One thing that people have judged me for my entire adult life is having an unsophisticated palate. For many kinds of food, I'm perfectly happy to eat eat cheap, processed, commercial convenience foods. I can enjoy a meal at a chain restaurant. I can enjoy a meal at a fast food restaurant. I can enjoy some junk food scarfed down from a vending machine.
People have always talked about this as though it's Less Than, but I recently realized: it's extremely convenient!
For example, one of the things the foodies in my life talk about is Really Good Pasta. You haven't lived until you've had Really Good Pasta!
I have never once in my life had really good pasta, by which I mean pasta that is noticeably better than other pasta.
But I have had countless pasta dishes that made me happy, most of which were prepared by my own hand. I can think of only one or two times in my whole entire life I haven't enjoyed pasta. (In one case, the sauce was runny like water. In another case, I was having a reflux flare-up and it adhered to the wall of my esophagus and stayed there for a couple of hours.)
Some people say fresh, homemade pasta is way better than the pasta you buy in a box. I've tried fresh, homemade pasta with fresh, homemade sauce and fresh cheese. It was delicious! I've also tried pasta you buy in a box with sauce you buy in a jar and the shakey cheese you buy in a can. It was delicious! I've also tried just-add-water instant kraft dinner knockoff. It was delicious! Yes, I can perceive the difference, and they all delight me!
One area where I do have a sophisticated palate is fruit. I only enjoy certain varietals of certain fruits, and I only enjoy local fruit, which certainly makes life harder given that I live in an area with a short growing season!
I love apples, I eat multiple apples every day, and if someone who doesn't know my very specific preferences gave me an apple, I'd probably be unhappy.
In-season Ontario peaches are my favourite fruit in the world, and every time I buy a basket of in-season Ontario peaches, it contains at least one peach that makes me unhappy.
I love fresh, local, in-season strawberries, but they only make me happy for a couple of weeks a year.
This is not actually a good thing! It would be far more convenient if any piece of fruit that crossed my path made me happy. However, my tastes in fruit are sophisticated and nuanced. I only like the very best, and I'm less happy for it.
I'm glad I don't experience pasta the same way!
Tuesday, June 02, 2020
Monday, June 01, 2020
Analogy for app-only
An unfortunate trend that has emerged in the past decade or so is "app-only" - i.e. requiring a purpose-built app on a mobile device to do something (for example, make an online purchase) that is totally technically feasible over the web - and, often, was frequently done over the web before smartphones came along!
My shower gave me an analogy for why this is a problem:
Many devices started out being able to be used indoors only (or, at least, within a cord length of indoors).
Telephones needed to be plugged into the jack to have a phone connection.
Televisions needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity, and, once cable TV became a thing, into the cable drop for cable.
Computers needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity and, once the internet became a thing, into the phone jack and, later, the cable jack, for internet.
Then devices became smaller, batteries improved, wifi became common, data plans became common, and now we can do all these things outdoors on a laptop or tablet or phone.
But imagine if we could only do them outdoors. Your laptop or phone or tablet won't work indoors. You have to step onto the balcony or into the backyard.
That would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?
Yes, it's convenient to be able to use it outdoors, but you don't want to have to use it outdoors. You don't want to have to step away from what you're doing, grab a coat or an umbrella, put on your shoes, and step outside just to make a call or read a text or watch TV. You still want to retain the option of using it indoors just like you always have.
Similarly, it's convenient to be able to do things on a mobile device, but once you have to use a mobile device, it becomes less convenient. If you're at a computer, you have to stop what you're doing and switch to another device. If your computer is set up to be ergonomic, you have to switch to a less ergonomic device. You have to make sure another device has battery and connectivity. You have to use a smaller screen.
Adding options increases convenience, but removing options decreases convenience. An app is not convenient if it eliminates the option of doing the task with a computer, just like a device you can use outdoors is not convenient if you can't also use it indoors.
My shower gave me an analogy for why this is a problem:
Many devices started out being able to be used indoors only (or, at least, within a cord length of indoors).
Telephones needed to be plugged into the jack to have a phone connection.
Televisions needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity, and, once cable TV became a thing, into the cable drop for cable.
Computers needed to be plugged into the wall for electricity and, once the internet became a thing, into the phone jack and, later, the cable jack, for internet.
Then devices became smaller, batteries improved, wifi became common, data plans became common, and now we can do all these things outdoors on a laptop or tablet or phone.
But imagine if we could only do them outdoors. Your laptop or phone or tablet won't work indoors. You have to step onto the balcony or into the backyard.
That would be inconvenient, wouldn't it?
Yes, it's convenient to be able to use it outdoors, but you don't want to have to use it outdoors. You don't want to have to step away from what you're doing, grab a coat or an umbrella, put on your shoes, and step outside just to make a call or read a text or watch TV. You still want to retain the option of using it indoors just like you always have.
Similarly, it's convenient to be able to do things on a mobile device, but once you have to use a mobile device, it becomes less convenient. If you're at a computer, you have to stop what you're doing and switch to another device. If your computer is set up to be ergonomic, you have to switch to a less ergonomic device. You have to make sure another device has battery and connectivity. You have to use a smaller screen.
Adding options increases convenience, but removing options decreases convenience. An app is not convenient if it eliminates the option of doing the task with a computer, just like a device you can use outdoors is not convenient if you can't also use it indoors.
Sunday, May 31, 2020
Friday, May 29, 2020
Top 10 petty things I hope come out of the pandemic
Many, many people who are smarter than me have commented on major policy and social changes that they hope come out of the pandemic - a robust system of sick days! Stronger income security! An end to just-in-time supply chains!
I'm going to let the smart people comment on those important things. Meanwhile, I have some less-important things that I hope come out of the pandemic:
1. Touch screens that can be operated with a stylus
Back in the Palm Pilot days, touch screens could be operated with a stylus or some other object. Since the iPhone came along, the trend on everything from self-checkouts to microwaves has been towards screens that require a human finger, which makes it harder to have a no-contact experience. Even if we don't take hygiene into account, screens that can be operated with either an object or a finger are more versatile than those that absolutely require a human finger. Hopefully we can get that versatility back.
2. Longer hair becoming popular
I find longer hair more attractive. Even when people wear their hair short, I prefer longer short hair. Frodo Baggins rather than Forrest Gump. For purely superficial reasons, I would enjoy if this temporary haircut moratorium leads to longer hair becoming popular. (Unfortunately, I think the opposite will ultimately happen as people rejoice in haircuts.)
3. Baggy pants coming back in fashion
Skinny jeans have been in style for over a decade. It's high time for loose-fitting pants to come back in style! I'm hoping the combination of so many people staying home (and therefore likely wearing comfy pants) and so much bread being baked (which someone has to eat) will lead to societal intolerance of skinny jeans, and a move towards a roomier (and, on my figure, more flattering) silhouette.
4. Handwashing right inside the door
When I walk into my apartment, I know I need to wash my hands. But I also have to take my shoes off, which means touching the shoes with my dirty hands. (Yes, I know some people can remove their shoes without using their hands. I'm not one of them.) If I walk into the kitchen or the bathroom before removing my shoes, I'm tracking outdoor dirt (which might include germs) into the apartment. So far I've been addressing this by wiping down the parts of my shoes that I touch, but it would be convenient to have a sink for hand-washing right inside the door, so you can wash your hands right away, then remove your outerwear with clean hands. I hope home design evolves in this direction.
5. Touchless public washrooms
You know those useless public washroom taps where you need to hold the button down the entire time in order to make water come out? They need to be GONE! This pandemic should be the warning everyone needs to design public washrooms so they can be completely touchless, including opening the door on the way out of the washroom.
6. Homes designed for privacy from other household members
As someone who lives alone, I actually find my open-concept apartment convenient - I can keep watching the TV or the computer screen while I putter around in the kitchen! - but it is not the right design for a multi-person household. People - even people who love each other - need privacy from each other, and I suspect quarantine is driving his point home for many people. I hope home design evolves in a way that gives people visual, auditory and psychological privacy from the other members of their household.
Sometimes in advice column comments, I see people who think your romantic relationship is broken if you need privacy from each other, and/or think it's appalling and materialistic to plan your family and your housing so that each of your kids can have their own room. I'd be very happy if being quarantined with their household makes them change their mind on these questions, although I suspect it will instead make the other members of their household value their privacy even more.
7. Parent-neutral schooling
This is something I've been thinking about long before the pandemic but never got around to blogging about. Schooling seems to be evolving in a direction of requiring more and more parental involvement. For example, I often hear parents talking about their children's homework as though it is absolutely essential for parents to be involved in helping kids with their homework, and it is in no way reasonable to expect kids to be able to do their homework themselves based on what they learned in the classroom.
This creates a situation where students are put at a disadvantage if their parents, for whatever reason, don't meet the school's expectations.
Which is completely bass-ackwards. Schools should be mitigating any disadvantages or lack of advantages brought by parents, not exacerbating them.
The curriculum should be rethought so that students are not at any disadvantage if their parents do not contribute sufficiently. In fact, the curriculum should be even more drastically rethought so that parental contribution cannot put kids at an advantage - kids succeed on their own merits, regardless of what their parents bring to the table.
The switch to learning at home during the pandemic is exacerbating all these issues. Students whose parents aren't able to do what the school expects are at even more of a disadvantage. I'd like to see this result in a switch to a parent-neutral approach. However, I fear that it might do the opposite - especially if we are pushed onto an austerity footing after the pandemic, schools might be pressured to say "the parents can help the students with this - after all, they did so during the pandemic!"
8. More lenient parenting
One pandemic problem is teens sneaking out to hang out with their friends, and therefore breaking quarantine and failing to comply with social distancing.
A contributing factor is that "don't hang out with your friends because global pandemic" is not terribly persuasive in a world where the grownups are always telling you not to hang out with your friends anyway - because they read a parenting article or because they heard your friend use a swear word or because there might be a boy there.
But this time it's different. This time it's really important. And I hope, when this is over, that parents remember that.
In recent years, is has become less and less socially acceptable to leave kids unsupervised, even in their own home. The age at which kids are allowed to be unsupervised seems to be significantly higher than the age at which they can actually handle it.
The pandemic rule is that only one person from each household is supposed to go grocery shopping, which is a problem in cases where there's only one adult in the household - especially since babysitters from outside the household are not an option.
In some cases, depending the kids' ages and personalities, the most reasonable thing to do is to leave the kid home alone while grocery shopping. I hope the pandemic makes that socially acceptable as well, and that it sticks.
Early into the pandemic, I saw a lot of stuff circulating about How To Quarantine Optimally - and, especially, The Optimal Quarantine Schedule For Your Kids - and I found myself thinking how much it would suck to have that imposed on you regardless of your own needs and temperament. I hope the challenges of quarantine make these parents see the folly of optimizing their kids and accept a more go-with-the-flow way of living, and that this happens without too much trauma for the kids.
9. Check real-time store inventory
When you're supposed to minimize trips into stores and have to wait in line to get into each store, it's a particular bother to discover that the item that was the underlying reason for your trip isn't available. If we could check real-time store inventory online, that would save all these failed trips, thereby reducing line-waiting time and contacts for everyone.
10. Normalize grey hair
I'm currently rocking my natural colour, greys and all, and I intend to turn 40 with my natural colour as a matter of principle, but the amount of visible grey is getting to the point where I don't feel my overall appearance is sufficient if I keep it natural. However, I have no desire to spend any more time in the hairdresser's chair.
Since so many people have gone so long without getting their hair coloured and skunk stripes abound, I hope greying naturally comes back in style. Unfortunately, I suspect this is another area where the opposite happens as people rejoice in finally getting their hair coloured.
I'm going to let the smart people comment on those important things. Meanwhile, I have some less-important things that I hope come out of the pandemic:
1. Touch screens that can be operated with a stylus
Back in the Palm Pilot days, touch screens could be operated with a stylus or some other object. Since the iPhone came along, the trend on everything from self-checkouts to microwaves has been towards screens that require a human finger, which makes it harder to have a no-contact experience. Even if we don't take hygiene into account, screens that can be operated with either an object or a finger are more versatile than those that absolutely require a human finger. Hopefully we can get that versatility back.
2. Longer hair becoming popular
I find longer hair more attractive. Even when people wear their hair short, I prefer longer short hair. Frodo Baggins rather than Forrest Gump. For purely superficial reasons, I would enjoy if this temporary haircut moratorium leads to longer hair becoming popular. (Unfortunately, I think the opposite will ultimately happen as people rejoice in haircuts.)
3. Baggy pants coming back in fashion
Skinny jeans have been in style for over a decade. It's high time for loose-fitting pants to come back in style! I'm hoping the combination of so many people staying home (and therefore likely wearing comfy pants) and so much bread being baked (which someone has to eat) will lead to societal intolerance of skinny jeans, and a move towards a roomier (and, on my figure, more flattering) silhouette.
4. Handwashing right inside the door
When I walk into my apartment, I know I need to wash my hands. But I also have to take my shoes off, which means touching the shoes with my dirty hands. (Yes, I know some people can remove their shoes without using their hands. I'm not one of them.) If I walk into the kitchen or the bathroom before removing my shoes, I'm tracking outdoor dirt (which might include germs) into the apartment. So far I've been addressing this by wiping down the parts of my shoes that I touch, but it would be convenient to have a sink for hand-washing right inside the door, so you can wash your hands right away, then remove your outerwear with clean hands. I hope home design evolves in this direction.
5. Touchless public washrooms
You know those useless public washroom taps where you need to hold the button down the entire time in order to make water come out? They need to be GONE! This pandemic should be the warning everyone needs to design public washrooms so they can be completely touchless, including opening the door on the way out of the washroom.
6. Homes designed for privacy from other household members
As someone who lives alone, I actually find my open-concept apartment convenient - I can keep watching the TV or the computer screen while I putter around in the kitchen! - but it is not the right design for a multi-person household. People - even people who love each other - need privacy from each other, and I suspect quarantine is driving his point home for many people. I hope home design evolves in a way that gives people visual, auditory and psychological privacy from the other members of their household.
Sometimes in advice column comments, I see people who think your romantic relationship is broken if you need privacy from each other, and/or think it's appalling and materialistic to plan your family and your housing so that each of your kids can have their own room. I'd be very happy if being quarantined with their household makes them change their mind on these questions, although I suspect it will instead make the other members of their household value their privacy even more.
7. Parent-neutral schooling
This is something I've been thinking about long before the pandemic but never got around to blogging about. Schooling seems to be evolving in a direction of requiring more and more parental involvement. For example, I often hear parents talking about their children's homework as though it is absolutely essential for parents to be involved in helping kids with their homework, and it is in no way reasonable to expect kids to be able to do their homework themselves based on what they learned in the classroom.
This creates a situation where students are put at a disadvantage if their parents, for whatever reason, don't meet the school's expectations.
Which is completely bass-ackwards. Schools should be mitigating any disadvantages or lack of advantages brought by parents, not exacerbating them.
The curriculum should be rethought so that students are not at any disadvantage if their parents do not contribute sufficiently. In fact, the curriculum should be even more drastically rethought so that parental contribution cannot put kids at an advantage - kids succeed on their own merits, regardless of what their parents bring to the table.
The switch to learning at home during the pandemic is exacerbating all these issues. Students whose parents aren't able to do what the school expects are at even more of a disadvantage. I'd like to see this result in a switch to a parent-neutral approach. However, I fear that it might do the opposite - especially if we are pushed onto an austerity footing after the pandemic, schools might be pressured to say "the parents can help the students with this - after all, they did so during the pandemic!"
8. More lenient parenting
One pandemic problem is teens sneaking out to hang out with their friends, and therefore breaking quarantine and failing to comply with social distancing.
A contributing factor is that "don't hang out with your friends because global pandemic" is not terribly persuasive in a world where the grownups are always telling you not to hang out with your friends anyway - because they read a parenting article or because they heard your friend use a swear word or because there might be a boy there.
But this time it's different. This time it's really important. And I hope, when this is over, that parents remember that.
In recent years, is has become less and less socially acceptable to leave kids unsupervised, even in their own home. The age at which kids are allowed to be unsupervised seems to be significantly higher than the age at which they can actually handle it.
The pandemic rule is that only one person from each household is supposed to go grocery shopping, which is a problem in cases where there's only one adult in the household - especially since babysitters from outside the household are not an option.
In some cases, depending the kids' ages and personalities, the most reasonable thing to do is to leave the kid home alone while grocery shopping. I hope the pandemic makes that socially acceptable as well, and that it sticks.
Early into the pandemic, I saw a lot of stuff circulating about How To Quarantine Optimally - and, especially, The Optimal Quarantine Schedule For Your Kids - and I found myself thinking how much it would suck to have that imposed on you regardless of your own needs and temperament. I hope the challenges of quarantine make these parents see the folly of optimizing their kids and accept a more go-with-the-flow way of living, and that this happens without too much trauma for the kids.
9. Check real-time store inventory
When you're supposed to minimize trips into stores and have to wait in line to get into each store, it's a particular bother to discover that the item that was the underlying reason for your trip isn't available. If we could check real-time store inventory online, that would save all these failed trips, thereby reducing line-waiting time and contacts for everyone.
10. Normalize grey hair
I'm currently rocking my natural colour, greys and all, and I intend to turn 40 with my natural colour as a matter of principle, but the amount of visible grey is getting to the point where I don't feel my overall appearance is sufficient if I keep it natural. However, I have no desire to spend any more time in the hairdresser's chair.
Since so many people have gone so long without getting their hair coloured and skunk stripes abound, I hope greying naturally comes back in style. Unfortunately, I suspect this is another area where the opposite happens as people rejoice in finally getting their hair coloured.
Friday, May 22, 2020
Things They Should Invent: pandemic shopping edition
1. Glassdoor for the pandemic
With some jurisdictions permitting businesses to reopen, I wonder whether the employees of those businesses feel safe going back to work, or if they have no choice.
I do need to buy more things as the pandemic stretches on (so many things, ranging from my kettle to my mesh laundry bag, have broken somehow!), but if I have the option, I'd rather buy from somewhere that respects their employees' health and safety.
I'd very much like to have a single centralized website where workers post information about how well their employer actually is keeping them safe, so customers can make informed decisions about where to spend their money.
I mean, they could do this on Glassdoor too, but I haven't seen it yet for the businesses I've searched for.
2. Shopping search engine for boycotters
There's a lot in the news lately about how Amazon is making tons of money from the pandemic, but has horrible working conditions.
I've found that if I search the internet for a product description without having a specific brand or source in mind (for example, light cotton pyjamas or 4-cup coffee filters), I get results primarily from Amazon, and to a lesser extent from Walmart (which also has bad working conditions). If I exclude Amazon from the results, I most often get wholesalers, retailers from other countries, and other such unsuitable sources.
This happens even when I use search engines other than Google. It's way harder than it should be to find an ethical place to buy things when you don't already know where to buy them!
As I've mentioned many times before for many other reasons, I'd very much like to have a single comprehensive search engine of all online shopping. But I'd also like to have it set up to help people boycott.
You could boycott a specific retailer by excluding them from your search, but it would be even more helpful to be able to boycott by cause. For example, search for light cotton pyjamas and exclude sources with bad working conditions.
"But what if they all have bad working conditions?" Then you've done everything you can and don't have to knock yourself out looking for the ethical source that doesn't exist.
Of course, the complexity is that this would only work if they could index literally all retailers.
With some jurisdictions permitting businesses to reopen, I wonder whether the employees of those businesses feel safe going back to work, or if they have no choice.
I do need to buy more things as the pandemic stretches on (so many things, ranging from my kettle to my mesh laundry bag, have broken somehow!), but if I have the option, I'd rather buy from somewhere that respects their employees' health and safety.
I'd very much like to have a single centralized website where workers post information about how well their employer actually is keeping them safe, so customers can make informed decisions about where to spend their money.
I mean, they could do this on Glassdoor too, but I haven't seen it yet for the businesses I've searched for.
2. Shopping search engine for boycotters
There's a lot in the news lately about how Amazon is making tons of money from the pandemic, but has horrible working conditions.
I've found that if I search the internet for a product description without having a specific brand or source in mind (for example, light cotton pyjamas or 4-cup coffee filters), I get results primarily from Amazon, and to a lesser extent from Walmart (which also has bad working conditions). If I exclude Amazon from the results, I most often get wholesalers, retailers from other countries, and other such unsuitable sources.
This happens even when I use search engines other than Google. It's way harder than it should be to find an ethical place to buy things when you don't already know where to buy them!
As I've mentioned many times before for many other reasons, I'd very much like to have a single comprehensive search engine of all online shopping. But I'd also like to have it set up to help people boycott.
You could boycott a specific retailer by excluding them from your search, but it would be even more helpful to be able to boycott by cause. For example, search for light cotton pyjamas and exclude sources with bad working conditions.
"But what if they all have bad working conditions?" Then you've done everything you can and don't have to knock yourself out looking for the ethical source that doesn't exist.
Of course, the complexity is that this would only work if they could index literally all retailers.
Monday, May 11, 2020
Things They Should Invent: tell everyone what information contact tracers need
In this pandemic, we're hearing a lot about contact tracing. We're hearing a lot about how it's a time-intensive and labour-intensive task.
We're hearing about the possibility of apps to help, but, in addition to the privacy issues, those also have a strong risk of false positives (e.g., people in different apartments in the same building) and false negatives (e.g., if one or more parties don't have a phone on their person with the app installed and GPS enabled that is turned on and has a signal at the moment of contact.) So a time-intensive and labour-intensive task still remains.
They could make this easier by telling the public exactly what information the contact tracers will need, so people can keep track if they choose to do so.
For example, with contact tracing in mind, I'm making all my purchases on the same credit card and using my loyalty cards on every transaction. This means that I can pull up my credit card account and tell you at a glance the last time I was in a particular store, and the store also has a record.
On days when I have to talk to the concierge, I make a note of which concierge was on duty and what day I talked to them, in case one of us is later found to have COVID.
But is this the information that contact tracers would need? Or is irrelevant? Is there other information they would need that it hasn't occurred to me to collect? Should I be keeping track of who got in the elevator with me on which day? Should I be keeping track of what streets I walked down on which date and time?
I have no idea! I'm not trained in public health!
They might be able to make the task of contact tracing easier by circulating information about what the contact tracers would need to know. Then anyone who is inclined to do so can keep their own records.
And, if public health ever calls you for contact tracing, you'll be able to give them a list of the specifics they're looking for, rather than having to go through a painstaking interview full of questions you didn't even know would be on the test.
This might also help reinforce in the public consciousness exactly what kinds of contacts we need to be avoiding. If we're told "Keep track of who gets in the elevator with you for contact tracing purposes", that reinforces the idea that getting in the elevator with someone outside your household is a potential for transmission (if it is in fact a potential for transmission - I don't actually know), and maybe more people will wait for the next elevator.
We're hearing about the possibility of apps to help, but, in addition to the privacy issues, those also have a strong risk of false positives (e.g., people in different apartments in the same building) and false negatives (e.g., if one or more parties don't have a phone on their person with the app installed and GPS enabled that is turned on and has a signal at the moment of contact.) So a time-intensive and labour-intensive task still remains.
They could make this easier by telling the public exactly what information the contact tracers will need, so people can keep track if they choose to do so.
For example, with contact tracing in mind, I'm making all my purchases on the same credit card and using my loyalty cards on every transaction. This means that I can pull up my credit card account and tell you at a glance the last time I was in a particular store, and the store also has a record.
On days when I have to talk to the concierge, I make a note of which concierge was on duty and what day I talked to them, in case one of us is later found to have COVID.
But is this the information that contact tracers would need? Or is irrelevant? Is there other information they would need that it hasn't occurred to me to collect? Should I be keeping track of who got in the elevator with me on which day? Should I be keeping track of what streets I walked down on which date and time?
I have no idea! I'm not trained in public health!
They might be able to make the task of contact tracing easier by circulating information about what the contact tracers would need to know. Then anyone who is inclined to do so can keep their own records.
And, if public health ever calls you for contact tracing, you'll be able to give them a list of the specifics they're looking for, rather than having to go through a painstaking interview full of questions you didn't even know would be on the test.
This might also help reinforce in the public consciousness exactly what kinds of contacts we need to be avoiding. If we're told "Keep track of who gets in the elevator with you for contact tracing purposes", that reinforces the idea that getting in the elevator with someone outside your household is a potential for transmission (if it is in fact a potential for transmission - I don't actually know), and maybe more people will wait for the next elevator.
Thursday, April 30, 2020
Tuesday, April 28, 2020
How to make a "serious inquiries only" online dating system
This idea was inspired by, but is only indirectly related to, #9 in Captain Awkward's It Came From The Search Terms.
A problem that exists in dating is there are some people who will misrepresent themselves as wanting a serious relationship when they're really only looking for something casual.
I have an idea for an online dating system that can prevent that, or at least be unappealing to people who are really looking for something casual.
Basically, the premise of the site/app is that you can only talk to one person at a time. It won't show you new matches until you have decided to stop being involved with your previous matches - which your previous matches will be informed of.
So, for example, suppose you find someone interesting, and you message them. They can either accept or decline to chat with you.
If they decline, you will be shown new matches.
If they accept, you will not be shown any more matches until you mark the person you messaged as "no longer interested". They will receive a notification telling them that you're not longer interested.
If they do not respond, you can retract your message to see more matches. There could also be a built-in time-out system - if you message someone and they do not respond within a given period of time, they're assumed to have declined communication, so your message is withdrawn from their inbox and the system starts showing you new matches.
"But that's completely incompatible with the way I use online dating! I want to cast a wide net and talk to multiple people at once!"
Then this system is not for you! Go forth and use any other online dating site in the world!
"But I have a very specific, very important reason why I need to be able to see new matches even though I'm still dating my original match!"
Then you can explain to the actual human being you're actually dating what your very specific, very important reason is, and since it's so important and you're so compatible that you want to retain the relationship, surely they'll understand when they get the "X is no longer interested in you" email.
A problem that exists in dating is there are some people who will misrepresent themselves as wanting a serious relationship when they're really only looking for something casual.
I have an idea for an online dating system that can prevent that, or at least be unappealing to people who are really looking for something casual.
Basically, the premise of the site/app is that you can only talk to one person at a time. It won't show you new matches until you have decided to stop being involved with your previous matches - which your previous matches will be informed of.
So, for example, suppose you find someone interesting, and you message them. They can either accept or decline to chat with you.
If they decline, you will be shown new matches.
If they accept, you will not be shown any more matches until you mark the person you messaged as "no longer interested". They will receive a notification telling them that you're not longer interested.
If they do not respond, you can retract your message to see more matches. There could also be a built-in time-out system - if you message someone and they do not respond within a given period of time, they're assumed to have declined communication, so your message is withdrawn from their inbox and the system starts showing you new matches.
"But that's completely incompatible with the way I use online dating! I want to cast a wide net and talk to multiple people at once!"
Then this system is not for you! Go forth and use any other online dating site in the world!
"But I have a very specific, very important reason why I need to be able to see new matches even though I'm still dating my original match!"
Then you can explain to the actual human being you're actually dating what your very specific, very important reason is, and since it's so important and you're so compatible that you want to retain the relationship, surely they'll understand when they get the "X is no longer interested in you" email.
The Star Wars sequel trilogy should have started earlier
The problem with the Star Wars sequel trilogy is it starts too late.
The original trilogy ends with a happily ever after. Evil is vanquished! Fireworks! Ewok dance party!
When the sequel trilogy starts, evil has already risen again, complete with armies and spaceships and an established power structure. Everything earned in the original trilogy was for naught. We didn't even get a moment to savour our happily ever after. This is emotionally unsatisfying and, as I've blogged about before, makes it practically impossible to end the sequel trilogy on an emotionally-satisfying happily every after.
This could have been avoided by starting the sequel trilogy earlier in the arc.
They could have started it the same number of years in the future - years and ages don't matter - but it should have started before evil began rising once again.
Picture this: we start in the happily ever after. The galaxy is a thriving, flourishing society. We see people living happy, prosperous lives, much like the Shire at the beginning of Lord of the Rings.
Our heroes from the original trilogy are living their best lives. Leia is in a position of power and authority. Luke is training young people (who may or may not include Ben Solo, depending on the needs of the plot) in the ways of the Force. Han is doing whatever is most convenient for the plot.
Then Ben Solo finds out something bad. Not "evil empire" bad - no war atrocities or anything - but rather peacetime bad. Corruption, insider trading, tax evasion, something like that. (Maybe Han is the perpetrator if that helps the plot?) This causes him to get disillusioned with the idealism he learned at his mother's knee, and he starts wondering if perhaps there's another way.
He goes looking for another way, gets radicalized, and begins studying the ways of the Sith.
In the process of doing this, he encounters Rey through their Force connection.
Rey is being brought up in the ways of the Sith, and she's beginning to question it. Through her Force connection with Ben, she gets a glimpse of another life. But everyone around her - and this dude with whom she apparently has a force connection now - are out to destroy it.
Adventures happen! Light sabre battles happen! Special effects make movie audiences gasp in delight! Entertaining subplots involving marketable action figure characters happen! Emotionally satisfying beats involving old favourite characters happen! The couple you're shipping kisses!
And, ultimately, evil doesn't rise. It tries to, but throughout the movies we see how the the foundation built up by the good guys in the original trilogy stops them from getting too far, and provides us with the reassurance that, even if evil tries to rise in the future, things will never again get as bad as they were at the height of the empire.
This would still let us have our Star Wars adventure, but wouldn't render everything the original trilogy earned irrelevant. And, in a universe where the benefits of the original trilogy's happily-ever-after are felt throughout our heroes' attempts to stop evil from rising, we can feel confident that any happily-ever-after that this trilogy delivers will have lasting effects.
The original trilogy ends with a happily ever after. Evil is vanquished! Fireworks! Ewok dance party!
When the sequel trilogy starts, evil has already risen again, complete with armies and spaceships and an established power structure. Everything earned in the original trilogy was for naught. We didn't even get a moment to savour our happily ever after. This is emotionally unsatisfying and, as I've blogged about before, makes it practically impossible to end the sequel trilogy on an emotionally-satisfying happily every after.
This could have been avoided by starting the sequel trilogy earlier in the arc.
They could have started it the same number of years in the future - years and ages don't matter - but it should have started before evil began rising once again.
Picture this: we start in the happily ever after. The galaxy is a thriving, flourishing society. We see people living happy, prosperous lives, much like the Shire at the beginning of Lord of the Rings.
Our heroes from the original trilogy are living their best lives. Leia is in a position of power and authority. Luke is training young people (who may or may not include Ben Solo, depending on the needs of the plot) in the ways of the Force. Han is doing whatever is most convenient for the plot.
Then Ben Solo finds out something bad. Not "evil empire" bad - no war atrocities or anything - but rather peacetime bad. Corruption, insider trading, tax evasion, something like that. (Maybe Han is the perpetrator if that helps the plot?) This causes him to get disillusioned with the idealism he learned at his mother's knee, and he starts wondering if perhaps there's another way.
He goes looking for another way, gets radicalized, and begins studying the ways of the Sith.
In the process of doing this, he encounters Rey through their Force connection.
Rey is being brought up in the ways of the Sith, and she's beginning to question it. Through her Force connection with Ben, she gets a glimpse of another life. But everyone around her - and this dude with whom she apparently has a force connection now - are out to destroy it.
Adventures happen! Light sabre battles happen! Special effects make movie audiences gasp in delight! Entertaining subplots involving marketable action figure characters happen! Emotionally satisfying beats involving old favourite characters happen! The couple you're shipping kisses!
And, ultimately, evil doesn't rise. It tries to, but throughout the movies we see how the the foundation built up by the good guys in the original trilogy stops them from getting too far, and provides us with the reassurance that, even if evil tries to rise in the future, things will never again get as bad as they were at the height of the empire.
This would still let us have our Star Wars adventure, but wouldn't render everything the original trilogy earned irrelevant. And, in a universe where the benefits of the original trilogy's happily-ever-after are felt throughout our heroes' attempts to stop evil from rising, we can feel confident that any happily-ever-after that this trilogy delivers will have lasting effects.
Saturday, April 18, 2020
A pandemic moment
After multiple unfruitful attempts to find specific items at my local supermarkets, I decided to try the big Loblaws.
Since I'm not taking the subway during the pandemic, this meant a longer walk, past Mt. Pleasant Cemetery, but the weather was nice and the sidewalk and surrounding lawn/boulevard is wide enough for proper distancing, so it was no hardship.
As I've mentioned before, I live in a high-density neighbourhood with a lot of people around. Under normal circumstances, there are easily 100 people in sight at any given moment. This has scaled back significantly during the pandemic, but there were still about a dozen people walking along the half-kilometre stretch beside the cemetery.
About halfway along, there was a guy standing stock still, staring at the cemetery. That seemed like odd behaviour, so I made a mental note to give him especially wide berth.
Then a jogger started approaching his location. He noticed her approach, and resumed walking like a regular person, taking care to give the jogger plenty of space. Good, I don't have to worry about him now.
Then the jogger stopped and stared at the cemetery. Hmm, maybe there's something there?
Then an older couple started approaching the jogger's location. She noticed them approach, and resumed jogging, taking care to give the older couple plenty of space.
Then the older couple stopped and stared at the cemetery. There must be something there!
And, as I approached, I saw what it was:
A big fat raccoon!
He was so enormously chubby that every step made him waddle, which was just adorable and hilarious as he casually wandered around the cemetery, going about his raccoon business.
The older couple watched the raccoon, pointing and laughing, then noticed me approach their location, so they resumed their walk, taking care to give me plenty of space.
Then it was my turn to stop at the optimal raccoon viewing location and watch him waddle around a bit, before moving on to make room for the next pedestrian.
***
What I love about this moment is not just that that everyone made sure to attend to the public health need for physical distancing, but also everyone acknowledged and made space for each other's utterly frivolous desire to look at the chubby raccoon.
Looking at a chubby raccoon is by no objective measure important. I grew up surrounded by some very vocal people who were, for lack of a better word, stingy about that sort of thing ("What's the big deal? It's just a raccoon!") so, even though looking at the chubby raccoon is important to me, I would never have expected other people (grown adults! strangers!) to see it that way.
Many of those people around me growing up also very vocally espoused the opinion that City People Are Rude. They don't know get to know their neighbours - sometimes don't even know their neighbours' names! They don't say hi to you on the street or even make eye contact!
None of us there walking past the cemetery that day knew each other's names or each other's business. No one spoke to each other, perhaps no one even made eye contact. I would never recognize any of the people if I encountered them on the street again.
But everyone kindly, gently, considerately made sure everyone else got a chance to look a the chubby raccoon. Everyone took their turn, everyone kept their distance, and everyone got to enjoy a brief smile in the middle of the pandemic.
***
I previously blogged my theory that small kindnesses are bigger than big kindnesses, postulating that most people will step up when it's truly important, but it's easier to be selfish and let generosity fall by the wayside when the stakes are lower.
"Caremongering" has been a buzzword lately, usually used to mean taking care of your neighbours in important ways, like getting groceries and supplies to people in need. But I find it comforting that, even in the midst what is for some of us the biggest global crisis of our lives, people can still be emotionally generous enough to take care of their neighbours in something so low-stakes as making sure everyone gets a chance to look at the chubby raccoon.
Since I'm not taking the subway during the pandemic, this meant a longer walk, past Mt. Pleasant Cemetery, but the weather was nice and the sidewalk and surrounding lawn/boulevard is wide enough for proper distancing, so it was no hardship.
As I've mentioned before, I live in a high-density neighbourhood with a lot of people around. Under normal circumstances, there are easily 100 people in sight at any given moment. This has scaled back significantly during the pandemic, but there were still about a dozen people walking along the half-kilometre stretch beside the cemetery.
About halfway along, there was a guy standing stock still, staring at the cemetery. That seemed like odd behaviour, so I made a mental note to give him especially wide berth.
Then a jogger started approaching his location. He noticed her approach, and resumed walking like a regular person, taking care to give the jogger plenty of space. Good, I don't have to worry about him now.
Then the jogger stopped and stared at the cemetery. Hmm, maybe there's something there?
Then an older couple started approaching the jogger's location. She noticed them approach, and resumed jogging, taking care to give the older couple plenty of space.
Then the older couple stopped and stared at the cemetery. There must be something there!
And, as I approached, I saw what it was:
A big fat raccoon!
He was so enormously chubby that every step made him waddle, which was just adorable and hilarious as he casually wandered around the cemetery, going about his raccoon business.
The older couple watched the raccoon, pointing and laughing, then noticed me approach their location, so they resumed their walk, taking care to give me plenty of space.
Then it was my turn to stop at the optimal raccoon viewing location and watch him waddle around a bit, before moving on to make room for the next pedestrian.
***
What I love about this moment is not just that that everyone made sure to attend to the public health need for physical distancing, but also everyone acknowledged and made space for each other's utterly frivolous desire to look at the chubby raccoon.
Looking at a chubby raccoon is by no objective measure important. I grew up surrounded by some very vocal people who were, for lack of a better word, stingy about that sort of thing ("What's the big deal? It's just a raccoon!") so, even though looking at the chubby raccoon is important to me, I would never have expected other people (grown adults! strangers!) to see it that way.
Many of those people around me growing up also very vocally espoused the opinion that City People Are Rude. They don't know get to know their neighbours - sometimes don't even know their neighbours' names! They don't say hi to you on the street or even make eye contact!
None of us there walking past the cemetery that day knew each other's names or each other's business. No one spoke to each other, perhaps no one even made eye contact. I would never recognize any of the people if I encountered them on the street again.
But everyone kindly, gently, considerately made sure everyone else got a chance to look a the chubby raccoon. Everyone took their turn, everyone kept their distance, and everyone got to enjoy a brief smile in the middle of the pandemic.
***
I previously blogged my theory that small kindnesses are bigger than big kindnesses, postulating that most people will step up when it's truly important, but it's easier to be selfish and let generosity fall by the wayside when the stakes are lower.
 |
| Chonky boi! |
Tuesday, March 31, 2020
Books read in March 2020
New:
1. Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know by Malcolm Gladwell
Reread:
1. Seduction in Death
1. Talking to Strangers: What We Should Know about the People We Don't Know by Malcolm Gladwell
Reread:
1. Seduction in Death
Sunday, March 29, 2020
The three milk pitcher trick
I've always HATED changing milk bags. It takes me less than 30 seconds, but I HATE it.
But my mommy taught me a trick that makes it far less annoying: get three milk pitchers.
There are three bags in a 4L bag of milk. When you bring the bag of milk home, immediately put each bag in a separate pitcher. Cut open one of the bags, leave the other two sitting in the fridge.
Then, when you finish a bag, you don't have to change the milk bag, you just have to cut open the bag in the next pitcher.
I know it doesn't make sense to hear me say that, but discarding the old bag and simply opening the new bag is somehow way less annoying that changing the bag.
It also means you can wash the old pitcher with your next batch of dishes, rather than getting stuck in the "If I wash it now it will take even more time to change the milk bag, but if I don't wash it now it will be gross" trap.
I never would have thought such a simple change could save so much frustration, but it totally does! Thanks, Mom!
But my mommy taught me a trick that makes it far less annoying: get three milk pitchers.
There are three bags in a 4L bag of milk. When you bring the bag of milk home, immediately put each bag in a separate pitcher. Cut open one of the bags, leave the other two sitting in the fridge.
Then, when you finish a bag, you don't have to change the milk bag, you just have to cut open the bag in the next pitcher.
I know it doesn't make sense to hear me say that, but discarding the old bag and simply opening the new bag is somehow way less annoying that changing the bag.
It also means you can wash the old pitcher with your next batch of dishes, rather than getting stuck in the "If I wash it now it will take even more time to change the milk bag, but if I don't wash it now it will be gross" trap.
I never would have thought such a simple change could save so much frustration, but it totally does! Thanks, Mom!
Saturday, March 28, 2020
Things They Should Invent: free supply delivery for self-isolating people
People who come back from travel or otherwise may have been exposed to COVID-19 are supposed to self-isolate for 14 days, without even stopping at the grocery store!
Also, grocery delivery times are multiple days!
Solution: free supply delivery for self-isolating people
You make a list, and they bring you everything on your list. Then a few days later, they bring you another delivery of whatever else you need.
To make this work, they'll need to provide people with what they actually want. Not a pre-made kit of what you theoretically should need, not a list of "basic" foods to select from. They need to actually bring people any commercially-available item they want. No test of "worthiness".
And it shouldn't be limited to just food. Maybe you need shampoo or socks or sauvignon blanc. Maybe if you're going to be working from home for two weeks, you desperately need a desk and chair. So that people maintain their self-isolation, they need to be promptly delivered whatever it is they might need, so they have no incentive to go to the store!
But how do we keep people from taking advantage of this and getting infinite free stuff?
Solution: everyone self-isolating gets a self-isolating allowance. A fairly generous amount regardless of their financial situation and ability to earn income in isolation - for argument's sake, let's say $1,000 for a 14-day self-isolation.
The self-isolation delivery service will give them up to $1,000 per person of stuff for free. At the end of the 14-day period, they get a cheque or direct deposit for any remaining balance. So if they had $500 worth of stuff delivered, they get a $500 cheque at the end. If they had $20 worth of stuff delivered, they get a $980 cheque at the end. If they had nothing delivered, they get a $1,000 cheque at the end.
If people need or want more than $1,000 worth of stuff delivered, they have to pay for the portion in excess of $1,000. So if you need some diamonds delivered to your home as soon as you get back from vacation because you're fresh out, that can totally be made to happen, you just have to pay for them.
The goal here is to remove any temptation to go out, and the way to do that is to give people whatever they would normally be going out for, without value judgement.
Also, grocery delivery times are multiple days!
Solution: free supply delivery for self-isolating people
You make a list, and they bring you everything on your list. Then a few days later, they bring you another delivery of whatever else you need.
To make this work, they'll need to provide people with what they actually want. Not a pre-made kit of what you theoretically should need, not a list of "basic" foods to select from. They need to actually bring people any commercially-available item they want. No test of "worthiness".
And it shouldn't be limited to just food. Maybe you need shampoo or socks or sauvignon blanc. Maybe if you're going to be working from home for two weeks, you desperately need a desk and chair. So that people maintain their self-isolation, they need to be promptly delivered whatever it is they might need, so they have no incentive to go to the store!
But how do we keep people from taking advantage of this and getting infinite free stuff?
Solution: everyone self-isolating gets a self-isolating allowance. A fairly generous amount regardless of their financial situation and ability to earn income in isolation - for argument's sake, let's say $1,000 for a 14-day self-isolation.
The self-isolation delivery service will give them up to $1,000 per person of stuff for free. At the end of the 14-day period, they get a cheque or direct deposit for any remaining balance. So if they had $500 worth of stuff delivered, they get a $500 cheque at the end. If they had $20 worth of stuff delivered, they get a $980 cheque at the end. If they had nothing delivered, they get a $1,000 cheque at the end.
If people need or want more than $1,000 worth of stuff delivered, they have to pay for the portion in excess of $1,000. So if you need some diamonds delivered to your home as soon as you get back from vacation because you're fresh out, that can totally be made to happen, you just have to pay for them.
The goal here is to remove any temptation to go out, and the way to do that is to give people whatever they would normally be going out for, without value judgement.
Monday, March 23, 2020
Disillusionment (Part 2)
This post contains descriptions of racism and other stereotypes.
"So," you're wondering, "you're a Harry Potter fan. Why is your big "disillusionment at discovering someone is transphobic" post about Heather Mallick rather than J.K. Rowling?"
And the answer to that is I got emotional closure on Harry Potter at the end of Book 7. All was well, I closed the book and walked away. I have no need to revisit Hogwarts - I may well go my entire life without ever looking at another Harry Potter fic, and not even notice its absence.
But there's another problem.
When it J.K. Rowling's transphobia reached my Twitter feed, people also started posting about various stereotypes contained the Harry Potter series. (The linked article is but one example - there were many examples, but I'm struggling to re-find them.)
I'm not worldly enough to have spotted these stereotypes. I'm not worldly enough to extrapolate from the examples given in these articles to spot other stereotypes.
All of which is a problem because last year, completely ignorant of all these issues, I gave Fairy Goddaughter Harry Potter for her seventh birthday.
Harry Potter is one of the fandoms I share with Fairy Goddaughter's mother (who really needs a blog nickname!). We read the books together. We were high school classmates when it began, Fairy Goddaughter's Mother was a newlywed when it ended.
In the months leading up to her seventh birthday, Fairy Goddaughter was expressing interest in the character of Hermione Granger. Who is she? Is she smart? Is she powerful? So her mother decided Fairy Goddaughter was ready, and allowed me the honour of giving Fairy Goddaughter her metaphorical Hogwarts letter.
Then I had a creative idea - literally my first creative idea since my head injury! Fairy Goddaughter should be invited to Hogwarts with an actual Hogwarts letter!
Inspired - and rejoicing in the sensation of inspiration, which I never thought I'd feel again! - I ran around the neighbourhood looking for everything I needed. Hogwarts letters are written on parchment! But it turns out real parchment doesn't look like I'd imagined. Luckily, Deserres had stationery that looked more like a Hogwarts letter than actual parchment does. Hogwarts letters are written in green calligraphy! I've tried calligraphy pens before, they just make a mess. Luckily, Deserres had these markers with slanted tips that produce writing that looks more like calligraphy than I can produce with a calligraphy pen. Hogwarts letters are delivered by owl! They don't yet have a service where you can get an actual owl to deliver a letter to a given address, so instead I ran around to every store that sells toys, looking for the closest approximation of a Hogwarts owl.
Using my green calligraphyesque marker and my parchment-emulating stationery, I wrote Fairy Goddaughter a letter about how these books have meant so much to her mother and to me, and I hope she has an equally magical time at Hogwarts.
I packed up the beautiful Harry Potter box set in a shipping box, rolled up the letter like a scroll, tucked it under the owl so it would look like the owl was holding it, and sent it off to Fairy Goddaughter, full of pride and anticipation that she gets to set off on her magical journey, and full of glee and delight that my post-head-injury brain actually thought of and implemented a creative idea.
And, completely unbeknownst to me, I was handing her a book full of harmful stereotypes that I'm not worldly enough to detect. And I have every reason to believe Fairy Goddaughter's parents aren't either. (Fairy Goddaughter's Mother and I have talked at length over the years about how our sheltered upbringing in a small town with very little diversity didn't equip us to detect things like stereotypes and racism.) And we all enthusiastically presented it as a magical happy place.
What do you do about this?? How do adults who are too sheltered to notice stereotypes learn about stereotypes in order to guide children appropriately?
In life in general, people likely become aware of stereotypes because people around them use stereotypes with a critical mass of frequency. The lack of diversity where I grew up meant I didn't have this exposure. I can't say with confidence that no one was racist (and, as I learn more about the world, I'm coming to realize that fallacies like white saviour syndrome and othering were rampant), but rather that there was no one for the racist people to be racist towards, at least not with enough frequency for us to notice patterns and develop awareness of stereotypes.
Most, if not all, of the stereotypes I've become aware of in my life have been from people pointing out examples of racism. They provide a screenshot or a link: "See, this is racist!"
And I wouldn't have been able to determine that independently, by which I mean that the racist words or images read as a sequence of nonsense to me.
For example, some 20 years after I started watching Monty Python, I learned that the embassy scene in Monty Python's Cycling Tour episode involves what I learned is called "yellowface" - racist, stereotypical depictions of Chinese people. Watching it the first time as a teenager, I didn't even realize that they were trying to depict Chinese people. I thought it was just a bunch of people in strange costumes and silly voices behaving erratically (to be expected from the comedy troupe that brought us Gumbies).
But I can't extrapolate from this to see what else might be racist. I can't even tell you with certainty that Gumbies aren't racist. (What I've read about their origin suggests that there's no racial or ethnic or stereotyping component, but I can't rule out the possibility that I'm just not seeing it.)
So how do I learn this? Do I have to go around listening to racist people, or is there another way? I do try to read books by people of a variety of races (and am always open to new recommendations), I try to pay attention and believe people when they say something is racist, but that's insufficient for me to learn what I need to know. Even though I'm reading, paying attention, listening, and believing people, the next example of racism that's pointed out to me always ends up being a completely different thing that also read to me as meaningless nonsense, that I couldn't extrapolate from previous things. I fully recognize that I need to educate myself and not put the burden on racialized people to teach me, but . . . so far it isn't working, and I don't know what else to do.
My parents would have told you that it's a good thing that I don't know anything about racism or stereotypes. And, if that were true of every single child, they would be right. If no one knew any stereotypes, there would be no such thing as stereotypes.
But the problem is that some people are targeted by stereotypes. Stereotypes are used to hurt them. So they have the burden of being hurt and of people like me not being able to see it. If no one knew any stereotypes there wouldn't be any stereotypes, but if enough people know them that they can be used to harm, then other people's ignorance exacerbates the situation.
What do we do about this?
***
As with the previous post, it's not really about me and my feelings, it's about how this fits into the system.
When I learned about the stereotypes present in Harry Potter, I found myself wondering why the editor didn't remove them. J.K. Rowling wasn't famous when she wrote the first book, I doubt she would have had the clout to reject a "Dude, this looks really racist!" edit.
But . . . what if the editor was in the same position as me? In my own job I'm sometimes called upon to edit, and I don't know many stereotypes. Have I inadvertently let some through???
My own anti-racism education was, as you can see, insufficient. It was a topic in school around Grade 9 I think, and it didn't do anything. There was some "stereotypes are bad", and we sat there and agreed "Yes, stereotypes are bad!" but never gained the ability to recognize stereotypes when being used by other people.
One of the examples of stereotypes used was the notion that Polish people are stupid. My own mother was born in Poland . . . and I had never heard of this stereotype! My Polish relatives are intelligent, classy people, my non-Polish relatives are less so, and I'd never heard another human being express an opinion on Polishness. I managed to grow up without even being exposed to stereotypes about my own ethnicity!
And because I'd never been exposed to this stereotype (or any of the others used as examples), it sort of reinforced in myself (and, likely, my classmates) the idea that stereotypes are Other - not something that happens in real life, not something that we'll ever encounter.
So the problem reinforces and feeds on itself. People like me who grow up sheltered aren't exposed to stereotypes, which gets in the way of teaching us about stereotypes, which leaves us oblivious and useless to people who are harmed by stereotypes.
What do we even do about this?
And then there's the fact that I love buying books for children. Even though I don't celebrate xmas myself, it's the occasion when I most often get to see my baby cousins, so I delight in going to Mabel's Fables, picking out books for each child, wrapping them paper shiny enough to make a child believe the package must contain magic . . . and, all this time, how many stereotypes have I unknowingly placed in their innocent hands? Thereby normalizing the stereotypes without any of us even realizing it, and perpetuating the cycle for another generation?
"So," you're wondering, "you're a Harry Potter fan. Why is your big "disillusionment at discovering someone is transphobic" post about Heather Mallick rather than J.K. Rowling?"
And the answer to that is I got emotional closure on Harry Potter at the end of Book 7. All was well, I closed the book and walked away. I have no need to revisit Hogwarts - I may well go my entire life without ever looking at another Harry Potter fic, and not even notice its absence.
But there's another problem.
When it J.K. Rowling's transphobia reached my Twitter feed, people also started posting about various stereotypes contained the Harry Potter series. (The linked article is but one example - there were many examples, but I'm struggling to re-find them.)
I'm not worldly enough to have spotted these stereotypes. I'm not worldly enough to extrapolate from the examples given in these articles to spot other stereotypes.
All of which is a problem because last year, completely ignorant of all these issues, I gave Fairy Goddaughter Harry Potter for her seventh birthday.
Harry Potter is one of the fandoms I share with Fairy Goddaughter's mother (who really needs a blog nickname!). We read the books together. We were high school classmates when it began, Fairy Goddaughter's Mother was a newlywed when it ended.
In the months leading up to her seventh birthday, Fairy Goddaughter was expressing interest in the character of Hermione Granger. Who is she? Is she smart? Is she powerful? So her mother decided Fairy Goddaughter was ready, and allowed me the honour of giving Fairy Goddaughter her metaphorical Hogwarts letter.
Then I had a creative idea - literally my first creative idea since my head injury! Fairy Goddaughter should be invited to Hogwarts with an actual Hogwarts letter!
Inspired - and rejoicing in the sensation of inspiration, which I never thought I'd feel again! - I ran around the neighbourhood looking for everything I needed. Hogwarts letters are written on parchment! But it turns out real parchment doesn't look like I'd imagined. Luckily, Deserres had stationery that looked more like a Hogwarts letter than actual parchment does. Hogwarts letters are written in green calligraphy! I've tried calligraphy pens before, they just make a mess. Luckily, Deserres had these markers with slanted tips that produce writing that looks more like calligraphy than I can produce with a calligraphy pen. Hogwarts letters are delivered by owl! They don't yet have a service where you can get an actual owl to deliver a letter to a given address, so instead I ran around to every store that sells toys, looking for the closest approximation of a Hogwarts owl.
Using my green calligraphyesque marker and my parchment-emulating stationery, I wrote Fairy Goddaughter a letter about how these books have meant so much to her mother and to me, and I hope she has an equally magical time at Hogwarts.
I packed up the beautiful Harry Potter box set in a shipping box, rolled up the letter like a scroll, tucked it under the owl so it would look like the owl was holding it, and sent it off to Fairy Goddaughter, full of pride and anticipation that she gets to set off on her magical journey, and full of glee and delight that my post-head-injury brain actually thought of and implemented a creative idea.
And, completely unbeknownst to me, I was handing her a book full of harmful stereotypes that I'm not worldly enough to detect. And I have every reason to believe Fairy Goddaughter's parents aren't either. (Fairy Goddaughter's Mother and I have talked at length over the years about how our sheltered upbringing in a small town with very little diversity didn't equip us to detect things like stereotypes and racism.) And we all enthusiastically presented it as a magical happy place.
What do you do about this?? How do adults who are too sheltered to notice stereotypes learn about stereotypes in order to guide children appropriately?
In life in general, people likely become aware of stereotypes because people around them use stereotypes with a critical mass of frequency. The lack of diversity where I grew up meant I didn't have this exposure. I can't say with confidence that no one was racist (and, as I learn more about the world, I'm coming to realize that fallacies like white saviour syndrome and othering were rampant), but rather that there was no one for the racist people to be racist towards, at least not with enough frequency for us to notice patterns and develop awareness of stereotypes.
Most, if not all, of the stereotypes I've become aware of in my life have been from people pointing out examples of racism. They provide a screenshot or a link: "See, this is racist!"
And I wouldn't have been able to determine that independently, by which I mean that the racist words or images read as a sequence of nonsense to me.
For example, some 20 years after I started watching Monty Python, I learned that the embassy scene in Monty Python's Cycling Tour episode involves what I learned is called "yellowface" - racist, stereotypical depictions of Chinese people. Watching it the first time as a teenager, I didn't even realize that they were trying to depict Chinese people. I thought it was just a bunch of people in strange costumes and silly voices behaving erratically (to be expected from the comedy troupe that brought us Gumbies).
But I can't extrapolate from this to see what else might be racist. I can't even tell you with certainty that Gumbies aren't racist. (What I've read about their origin suggests that there's no racial or ethnic or stereotyping component, but I can't rule out the possibility that I'm just not seeing it.)
So how do I learn this? Do I have to go around listening to racist people, or is there another way? I do try to read books by people of a variety of races (and am always open to new recommendations), I try to pay attention and believe people when they say something is racist, but that's insufficient for me to learn what I need to know. Even though I'm reading, paying attention, listening, and believing people, the next example of racism that's pointed out to me always ends up being a completely different thing that also read to me as meaningless nonsense, that I couldn't extrapolate from previous things. I fully recognize that I need to educate myself and not put the burden on racialized people to teach me, but . . . so far it isn't working, and I don't know what else to do.
My parents would have told you that it's a good thing that I don't know anything about racism or stereotypes. And, if that were true of every single child, they would be right. If no one knew any stereotypes, there would be no such thing as stereotypes.
But the problem is that some people are targeted by stereotypes. Stereotypes are used to hurt them. So they have the burden of being hurt and of people like me not being able to see it. If no one knew any stereotypes there wouldn't be any stereotypes, but if enough people know them that they can be used to harm, then other people's ignorance exacerbates the situation.
What do we do about this?
***
As with the previous post, it's not really about me and my feelings, it's about how this fits into the system.
When I learned about the stereotypes present in Harry Potter, I found myself wondering why the editor didn't remove them. J.K. Rowling wasn't famous when she wrote the first book, I doubt she would have had the clout to reject a "Dude, this looks really racist!" edit.
But . . . what if the editor was in the same position as me? In my own job I'm sometimes called upon to edit, and I don't know many stereotypes. Have I inadvertently let some through???
My own anti-racism education was, as you can see, insufficient. It was a topic in school around Grade 9 I think, and it didn't do anything. There was some "stereotypes are bad", and we sat there and agreed "Yes, stereotypes are bad!" but never gained the ability to recognize stereotypes when being used by other people.
One of the examples of stereotypes used was the notion that Polish people are stupid. My own mother was born in Poland . . . and I had never heard of this stereotype! My Polish relatives are intelligent, classy people, my non-Polish relatives are less so, and I'd never heard another human being express an opinion on Polishness. I managed to grow up without even being exposed to stereotypes about my own ethnicity!
And because I'd never been exposed to this stereotype (or any of the others used as examples), it sort of reinforced in myself (and, likely, my classmates) the idea that stereotypes are Other - not something that happens in real life, not something that we'll ever encounter.
So the problem reinforces and feeds on itself. People like me who grow up sheltered aren't exposed to stereotypes, which gets in the way of teaching us about stereotypes, which leaves us oblivious and useless to people who are harmed by stereotypes.
What do we even do about this?
And then there's the fact that I love buying books for children. Even though I don't celebrate xmas myself, it's the occasion when I most often get to see my baby cousins, so I delight in going to Mabel's Fables, picking out books for each child, wrapping them paper shiny enough to make a child believe the package must contain magic . . . and, all this time, how many stereotypes have I unknowingly placed in their innocent hands? Thereby normalizing the stereotypes without any of us even realizing it, and perpetuating the cycle for another generation?
Sunday, March 15, 2020
A self-psychology exercise
In the aftermath of my head injury, I stumbled upon a self-psychology technique that may be useful to some people struggling with social distancing. This isn't helpful to everyone, but I'm sharing it here for anyone who can use it.
Many people find themselves from time to time imagining what life would be like if they didn't have to go to work/school today, or at all. If they could do whatever they wanted today, or in life in general. For example, you might think about how nice it would be to have a snow day like when you were a kid. Or, in the aftermath of my head injury, I often thought about how nice it would be to be retired like my parents.
Now, I'm not suggesting that a pandemic is a snow day! But they do, from time to time, have some moments of similarity.
So when you notice one of these moments of similarity, simply take note of it. Simply pause and say to yourself "If I could do whatever whatever I wanted today, I'd be doing exactly this."
Waking up naturally rather than to an alarm? That's a moment! Playing peek-a-boo and making your baby giggle? That's a moment! Putting your feet up and tuning into your favourite TV show? That's a moment!
I know, it sounds like I'm leading up to trying to convince you that quarantine is exactly like retirement and that you should feel grateful.
But that's not what I'm trying to do here. I know full well that this will vary widely from person to person, and that people who chafe at the idea of staying home likely have a very different vision of what they'd be doing in retirement. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel anything or to change your emotions.
I'm just saying, when you have a moment, take note of it. No emotions required. You don't have to feel grateful for the moment, you don't have to savour the moment, you don't have to stop feeling any negative feelings that you might be having about the pandemic or about any other aspect of life.
Simply note to yourself: "Right at this exact moment, I am doing exactly what I would be if I could do whatever I want."
Some people will find that comforting. If it turns out you find it comforting, it may help you get through this. If doesn't add to your comfort, no harm done. (If it takes away from your comfort, you can totally stop whenever you want.)
Some people will find that there are more moments than they expected. If it turns out you do, it may help you get through this. If you don't experience many moments, no harm done - this exercise simply won't take up your headspace, you can rejoice in your self-knowledge, and life will proceed exactly as if you'd never read this.
In my head injury aftermath, this could press pause on a despair spiral. EVERYTHING IS A HELLSCAPE!!!!!!...but this shower is nice, and there's literally nothing else I'd rather be right this exact moment. And, for at least the duration of that shower, everything wasn't a hellscape. It got me through the next hour or so.
The next few weeks are going to be about getting through the hours. Maybe this will help some people get through some of those hours.
Many people find themselves from time to time imagining what life would be like if they didn't have to go to work/school today, or at all. If they could do whatever they wanted today, or in life in general. For example, you might think about how nice it would be to have a snow day like when you were a kid. Or, in the aftermath of my head injury, I often thought about how nice it would be to be retired like my parents.
Now, I'm not suggesting that a pandemic is a snow day! But they do, from time to time, have some moments of similarity.
So when you notice one of these moments of similarity, simply take note of it. Simply pause and say to yourself "If I could do whatever whatever I wanted today, I'd be doing exactly this."
Waking up naturally rather than to an alarm? That's a moment! Playing peek-a-boo and making your baby giggle? That's a moment! Putting your feet up and tuning into your favourite TV show? That's a moment!
I know, it sounds like I'm leading up to trying to convince you that quarantine is exactly like retirement and that you should feel grateful.
But that's not what I'm trying to do here. I know full well that this will vary widely from person to person, and that people who chafe at the idea of staying home likely have a very different vision of what they'd be doing in retirement. And I'm not trying to convince you to feel anything or to change your emotions.
I'm just saying, when you have a moment, take note of it. No emotions required. You don't have to feel grateful for the moment, you don't have to savour the moment, you don't have to stop feeling any negative feelings that you might be having about the pandemic or about any other aspect of life.
Simply note to yourself: "Right at this exact moment, I am doing exactly what I would be if I could do whatever I want."
Some people will find that comforting. If it turns out you find it comforting, it may help you get through this. If doesn't add to your comfort, no harm done. (If it takes away from your comfort, you can totally stop whenever you want.)
Some people will find that there are more moments than they expected. If it turns out you do, it may help you get through this. If you don't experience many moments, no harm done - this exercise simply won't take up your headspace, you can rejoice in your self-knowledge, and life will proceed exactly as if you'd never read this.
In my head injury aftermath, this could press pause on a despair spiral. EVERYTHING IS A HELLSCAPE!!!!!!...but this shower is nice, and there's literally nothing else I'd rather be right this exact moment. And, for at least the duration of that shower, everything wasn't a hellscape. It got me through the next hour or so.
The next few weeks are going to be about getting through the hours. Maybe this will help some people get through some of those hours.
Saturday, February 29, 2020
Books read in February 2020
New:
1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
2. Black Leopard, Red Wolf by Marlon James
3. Indigenous Relations: Insights, Tips & Suggestions to Make Reconciliation a Reality by Bob Joseph with Cynthia P. Joseph
Reread:
1. Betrayal in Death
2. Interlude in Death
1. Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari
2. Black Leopard, Red Wolf by Marlon James
3. Indigenous Relations: Insights, Tips & Suggestions to Make Reconciliation a Reality by Bob Joseph with Cynthia P. Joseph
Reread:
1. Betrayal in Death
2. Interlude in Death
Sunday, February 23, 2020
Star Trek, colonialism and idealism: a braindump
What appealed to me about Star Trek as a kid was seeing a variety of different people all working together professionally, respecting each other's competence and intellect. In a middle-school world where I was ostracized for difference, competence and intellect, that's exactly what I wanted to be when I grew up, even though it seemed utterly impossible.
TNG ended when I was 13 and I wasn't yet ready for Voyager or DS9, so I took a break from Star Trek. In the meantime, I learned and grew. The world around me learned and grew. I learned and grew from the learning and growing world around me. I finished middle school, high school, university, and had the extreme good fortune to end up in a place where a variety of different people all work together professionally, respecting each other's competence and intellect.
Eventually, well-established in this adulthood that my middle-school self never dared dream of, I settled in for a nice cozy re-watch of Star Trek . . . and came to the realization that it's awfully colonialist.
I mean, that's obvious in hindsight - they're literally colonizing places! The initial premise was "wagon train to the stars"! - but I didn't spot it as a kid because I was born into a colonialist society, my very origin story is one of colonization. I was like a fish who didn't know what water was.
But I'd learned and I'd grown, and as an adult I could see it. Every line about how humanity is special made me cringe at how presumptuous and oblivious all my faves were.
Star Trek: Discovery premiered in 2017, when reconciliation was the buzzword of the moment here in Canada. At the time, I tweeted that I hoped Discovery would address Star Trek's colonialism problem.
Discovery has been less colonialist than 20th-century Star Trek (at least, that's what I perceive as I swim around here in the ocean trying to detect signs of water), but things have gotten especially interesting with Picard.
Jean-Luc Picard became disillusioned with Starfleet and resigned when they fail to live up to their lofty ideals, sacrificing vulnerable people they define as expendable, closing ranks in a time of crisis, turning away refugees.
The systems and structures of the Federation, which he'd always believed in, which he'd always seen as forces for good, which had always served him well and uplifted him, were being used to do harm. And had been for longer and more deeply than he'd realized.
Which reminds me very much of some of the things I'd learned about once I started reading for reconciliation!
Another interesting thing about Picard is they're talking about money. Raffi comments on how Picard is living in a chateau on his family's estate while she lives in what looks like a trailer in the middle of a desert, suggesting that, even though the Star Trek universe has heretofore claimed to have transcended money, hereditary wealth might still have some impact on people's lives of which our privileged Starfleet officers have been ignorant.
Which reminded me of how people talked about money when I was a kid.
Around the age when I was first watching Star Trek, I got constant lectures from my father that all you have to do is go to school, get an education, get a job, work hard, and you'll have money. If you're poor or *gasp* have to go on welfare, my father's lectures went, it's obviously because you aren't working hard enough or being diligent enough.
When I entered the workforce, I came to realize it wasn't that simple. And then, when I read Thomas Piketty, I further learned that the economic context in which my father had the experiences that led him to develop these ideas was fleeting and historically unprecedented. He was a fish in an aquarium, being fed regularly by his keepers, lecturing ocean fish on how to get food and avoid being caught in nets.
He was saying it's basically a solved problem, all you have to do is follow the system, but in reality he happened to be born in one of the rare niches where the system worked. As, we're coming to realize, was Jean-Luc Picard.
Some people have criticized 21st-century Star Trek for not having the idealism of 20th-century Star Trek.
But the fact of the matter is, in a world where we've had our consciousnesses raised to the notion of reconciliation and then watched it be sacrificed on the altar of short-sightedness, a wagon train to the stars isn't going to cut it any more.
But here comes Jean-Luc Picard.
He has become disillusioned with the harm that has been done by the systems and structures he'd always believed in, the very systems and structures from which he drew all his power and authority and expertise. He has come to realize that the economy into which he was born does not serve everyone as well as it serves him.
And he's out to right wrongs.
Yes, I do realize right now he thinks he's just on a simple rescue mission. Yes, I do realize that I shouldn't get my hopes up.
But right now, right this minute as I type this, given what has happened so far and given what still remains up in the air (and, on a meta level, given the fact that the series has already been renewed for a second season) Jean-Luc Picard could maybe, just maybe, dedicate himself to fixing this shit.
He's become aware of the ways the systems and structures and economy he came up in have been used to harm others even as they've served him well. He's in possession of the power and authority and expertise and wealth that he accrued through these systems and structures, and he's using it to right wrongs. Maybe, just maybe, once Soji is safe, he'll take on the bigger challenge of righting wrongs by fixing the systems and structures, so no more harm is done, so we have a universe that truly serves everyone well, and we can once again sincerely imagine an idealistic future.
Which is exactly what I want to be when I grow up, even though it seems utterly impossible.
TNG ended when I was 13 and I wasn't yet ready for Voyager or DS9, so I took a break from Star Trek. In the meantime, I learned and grew. The world around me learned and grew. I learned and grew from the learning and growing world around me. I finished middle school, high school, university, and had the extreme good fortune to end up in a place where a variety of different people all work together professionally, respecting each other's competence and intellect.
Eventually, well-established in this adulthood that my middle-school self never dared dream of, I settled in for a nice cozy re-watch of Star Trek . . . and came to the realization that it's awfully colonialist.
I mean, that's obvious in hindsight - they're literally colonizing places! The initial premise was "wagon train to the stars"! - but I didn't spot it as a kid because I was born into a colonialist society, my very origin story is one of colonization. I was like a fish who didn't know what water was.
But I'd learned and I'd grown, and as an adult I could see it. Every line about how humanity is special made me cringe at how presumptuous and oblivious all my faves were.
Star Trek: Discovery premiered in 2017, when reconciliation was the buzzword of the moment here in Canada. At the time, I tweeted that I hoped Discovery would address Star Trek's colonialism problem.
Discovery has been less colonialist than 20th-century Star Trek (at least, that's what I perceive as I swim around here in the ocean trying to detect signs of water), but things have gotten especially interesting with Picard.
Jean-Luc Picard became disillusioned with Starfleet and resigned when they fail to live up to their lofty ideals, sacrificing vulnerable people they define as expendable, closing ranks in a time of crisis, turning away refugees.
The systems and structures of the Federation, which he'd always believed in, which he'd always seen as forces for good, which had always served him well and uplifted him, were being used to do harm. And had been for longer and more deeply than he'd realized.
Which reminds me very much of some of the things I'd learned about once I started reading for reconciliation!
Another interesting thing about Picard is they're talking about money. Raffi comments on how Picard is living in a chateau on his family's estate while she lives in what looks like a trailer in the middle of a desert, suggesting that, even though the Star Trek universe has heretofore claimed to have transcended money, hereditary wealth might still have some impact on people's lives of which our privileged Starfleet officers have been ignorant.
Which reminded me of how people talked about money when I was a kid.
Around the age when I was first watching Star Trek, I got constant lectures from my father that all you have to do is go to school, get an education, get a job, work hard, and you'll have money. If you're poor or *gasp* have to go on welfare, my father's lectures went, it's obviously because you aren't working hard enough or being diligent enough.
When I entered the workforce, I came to realize it wasn't that simple. And then, when I read Thomas Piketty, I further learned that the economic context in which my father had the experiences that led him to develop these ideas was fleeting and historically unprecedented. He was a fish in an aquarium, being fed regularly by his keepers, lecturing ocean fish on how to get food and avoid being caught in nets.
He was saying it's basically a solved problem, all you have to do is follow the system, but in reality he happened to be born in one of the rare niches where the system worked. As, we're coming to realize, was Jean-Luc Picard.
Some people have criticized 21st-century Star Trek for not having the idealism of 20th-century Star Trek.
But the fact of the matter is, in a world where we've had our consciousnesses raised to the notion of reconciliation and then watched it be sacrificed on the altar of short-sightedness, a wagon train to the stars isn't going to cut it any more.
But here comes Jean-Luc Picard.
He has become disillusioned with the harm that has been done by the systems and structures he'd always believed in, the very systems and structures from which he drew all his power and authority and expertise. He has come to realize that the economy into which he was born does not serve everyone as well as it serves him.
And he's out to right wrongs.
Yes, I do realize right now he thinks he's just on a simple rescue mission. Yes, I do realize that I shouldn't get my hopes up.
But right now, right this minute as I type this, given what has happened so far and given what still remains up in the air (and, on a meta level, given the fact that the series has already been renewed for a second season) Jean-Luc Picard could maybe, just maybe, dedicate himself to fixing this shit.
He's become aware of the ways the systems and structures and economy he came up in have been used to harm others even as they've served him well. He's in possession of the power and authority and expertise and wealth that he accrued through these systems and structures, and he's using it to right wrongs. Maybe, just maybe, once Soji is safe, he'll take on the bigger challenge of righting wrongs by fixing the systems and structures, so no more harm is done, so we have a universe that truly serves everyone well, and we can once again sincerely imagine an idealistic future.
Which is exactly what I want to be when I grow up, even though it seems utterly impossible.
Sunday, January 12, 2020
Disillusionment (Part 1)
This post contains descriptions of transphobia.
I never really thought about transgender before I became an Eddie Izzard fan.
I'm not transgender myself, my formal and informal education didn't include notions surrounding transgender, I didn't knowingly know any trans people, I'd never had to translate about anything remotely related to transgender . . . it was just one of the many subjects that wasn't on my radar.
Then, nearly 13 years ago, a google search took me to an Eddie Izzard video, which took me down a youtube rabbithole, which led me to my very first hero, role model, and inspiration. Eddie gave me a huge portion of what I needed to grow up from an insecure, uncertain young woman to a more confident, more competent middle-aged woman.
And, along the way, got me thinking about transgender.
I listened to what Eddie had to say in standup and in interviews about gender identity, googled some concepts that were new to me, and then let the ideas gently simmer while I went about the business of growing up.
As these ideas simmered, some realizations bubbled up.
I came to be able to discern my own gender identity, as separate from biology and socialization.
I came to recognize thoughts and feelings and reactions dating back to childhood that support this.
I came to see parallels between some of the experiences of trans people and some of my own experiences, which led me to stop seeing trans people as Other and start seeing them as people basically doing the same thing as I am, just from a slightly different starting point.
I became aware of trans people in my online and real-life communities.
I became aware that I should be listening and learning when people talk about their firsthand experiences, rather than boldly opining.
I became aware of non-binary, of ways to write and ways to make policy that are all-inclusive, not just masculine or feminine.
By the time transgender came up in my translations, I had a general idea of potential linguistic pitfalls and what I should verify with reliable sources, and was able to guide my colleagues accordingly.
Politically, I've become increasingly aware of how policies I'd previously thought innocuous (and sometimes didn't even recognize as policies - I just thought "that's the way the world is"!) could cause disproportionate harm to trans and non-binary people.
And, most importantly, I've learned to listen to and believe trans and non-binary people (and other marginalized groups) rather than thinking I need to be an expert myself.
I'm still very much in the listening and learning phase of my journey (since my starting point was zero, I've had a lot of catching up to do!), but I've been slowly and surely becoming more and more informed since that fateful google 13 years ago pointed me towards the path I need to be on. It's been a gradual, painless meander in the general direction of the right side of history.
And that's why I'm both baffled and gutted by Heather Mallick's recent column, in which she describes a transphobic talk as "a feminist event", describes the trans women who were protesting the talk as "enraged men", and parallels these trans women with the perpetrator of the Montreal Massacre.
You see, that google 13 years ago that brought me to Eddie Izzard was inspired by Heather Mallick's writing. Her book title and her Eddie Izzard fandom brought me to Eddie, which changed every aspect of my inner life for the better, including setting me on my journey from being completely ignorant of transgender to being less and less assholic.
I have been very grateful to Heather for this ever since. I even considered walking up to her at an Eddie Izzard show (I recognized her from her column headshot) and thanking her for introducing me to Eddie's work, but I wasn't confident that I could do so without coming across as creepy.
And now I feel disgusted with myself for having - for years! - carried around positive feelings about someone who could say such horrible things.
And I'm also completely baffled that someone could start at the same starting point as me - could, in fact, direct me to the starting point when I didn't know where it was - and then head in exactly the opposite direction.
And then I'm wondering if, because this was my starting point, I might somehow unknowingly be transphobic myself???
What do you even do with this???
***
That was an awful lot of hundreds of words about my own feelings - what with this being a personal blog and all - but the real problem here is not about me at all.
The real problem is that this is a column in a high-circulation newspaper.
Newspapers are tools of information, so they have to be particularly mindful of serving the ignorant.
Having a columnist who is transphobic but somehow comes across to ignorant people (like me) as an ally of trans people is a disservice to ignorant readers. It exacerbates my ignorance. In fact, it conceals my ignorance from me, which is the exact opposite of what I need my newspaper to be doing - I need my newspaper to be enlightening me about areas where I didn't even know I was ignorant!
I can't tell if, when the Star hired Heather Mallick, they thought (as I foolishly did at the time) that she was a trans ally, or if they could tell that she wasn't and hired her anyway, or if they didn't care.
If they could tell or if they didn't care, they need to smarten up!
And if the Star was under the same mistaken impression I was, they need to find people who saw it coming.
As I've been picking through my emotions and slowly piecing them together into a blog post, it also came out that J.K. Rowling is transphobic, and it came to my attention that people have been flagging this for years. (I must start following some of them on Twitter!)
There must have also been people who could see years ago that Heather Mallick was transphobic, even back when I still thought she was an ally. The Star should consult with them when hiring people to write their columns.
Or, better yet, find some trans people who saw it coming and hire them to write columns!
I became aware of this protest, and of the nature of the speaker being protested, because of the trans people and allies I follow on Twitter. Similar things happen as I follow disabled people, and people of different races, and people from different countries, and people who speak different languages. As people talk about whatever's on their mind, information of which I was previously ignorant effortlessly reaches me, and the path towards the right side of history becomes just a touch clearer to me.
The Toronto Star, as a tool of information, should also be serving this function. It should be finding the voices that historically haven't reached its readers - especially readers who are ignorant like me - and putting those voices right where they will reach us effortlessly, nudging us away from our ignorance and in the general direction of the right side of history.
I never really thought about transgender before I became an Eddie Izzard fan.
I'm not transgender myself, my formal and informal education didn't include notions surrounding transgender, I didn't knowingly know any trans people, I'd never had to translate about anything remotely related to transgender . . . it was just one of the many subjects that wasn't on my radar.
Then, nearly 13 years ago, a google search took me to an Eddie Izzard video, which took me down a youtube rabbithole, which led me to my very first hero, role model, and inspiration. Eddie gave me a huge portion of what I needed to grow up from an insecure, uncertain young woman to a more confident, more competent middle-aged woman.
And, along the way, got me thinking about transgender.
I listened to what Eddie had to say in standup and in interviews about gender identity, googled some concepts that were new to me, and then let the ideas gently simmer while I went about the business of growing up.
As these ideas simmered, some realizations bubbled up.
I came to be able to discern my own gender identity, as separate from biology and socialization.
I came to recognize thoughts and feelings and reactions dating back to childhood that support this.
I came to see parallels between some of the experiences of trans people and some of my own experiences, which led me to stop seeing trans people as Other and start seeing them as people basically doing the same thing as I am, just from a slightly different starting point.
I became aware of trans people in my online and real-life communities.
I became aware that I should be listening and learning when people talk about their firsthand experiences, rather than boldly opining.
I became aware of non-binary, of ways to write and ways to make policy that are all-inclusive, not just masculine or feminine.
By the time transgender came up in my translations, I had a general idea of potential linguistic pitfalls and what I should verify with reliable sources, and was able to guide my colleagues accordingly.
Politically, I've become increasingly aware of how policies I'd previously thought innocuous (and sometimes didn't even recognize as policies - I just thought "that's the way the world is"!) could cause disproportionate harm to trans and non-binary people.
And, most importantly, I've learned to listen to and believe trans and non-binary people (and other marginalized groups) rather than thinking I need to be an expert myself.
I'm still very much in the listening and learning phase of my journey (since my starting point was zero, I've had a lot of catching up to do!), but I've been slowly and surely becoming more and more informed since that fateful google 13 years ago pointed me towards the path I need to be on. It's been a gradual, painless meander in the general direction of the right side of history.
And that's why I'm both baffled and gutted by Heather Mallick's recent column, in which she describes a transphobic talk as "a feminist event", describes the trans women who were protesting the talk as "enraged men", and parallels these trans women with the perpetrator of the Montreal Massacre.
You see, that google 13 years ago that brought me to Eddie Izzard was inspired by Heather Mallick's writing. Her book title and her Eddie Izzard fandom brought me to Eddie, which changed every aspect of my inner life for the better, including setting me on my journey from being completely ignorant of transgender to being less and less assholic.
I have been very grateful to Heather for this ever since. I even considered walking up to her at an Eddie Izzard show (I recognized her from her column headshot) and thanking her for introducing me to Eddie's work, but I wasn't confident that I could do so without coming across as creepy.
And now I feel disgusted with myself for having - for years! - carried around positive feelings about someone who could say such horrible things.
And I'm also completely baffled that someone could start at the same starting point as me - could, in fact, direct me to the starting point when I didn't know where it was - and then head in exactly the opposite direction.
And then I'm wondering if, because this was my starting point, I might somehow unknowingly be transphobic myself???
What do you even do with this???
***
That was an awful lot of hundreds of words about my own feelings - what with this being a personal blog and all - but the real problem here is not about me at all.
The real problem is that this is a column in a high-circulation newspaper.
Newspapers are tools of information, so they have to be particularly mindful of serving the ignorant.
Having a columnist who is transphobic but somehow comes across to ignorant people (like me) as an ally of trans people is a disservice to ignorant readers. It exacerbates my ignorance. In fact, it conceals my ignorance from me, which is the exact opposite of what I need my newspaper to be doing - I need my newspaper to be enlightening me about areas where I didn't even know I was ignorant!
I can't tell if, when the Star hired Heather Mallick, they thought (as I foolishly did at the time) that she was a trans ally, or if they could tell that she wasn't and hired her anyway, or if they didn't care.
If they could tell or if they didn't care, they need to smarten up!
And if the Star was under the same mistaken impression I was, they need to find people who saw it coming.
As I've been picking through my emotions and slowly piecing them together into a blog post, it also came out that J.K. Rowling is transphobic, and it came to my attention that people have been flagging this for years. (I must start following some of them on Twitter!)
There must have also been people who could see years ago that Heather Mallick was transphobic, even back when I still thought she was an ally. The Star should consult with them when hiring people to write their columns.
Or, better yet, find some trans people who saw it coming and hire them to write columns!
I became aware of this protest, and of the nature of the speaker being protested, because of the trans people and allies I follow on Twitter. Similar things happen as I follow disabled people, and people of different races, and people from different countries, and people who speak different languages. As people talk about whatever's on their mind, information of which I was previously ignorant effortlessly reaches me, and the path towards the right side of history becomes just a touch clearer to me.
The Toronto Star, as a tool of information, should also be serving this function. It should be finding the voices that historically haven't reached its readers - especially readers who are ignorant like me - and putting those voices right where they will reach us effortlessly, nudging us away from our ignorance and in the general direction of the right side of history.
Saturday, January 11, 2020
Breathe Right nasal strips for a runny nose: effective but messy
I have some serious and complex blog posts I'm working on that were stymied first by xmas, then by an annoying cold/virus thing that left me unable to do anything but drink tea while wrapped in blankets for over a week.
But, during the course of my cold/virus thingy, I finally had the opportunity to try a sample of Breathe Right nasal strips that I'd received ages ago. I was skeptical that they'd work for a cold, but I was too congested to sleep and I don't like taking decongestant (makes me wake up with my mouth painfully dry. So I decided to give them a try.
Surprisingly, they helped! They opened my nose by just a tiny amount, but it was enough to let me breathe well enough to fall asleep without decongestant.
The downside: if you have a really runny nose and you open it up wider, more snot comes out! I woke up looking like a toddler who doesn't know how to wipe their nose!
I found this worthwhile, but other people might not.
I also developed an enormous cystic zit in the tip of my nose after using the Breathe Right strip. I can't tell if this was just coincidence (I tend to get more acne when my immune system is working on something) or if they actually exacerbate acne.
I will be trying them again next time I'm congested enough that it hinders sleep.
But, during the course of my cold/virus thingy, I finally had the opportunity to try a sample of Breathe Right nasal strips that I'd received ages ago. I was skeptical that they'd work for a cold, but I was too congested to sleep and I don't like taking decongestant (makes me wake up with my mouth painfully dry. So I decided to give them a try.
Surprisingly, they helped! They opened my nose by just a tiny amount, but it was enough to let me breathe well enough to fall asleep without decongestant.
The downside: if you have a really runny nose and you open it up wider, more snot comes out! I woke up looking like a toddler who doesn't know how to wipe their nose!
I found this worthwhile, but other people might not.
I also developed an enormous cystic zit in the tip of my nose after using the Breathe Right strip. I can't tell if this was just coincidence (I tend to get more acne when my immune system is working on something) or if they actually exacerbate acne.
I will be trying them again next time I'm congested enough that it hinders sleep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)