as the common meaning. It's all very intangible. I don't even know what cut glass has to do with the particular accent (like the sound of cutting glass? like the appearance of cut glass? like the sound of cut glass stemware tinkling against each other?), and yet the simile came to mind unbidden. I know what "plummy" means in describing accents, but I have no idea what that actually has to do with plums.

Analogy for monogamy

Imagine you're craving coffee. A new coffee shop just opened up right across the street, so you decide to give it a try. The coffee is exactly what you were craving. It completely meets your needs. You've never had coffee that so perfectly met your coffee needs. It's fresh, it's aromatic, it doesn't have any yucky bitterness to it, it's everything coffee should be and nothing coffee shouldn't be. In fact, you never knew that coffee could be this good. So the next time you're craving coffee, you back to the same coffee shop again. And once again it meets your needs perfectly, so you keep going back again and again.

Now sometimes your tastes vary a bit, but it turns out this coffee can meet your needs even when your tastes vary. When you want something a bit richer, it meets your needs if you add cream instead of milk. If you don't want caffeine, the decaf is perfect. If it's hot out, the iced coffee is exactly what you're craving. Every time you go to the coffee shop to get something you're craving, their products fulfill your craving completely, and you've never found another coffee anywhere that fulfills your cravings nearly as well.

After this goes on for a while, it would simply no longer make sense to try new coffee shops, now would it? You wouldn't feel that it's dull or boring to keep going to the same coffee shop, because their coffee is so unbelievably good compared to any other coffee you've tasted or even smelled. In fact, you'd feel it's a privilege to have such perfect coffee right across the street, and you'd be thankful every day that they're right there.

"A complete list of things I have seen and not seen is available on my blog"

Seen on Yonge St.: two small white puppies, possibly Bichone Frises, possibly Lhasa Apsos, trying to assert dominance over each other.

Seen on the cover of Cosmo: "The Sexiest Things To Do After Sex" Wassa matter? Sex not sexy enough for you?

Seen in line at the store: Teenage boy says "She's hot!" (with as much enthusiasm as one would expect from a teenage boy). His mother says "Yes, she is" (with more enthusiasm than one would expect from a mother). Not seen: who exactly they were talking about.

Seen in the newspaper: an ad for a TV movie called "Candles on Bay Street". The thing is, in Toronto, Bay St. is the financial district. So to me it sounds as odd as "Candles on Wall Street".

Open Letters

Dear blind gentleman in the Eglinton station tunnels around 3:50 pm:

I apologize for not walking you to the station myself when you asked me directions. I'm afraid I was too worried about how to explain the directions without any pointing, so it didn't occur to me to walk you there myself until I was already down on the platform. I'm really sorry, and I hope you found your way okay.

Dear CNIB:

You know those commercials you have, telling us that many of your clients have some sight? I really wish you'd elaborate. What am I supposed to do with this information? How am I supposed to change my behaviour? What action do you expect on my part?

Dear Biore:

Okay, so you're trying to tell me that your products will give me flawless skin. So why use a black and white picture? Everyone looks flawless in black and white. Show me a colour photo! Yes, I know you still have Photoshop so you can make the non-flawless look flawless even in colour. That's precisely why the black and white makes me suspicious. If a professional model + your product + lighting + makeup + photoshop produce flawless skin in colour, why should I buy your product?

Best dry-cleaner ever!

I highly recommend Vic-Tone Cleaners in North York. They're at 4866 Yonge St., which is a block north of Yonge & Sheppard (southwest corner of Yonge & Elmhurst).

I had a horrible stain on a new blouse. I already tried to get it out at home, and it wouldn't budge - if anything I'd made the problem worse. My research showed this type of stain may well never come out, so I was very upset. I'd only worn the blouse twice, it was a very flattering cut and colour, and the store I'd bought it from didn't have any more in my size. This was very problematic because the stain demoted the blouse from first choice to last-resort-with-a-jacket. So I decided it's time to shell out for a professional job.

So I took it to Vic-Tone on a purely random guess. They looked at the stain and said they weren't sure whether they could get it out, but they'd try and there would be no charge if they didn't succeed! And then they managed to get the stain out!

High-heeled sensitivity training (for men)

Inspired by the guy in Sheppard station yelling at his female companion for descending the stairs so slowly.

The Physics:

In a high-heeled shoe, the wearer's body weight is shifted forwards. In the vast majority of situations, this isn't a problem, and the wearer can walk normally or with a slightly shortened stride. However, when descending stairs or any sort of slope, the change in balance becomes particularly apparent. Stand on a stair (a low stair! and hold onto the railing!) and lean forwards. See how you're suddenly at greater risk of falling? If someone wearing heels walks down the stairs at a normal pace, she will fall. I know this from first-hand experience.

The Experiment:

Take off your shoes if you're wearing any. First, walk around the room a bit, at your normal walking-down-the-street pace, just to remind yourself of what that pace feels like. Next, stand up on your toes, lifting your heels as far off the ground as possible. Now walk around the room at the same pace. See how your stride is shortened, but you can still maintain a decent pace?

Next, go to the nearest staircase. If you have to wear shoes to do this, make sure you pick a pair with a flexible enough sole to let you stand on your tiptoes. First, walk down a few steps at a normal walking-in-public speed, just to get a sense of what you're working with normally. Then go back to the top of the stairs, and stand on your toes. Make sure you hold the railing! Before you descent on your toes, I want you to put one foot down on the stair below you, with your toes at the very front of the tread (i.e. the horizontal part of the stairs). Why? Because our instincts tell us to put our toes in the centre of the tread when descending stairs standing on our toes, but you can't do this in heels because the heels themselves would be in the way. So put your toe at the very front of the tread, and make sure your heel is lifted in a way that it doesn't touch the riser of the stair above it. Got that foot position down? Then grab the railing and walk down the stairs on your toes, with your feet in that position. Try to go as fast as you can. See how precarious it is?

What you can do to help:

"Okay," you're saying, "now I understand why descending stairs in heels is problematic. So how can I, as the chivalrous gentleman I am, help my lady friend through this ordeal?"

First of all, understand that stairs are slower and don't nag when she slows down. If she falls, that will just slow you both down even more, as well as getting in more people's way. If there is a choice, opt for an escalator or elevator if your lady friend is wearing higher heels than she usually wears.

If you want to be actively chivalrous, you can offer her your arm or you can walk in front of her. Offering your arm is appropriate only in places where you can walk two abreast without getting in anyone's way. It is, by far, the better option if the stairs have no railing for some reason. However, in crowded places where walking two abreast is a problem, the best thing you can do is walk in front of her, so you can catch her, break her fall, or help her if she does fall. Walking in front of her is also particularly helpful in places like subway stations, if you find yourself moving against a large sea of pedestrian traffic. That way, you're making a path for her lady friend, so all she has to worry about is staying on her feet. Do NOT "ladies first" down the stairs if there's a huge wave of people coming up the stairs.

Educated

I don't feel educated. By most standards I am, by a few standards I'm not. I've had job interviewers who didn't give me jobs tell me I have a lot of education. (Job interviewers who did give me jobs never commented on it.) But internally? I don't feel anything special. Yes, I've spent most of my life in a classroom, but that would have happened even if I had the minimum education legally permissible. My mental library is what it is.

I don't feel smart either. I've been told I am. (I've also been told I'm not.) The requisite IQ test and years of good grades sit in a dusty old school file somewhere. But I don't feel it. My brain often (but not always) does what I need it to do, but that doesn't feel particularly special or anything - most of what I need my brain to do is fairly mindless.

I wonder if anyone feels educated or smart? I wonder if people who are not educated or smart can feel it? I wonder if the smarter you are, the more your brain does what it needs to do, or if it somehow works differently?

Sick

For me, the slang meaning of the word sick has always been "disgusting".

In current adolescent parlance, the meaning of the word sick is something along the lines of "awesome"

About 80% of the time, this is fine. I'm familiar with the new meaning, even though it isn't part of my active vocabulary, and you can usually tell by context.

The problem is those few times when you can't tell by context. This happens especially often on the internet, particularly when the word is being used by someone a bit younger than me, who would likely have both meanings in their active vocabulary. (I don't know whether or not Kids Today use sick to mean disgusting, but I doubt someone 3-5 years younger than me would be unfamiliar with the that meaning.) If someone says, without elaboration, in response to something like a dirty joke "OMG, that's SICK!" it could really go either way.

Things I wish I could say without sounding all judgeosaurus

The vast majority of human discourse occurred before I got here, so the vast majority of words and expressions have taken on certain connotations beyond their strict denotations, and I wasn't consulted on any of it.

This is a problem, because sometimes I want to say something perfectly harmless and innocuous, for completely benign reasons, but when I put together the simplest, most plain-language combination of words that denotes my intended message, it takes on connotations that I don't mean, because of what people did with the language generations before I came along.

For example:

"That's not funny" Sometimes something just...isn't funny. It simply doesn't have any humour value. Like a Marmaduke cartoon. Sometimes context compels me to say that I don't think something is funny. The problem is when you say "That's not funny," it implies that you were offended, that you think an intended joke crossed the line into cruel or sick or hateful. It's very difficult to simply say that something isn't funny without these further connotations. I encountered this dilemma today, when Scott Adams posted a Dilbert cartoon that he had decided not to run. A lot of the commenters found it funny. I didn't find it funny. But if I posted "That's not funny," people would think I found it offensive. My point wasn't that I found it offensive - I didn't think that far. My point was simply that there's insufficient humour, so it was a good decision to pull the cartoon. But I just can't work out how to say that in a forum full of strangers without implying that I found it offensive. Even if I said "I wasn't offended, but it's just not funny," it would sound like I was offended but I'm just saying I'm not so they don't dismiss my opinion as a prude.

"What was she wearing?" Sometimes, when a crime occurs, I want to know the circumstances. What was the victim wearing? Was it a crowded street or was there no one around? What kind of locks were on the door? I'd like to know these things so I can make better-informed decisions about my own safety. However, long before I entered into discourse, people used comments like this to blame the victim, and now they are inappropriate because the "blame the victim" connotation was too strong. But I don't want to blame the victim, I just want to use the clues available to assess the perp's mentality. For example, the more information I learned about Paul Bernardo, the more I was able to accurately judge that I was in fact at risk. He was specifically after my demographic, so I was able to use that information to be wary of strangers without worrying about being rude. (And, because it was so widely publicized, well-intentioned strangers would probably understand why I was being so standoffish.) Conversely, the more information I learned about the Toronto shootings in the past couple of years, the more certain I became that I'm at low risk of being shot, since I'm not involved in or near gang or drug activity. So if there's, say, a perverted groper man stalking the subway, I'd be interested in knowing what the victims were wearing. Not because I want to blame them, but because I want to make informed decisions about my own wardrobe and behaviour. If perverted groper man is going after women wearing skirts and heels, then I'm okay today. If he's going after women wearing trousers and boots, maybe I'll sit near the guard, or head for the subway at the same time as a more-intimidating co-worker, or ask mi cielito to go a bit out of his way and escort me home instead of saying "I'll be fine." But there's no way to ask for that information without sounding like you're making unpleasant insinuations.

I had a third example, but I can't seem to remember it now. I'll edit later if it comes to me.

How many times do I have to go over this?

Once again, they're talking about reinstating the draft as an anti-war measure, because lawmakers wouldn't want their children to be sent to war.

Okay people, pay close attention this time, because I'm getting tired of going over it again and again:

The problem with this plan is that it completely neglects the fact that the potential draftees are human beings in their own right. They aren't their parents' chattels that you can threaten to damage or destroy to coerce or threaten the parents, they are human beings in their own right, with their own lives to live, and with little or no influence over their parents' politics.

Do people really not understand this? How old do you have to be before you lose the ability to understand that people's kids are separate human beings with their own thoughts and feelings and human rights?

Powerful software

I've become very wary of the adjective "powerful" when used to describe software. It seems the more the word "powerful" is used, the harder a time I have convincing the software to do something simple without extensive RTMFing. I can appreciate that some software is made to do far more complicated things than I'll ever need to do, but can't they make the very simplest functions a wee bit intuitive?

Excuse me, ma'am, but how exactly do you cover your greys?

Since before I even started going grey, I've wanted to somehow colour my grey hairs some random third colour, like bright crayon red, while not affecting the natural colour of the hair that hasn't gone grey yet. Today on the subway I saw a lady who had achieved that very effect. It was a crowded train and I was standing right above her, so I had a chance to inspect the top of her head with impunity. Most of her hair was naturally black and did not appear to have been coloured at all, but about a dozen individual hairs were this beautiful shade of copper. When I visually followed the path of the copper hairs up to the roots, I noticed that they suddenly became silver about half an inch from the scalp. Clearly some kind of artificial colour applied to the grey hairs only - exactly what I've always wanted!

I only wish there was some way to politely ask a stranger on the subway, "Excuse me, ma'am, but how exactly do you cover your greys?"