Flaws in my antiracism education: educating us like children rather than future adults

If I'm talking to one of the adults who was around when I was a kid and I mention one of my racism-related shortcomings, such as the fact that I was blithely ignorant of the racist tropes contained in the media I was consuming, their response is invariably "But you were just a kid!"

 

Yes, I was just a kid. 

And now I'm not. Now I'm a middle-aged adult. A middle-aged adult who's woefully inadequate at even spotting racism, to say nothing of countering racism. 

 

And, as a middle-aged adult who's established in my profession and my community, I have (or am perceived to have) a certain amount of influence. I have no actual authority, but I can sometimes set the tone. If I say "This is a problem we should do something about," I tend to get listened to, insofar as even if they opt not to address the problem, they take seriously the fact that I see a problem. 

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to racism, I am currently too ignorant to reliably see the problems. Even though I'm trying to do the work and learn about problems that exist and what I can do about them, I haven't yet developed the ability to extrapolate from what I've learned and identify other problems that I haven't specifically read about or been told about.

If my antiracism education had led me to start thinking along these lines, maybe I'd be better at it. Maybe by the time I'd aged into the privilege and influence that comes with being an established middle-aged adult, I'd have been thinking about it for longer and have come up with some clue about how to actually make use of that privilege and influence.

My other posts in this series have been entitled "flaws in my education". This one is entitled "flaws in my antiracism education", because the other aspects of my education did in fact assume that I personally and my peers in general would eventually be in positions of authority or influence. 

 

"Leadership" was a buzzword when I was in high school. Our teachers would compliment us or respond to others' compliments of us by saying "They're leaders!" If you'd asked any of the adults involved in our upbringing and education, they would absolutely have agreed that we would eventually be in positions of authority or influence, hiring people, training people, making decisions that affect people's lives and affect broader policy, righting the wrongs of the past.

Except, apparently, when it came to racism. Then we were just a bunch of kids who couldn't possibly be expected to know better.

 

Which is an obstacle on the path to becoming adults who can do better.

An alternative to "I'm sorry" is "My condolences"

Dear Miss Manners: I am a reasonably empathetic person. I’m not a sob sister, but I do feel true sympathy for other people’s misfortunes. But I have reached my limit.

If someone tells me that a family member has died, and I respond with an “I'm sorry,” the rejoinder is often, “Not your fault.” If a friend mentions her recently broken bone, her divorce, her speeding ticket or broken fingernail, I obviously say that I am sorry. Again, the response is, “Not your fault.”

I agree that I was not the cause of any of the aforementioned disasters; I was not indicating my guilt. I am certainly old enough to say “You have my sympathy,” but I am not formal enough to pull it off. “I see” seems heartless. “Imagine!” seems cruel. “That is so sad” sounds sarcastic.

In this age of online trolls, rudeness passing as humor, and constant hate speech by politicos, what does one say to show empathy with a friend’s or acquaintance’s tale of woe, discomfort or loss? I need an appropriate response or I’m going to start saying “huh.”

A response that would meet the letter-writer's needs is: "My condolences." 

You can make it more formal or intensive (e.g. "My most heartfelt condolences to you and your family") or just leave it as it is, depending on what's most suitable to the context. 

You can also use "My condolences" as a wry response for things like speeding tickets or broken nails, but if you want a more sincere response, and option is "Oh no!", with the same tone and delivery you'd use if the next thing coming out of your mouth was "I'm so sorry!"

I agree with Miss Manners and with LW that "I'm sorry" is perfectly appropriate, but apparently this standard script leads the people around LW to respond in a way that LW dislikes, so it's time to change up the script. I am surprised that Miss Manners didn't suggest this phrasing in her response.

Why were they willing to lock down in March 2020?

Currently, there seems to be a shortage of political will to lock down to stop the surging omicron variant of COVID-19.

What I don't understand: if they're unwilling to lock down now, why were they willing to lock down in March 2020?

Usually if you ask this, people answer "because capitalism doesn't care about people's lives."

But we had the same capitalism in March 2020. And in March 2020, lockdowns were unprecedented - I don't think most ordinary people would have faulted the government for not locking down, because that just . . . wasn't a thing that we did. And in March 2020, we didn't know about Long COVID yet. (Or, at least, ordinary non-medical people whose lives hadn't yet been affected by post-viral syndrome didn't.) And in March 2020, it was less commonly known that COVID is airborne. 

 

Even if we think about it solely from the point of view of capitalism without regard for human decency, in March 2020 we didn't have so many people out sick that it was causing staffing shortages, closing nearly half of library branches and cancelling GO Transit trips.

 

As far as the general public could tell, capitalism could have chugged merrily along in March 2020 without issue, whereas the impacts are visible and tangible and undeniable in the omicron era.

So why were they willing to proceed with lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020?

To be clear, I'm not saying that they were wrong to do lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020. Rather, I'm saying that the argument for lockdowns and restrictions is far more compelling right now, and we're all old hands at it now. We all know how to zoom and pivot to takeout-only and choose the optimal grocery pickup slots.

So why were they willing to take then-unprecedented measures in March 2020, but aren't willing to take well-established measures now?

Thoughts (without advice) on Captain Awkward #1359

Captain Awkward #1359:

Dear Captain Awkward,

I (she/her) have a Dad (he/him) and Mom (she her) who value their traditional culture and religion even though they did not raise my sister (she/her) and I to be very religious, i.e. we were allowed to go away to college, I was encouraged not to observe religious dress and they didn’t expect us to participate in daily religious activities (they didn’t either). You could say we were culturally faithful but not pious. They took a lot of crap from relatives who insisted they were making a huge mistake and would end up with kids who have no values or faith.

My sister married a guy who was of our background but even less connected to the culture and religion. My parents welcomed him though I suspect privately they were a bit uncomfortable because he drinks alcohol and has tattoos which are prohibited in the religion. Then my sister put up a Christmas tree (not Christians but her in-laws do Christmas). I happened to be there when they found out and it was like watching my parents take a fist to their face. My sister was their closest child, she could do no wrong in their eyes and they’ve always bent over backwards for her. After being so sure that they could raise us liberally while still upholding the culture and religion, they were devastated. No amount of me reminding them that she doesn’t consider it a religious act or framing it as a decoration has helped. They’ve decided they won’t go to her house until the tree is gone. My mom does daycare for my niece so BIL (he/him) drops the baby off at her house now.

I’ve tried to point out that they may regret this and harm their relationship with their only grandchild once she is old enough to figure out that her paternal grandparents happily celebrate Christmas and drink alcohol with her parents while her maternal grandparents make a stand every December, but they won’t budge. My sister is surprised they are upset and says a tree is no big deal which strains credulity in my opinion. I’m visiting and keep walking in on my mom just sitting silently with tears running down her face and my dad quietly counting the days until he can see niece again on daycare days (he is the only name/word she can say so far, total bff’s). I resent my sister for taking so much over the years (I was not similarly favored) and then so casually throwing us into this chaos. I am annoyed with my parents for not seeing something like this coming considering her husband’s background. Do I keep defending her, comforting them or should I just stay apart like normal?

Never thought I’d miss the days when they were a unit of three + me.

I absolutely agree with Captain Awkward's advice that LW's role is to stay out of this. 

But what baffles me is that the parents seem to see this as LW's sister's tree and seem to be having a falling-out with LW's sister over it, rather than seeing it as BIL's tree, since his family of origin is the one that does xmas. Even if the sister literally put it up, they somehow got to "The person who brought this family tradition into the marriage is utterly blameless!" 

If I were advising BIL, I'd recommend that he "take responsibility" for the tree - not in the sense of sitting down and having a serious conversation, but more in the sense of blithely chattering in LW's parents' presence about how lovely it is to be sharing his family's traditions with the daughter.

 

I'm also rather baffled that they're wondering about what to tell the child and thinking the different families' different behaviours will harm their relationship with their grandchild. All they'd have to tell the kid is different families do things differently - they could probably even point to benign examples, like how one set of grandparents uses the front door of their house and the other set uses the side door.

Books read in December 2021

New:

1. This is a Book About the Kids in the Hall by John Semley 

Reread:

1.  Strangers in Death

All about my Good Omens OC named Muriel

I was amused to see that season 2 of Good Omens will include an angel named Muriel, because the Good Omens sequel fic that lives in my head also includes an angel named Muriel. My fic is almost certainly going to stay in my head because I can't figure out enough of what the plot needs to be even to put together all the good bits as a tantalizing series of vignettes, so instead I'm going to post what I know about my Muriel character, so when the actual Good Omens season 2 comes out I can delight in any resemblance to the canon Muriel.

 

My premise, inspired by Aziraphale's "Just imagine how awful it might have been if we'd been at all competent" line is that Heaven and Hell have replaced Aziraphale and Crowley respectively as their agents on Earth with people who are actually competent, by virtue of having been actual humans before they died and went to Heaven and Hell respectively.

Muriel is Heaven's new agent on Earth. I chose her name because it's an actual human name that also sounds like it follows angelic nomenclature patterns. (A quick google as I was writing this blog post finds an actual angel named Muriel, but I didn't know that when I chose the name.) Depending on Good Omens theology and the needs of the story, she might be an actual angel, or she might be a human soul who was sent to heaven but doesn't count as an angel.

In her human life, Muriel was a frumpy older woman, easily overlooked and underestimated, and used these characteristics to her advantage in her actual human career as a highly skilled secret agent. (This was inspired by an article I read long ago about how the best secret agents are actually nondescript, unassuming people.)

 

Her dress and grooming are reminiscent of a Monty Python pepperpot, and she has an extensive range of hidden skills and talents. (Whatever the plot requires!) It's possible that she's the older lady who lives downstairs from Crowley, but I'm not sure if the timing on that works.

 

Muriel isn't actually an especially good person, and got into Heaven on a technicality. (Perhaps the Catholic church's pandemic plenary indulgence, but I'd have to understand the nuances in greater detail to see if that would work.)

 

Muriel has angelic powers like Aziraphale, but, because she's lived as a human for most of her conscious existence, she keeps forgetting about her powers and doing things the human way. This is played for laughs throughout the story, and then ends up playing a key role in the denouement.

Muriel's assignment as Heaven's agent on Earth includes spying on Aziraphale and Crowley. However, she sympathizes with them - she'd rather just be left alone to live on Earth too!

Muriel has a Hellish counterpart, whose name I haven't decided yet. Her Hellish counterpart is also a highly-competent former human with a complementary extensive range of hidden skills and talents resulting from their life as a human. (These skills and talents, and therefore the specifics of the Hellish counterpart's human life, are what the plot needs them to be, and I don't know enough about the plot to fill in the blanks.) The Hellish counterpart isn't actually a bad person, but rather got sent to hell on some kind of technicality. (I like the idea of them being an unbaptized infant, but I don't think the theology works out, plus I don't have an explanation for how they gain the ability to function as an adult on Earth.) And, obviously, the Hellish counterpart would rather be left alone to leave peacefully on Earth as well.

If Muriel and her Hellish counterpart fall in love (which would be an elegant parallel to Aziraphale and Crowley, but I haven't figured out how to make it happen without feeling forced - probably because I haven't figured out what kind of person Muriel's Hellish counterpart needs to be), they would address it with Heaven and Hell by cleverly writing "posing as a couple" into their scope of mission.

 

The actress who's been cast as the real Muriel in the real Good Omens appears significantly younger than my headcanon Muriel, so I strongly doubt the actual Good Omens character will in any way resemble mine.

 

But if there were any resemblance, I would be nothing but delighted. And if someone wants to use elements of my Muriel in their own fanfiction, I would be similarly delighted. #StealThisIdea

Horoscopes

Toronto Star:

The day brings a burst of energy and creative inspiration our way, which can bode well for work-related projects, as well as personal goals. However, as we head toward the afternoon, the vibe changes significantly, leaving us feeling a bit heavy or dejected. We can beat the blues by ramping up the self-care and focusing on what brings us joy. At the same time, it might be helpful to lean on the support of others when it comes to working through any difficulties. Being open to new experiences also can help us break out of a bad mood.

Globe & Mail: 

There may be a tendency over the coming year to go looking for conflict, most likely just for the fun of it. For best results, channel your aggressive instincts into positive and creative areas. Sporting and other physical activities will help burn off excess energy.

It's interesting how the Star horoscope just talks about today - no attempt to predict the year whatsoever!

Last year's Toronto Star horoscope made the bravely specific prediction that I would fall in love in May.

I did not fall in love with a person. But, if I do flail about trying to find an interpretation that makes this statement true, it's possible that I did fall in love with no working, as I took a full month off work for the first time in my life and discovered I didn't miss it at all. (Unfortunately, I still need an income and this is still the easiest and most reliable way for me to earn an income.)

I'm starting the new years with 2 full months off work. We'll see where that takes me...

Books read in November 2021

1. Markswoman by Rati Mehrota

2. North Korea Journal by Michael Palin

Hard work

Conventional wisdom is that hard work is a virtue.  If you work hard, you will achieve success.

I think we need to question the notion that work needs to be hard to be adequate.

Some people, when they read that, will have the visceral reaction of "Oh, you just don't want to work!"

But that's not the argument I'm making here today.

For the purposes of today's blog post, I'm not questioning the "work" part, I'm just questioning the "hard" part.

(I know there are other people questioning the "work" part and I'm not going to get in their way, that's just not my topic here today.)

When I think of everything I've ever done well, I've never worked hard at any of it. I simply...did it. I carried out the necessary actions, did the thing, and it was done and done well.

So, you might be thinking, what would happen if I did work hard at it?

And the answer is that it would be impossible to work hard at it, because I finished it before the work got hard.

Analogy: you can't sprint one step. You simply take the step, and you've completed it before you can even get up to a sprinting level of effort. (Unless, of course, you can't take any steps.  But then you can't sprint one step either.)

There are also quite a few things in life that I've worked hard at.  And, despite my hard work, I never reached the point of doing them well. I basically knocked myself out to achieve mediocrity.

Before we even look at it from our own perspective as workers, if we look at it just from the perspective of having a functional economy and society, people knocking themselves out to achieve mediocrity is the last thing we want!

If you're in the market for a product or service, you want that product to be made or that service to be provided by someone who knows what they're doing.  The more important it is and the harder it is to do, the more you want someone who's certain they can do it well.  

 

You want a beautician who makes people way uglier than you look way hotter than you've ever aspired to, no one who isn't sure if they can make eyebrows like yours look good but they'll try their best. You want a renovator who thinks the work you have in mind is so easy they don't see why you don't do it yourself, not one who's unsure whether it's possible but is willing to give it the good old college try. You want a surgeon who could do your surgery in their sleep, not one who for whom it's a reach goal.

 

Essentially, if someone is working hard, it's a sign that something is wrong - insufficient training, too-tight timelines, not the right person for the job, etc.

 

Maybe, instead of valuing hard work, we as a society should be working on eliminating it.

Homebuying incentives need to come before the home is bought

From time to time, you hear politicians talking about improving housing affordability by providing tax incentives or tax credits or rebates to first-time homebuyers.

From my point of view as a first-time homebuyer who received a number of different tax incentives/credits/rebates, I can tell you with confidence that this will do nothing to improve affordability.

First, let's look at what goes into affordability. To buy a home, you have to not just actually be able to afford it, but also be considered on-paper to be able to afford it. 

To be considered on-paper to be able to afford a home, you need a combination of down-payment and mortgage that will add up to the price of the home, and you need to have this at the moment you seek approval for a mortgage, which comes before the purchase. 

Your mortgage eligibility is calculated based on your current salary and debt load. The amount of downpayment you have is determined either by having to show proof of your bank balance or having to literally write a cheque, depending on whether you're buying pre-owned or pre-construction.

And, at no point in the process, do they look at any tax incentives or other incentives that might be forthcoming in the next year.

I bought pre-construction in 2012, and the sale closed in 2017. I had about $5000 coming to me in rebates from my realtor and my developer (which I received when the sale closed), and further $5000 in tax credits/rebates/incentives (I forget exactly how they were classifed), which I received in spring 2018 after doing my 2017 taxes.

But affordability was calculated at the moment I committed to the purchase in 2012. I had to get a mortgage commitment letter from a bank, which looked at how much money I had immediately on hand to use as a downpayment, and then plugged my income (and, possibly, my debt - I didn't have debt at the time so I'm not certain) into a mortage calculator to determine how much I could afford on paper.

They didn't look at and didn't care about these rebates that were coming to me. If the bank's total of what they thought I could afford had been $10,000 short of the condo's sale price, they wouldn't have cared if I pointed to the rebates that were coming to me. They had no mechanism to plug the rebates into the spreadsheet they used to determine affordability, which, ultimately, meant that these rebates did nothing to make a home more affordable to me. If that $10,000 had been make-or-break, it would have come too late in the process to make the difference between not being able to buy a home and being able to buy a home.

If governments want to provide incentives to make homes more affordable to first-time buyers, any measures they implement need to come into effect before the point at which affordability is calculated. That might mean delivering the incentive payments earlier. That might mean making mortgage lenders change how they calculate affordability. That might mean fixing the economy so that ordinary people with ordinary jobs can afford ordinary homes with no drama. 

But, in any case, a tax rebate over a year after the sale has closed isn't going to improve actual in-real-life affordability. Incentives to improve affordability need to be in the buyer's hands a the moment affordability is calculated.

Flaws in my education: I never learned that I'm bad at spotting racism

One thing I've learned in recent years is that I'm bad at spotting racism.

 

There are innumerable racist (and antisemitic, and transphobic, and ableist, etc. etc.) tropes and dog-whistles that I've never seen before in my life, or that look benign to me, or that look like nonsense to me.

 

They're obvious to other racists, they're obvious to the targets of the racism, and to me they're completely devoid of connotations, or of any meaning whatsoever.

 

 

It would certainly have been useful if my antiracism education had mentioned this! 

 

Until just a few short years ago, I had no clue that I was bad at spotting racism. I'd see racist things and think "That doesn't look racist to me," and think that this opinion of mine was some how helpful or relevant rather than being ignorant and ill-informed!

It is a bit complicated if you think about it from an educator's perspective. In an ideal world, people would be able to recognize racism rather than merely recognizing that they're bad at recognizing it. (Well, in an ideal ideal world there wouldn't be racism lurking around needing to be recognized...) Obviously, "I don't know, I'm really bad at this sort of thing" is not the desired endpoint of any educational program.

But, at the same time, if you are going to emerge from the educational program really bad at that sort of thing, it's far better to recognize that you're bad at it than to think you're competent!

The irony is they came so very close to informing me that there were forms of racism that I didn't recognize. 

 

One of the examples of prejudice and stereotypes given in our anti-racism unit was the stereotype that Polish people are stupid.

My mother was born in Poland. Half my family is Polish. I identify as Polish myself, and Poland would claim me if I made them aware of my existence.

And I had never before in my life been exposed to the notion that Polish people are stupid. In fact, if you'd asked me to name stereotypes about Polish people, I would never have guessed that people think we're stupid - the Polish branch of my family is by far classier, more intelligent and better educated!

 

So this could have led me to realize that there are stereotypes floating around out there that I can't possibly fathom.

 

Unfortunately, it led me in the opposite direction: it reinforced my internalized notion that racism is a thing of the past, and that any stereotypes that may have existed in the past are no longer doing harm to the people affected. After all, if I, as a member of the targeted group, had never in my life heard of the stereotype used as a go-to example of stereotypes, surely  nothing about this can be affecting actual real-life present-day people!

I don't know what the actual solution is. I don't know whether it would be advisable to actually go around teaching teenagers stereotypes that they've never heard of before. And I don't think that "I'm really bad at this sort of thing and not able to make an informed comment" is an acceptable outcome of an educational curriculum.

And also, if, for whatever reason, students emerge from the curriculum really bad at that sort of thing and unable to make an informed comment, it is imperative that they are able to recognize this! I would be a much better person if I'd been able to recognize this 25 years ago.

Things the Library Should Invent: lend out external media readers

While rummaging through my box of 20 years of accumulated spare cables, I found some random unmarked floppy disks. I have no idea what's on them, and no longer have any computers with a floppy drive.

 

I pondered what might be on the disks, and tried to brainstorm ways I might get at a floppy drive. I wondered whether you can rent an external floppy drive. There doesn't appear to be any such thing. They're fairly cheap to buy, but I'd only need it for a few minutes to read and possibly copy the contents of the disks, and then I'd be done with it forever.

 

Then I wondered if the library computers still have floppy drives. Doubtful. Apart from the fact that floppy disks haven't been in common use for quite a while, I doubt the library wants to make it easy for people to run random programs on their computers.

Then I realized, this is a problem that the library could solve by making external media readers available to borrow - floppy drives, CD drives, maybe even cassette players and record players that can be plugged into computers to convert music to MP3s, if such a thing exists.

Surely I'm not the only one with some obsolete media that I'm no longer equipped to read or back up. Surely I'm not the only one who just needs a floppy drive briefly, with no need to own one.

An external USB floppy drive costs less than the retail price of a hardcover book, so it seems like the library should be able to afford a few to lend out. And if the library lends me a USB drive that I plug into my own computer, my computer bears the risk of whatever the contents of my mystery disks might be - the library's disk drive is just a conduit.

 

Q: But if you let people borrow electronic equipment, they might wreck it! 

A: Yes, just like if you let people borrow books, they might wreck them! I suspect libraries are accustomed to budgeting for eventual wear and tear on their items.

 

Part of the library's mission statement is to provide universal access to a broad range of information. Perhaps that could include the information that we have stored on outdated media?

Another option for Captain Awkward #1352

Captain Awkward #1352:

Dear Captain Awkward,

I (they/them) am single, live alone, and have been working from home throughout the COVID situation – the long-term isolation has been really hard. During the last year I took up fishkeeping, which has been really great for my mental health.

But then I developed something known in the hobby as “MTS” – multiple tank syndrome – in which I, well, started to go a little overboard with new fish tanks and fishes. In addition to the assortment of tanks in my actual apartment (basically one in every room, each with different types of fish), I set up a “balcony tub” with floating plants and rosy red minnows.

Last week new neighbors moved into my building and I guess they must have seen my balcony tub because they asked if I had fish on my balcony and…I truly am not sure why…but I impulsively lied, like, “No! Of course I don’t have fish on the balcony! Ha ha ha…”

But the thing is: I do have fish on the balcony.

The fish are very healthy and happy and I don’t think it’s against the rules (I did check the lease) – although that might be because no one ever thought to make a rule against it…

Anyway, I have no idea why I lied other than like…maybe the built-up isolation of the last year and a half, and some internal sense that keeping fish on your balcony was Too Much, and therefore in order to not seem Super Weird to my new neighbors I should keep that under wraps? (Don’t ask, don’t shell!)

But now I feel even *more* awkward and way weirder than if I’d just been like “oh yeah those are my minnows!”

I lied about having fish on the balcony, and I clearly do have fish on the balcony.

In the past I’ve had good relationships with my neighbors. Is there any way I can salvage this truly awkward introduction??

Thank you in advance for your advice. I don’t think this question has been addressed before.

All best,
A Fishy Neighbor

 

As Captain Awkward points out in her answer, there's a strong likelihood that the neighbour has already forgotten or written off the interaction.

Also as Captain Awkward says:

Fortunately,  “I was trying so hard not to come off as weird that I overcorrected and did something objectively weird”  is an extremely relatable and common predicament, and being able to laugh at yourself (“I didn’t want you to think I was obsessed with fish, good job, me, now you think I’m a liar who is obsessed with fish! Welcome to the building!)  is the best remedy I know.

In this vein of a relatable and common predicament and being able to laugh at oneself, another option, if someone should directly inquire about the fact that you specifically said you don't have fish even though you clearly have fish, is something along the lines of "Sorry, it was an attempt at a joke that clearly didn't work. My alleged sense of humour misfires more often than I'd care to admit!"

(Q: What is the attempted joke? A: The very notion that your fishy self would not have fish on the balcony is laughable!)

Benefits to this approach:

• You aren't admitting to lying, or mentioning that you lied as if it's no big deal. Some people are extremely prescriptivist about lying and think that if someone lies at all ever, they're intrinsically untrustworthy. There are also people who are wary enough of lying that they'd see "I told a lie because I panicked" as a red flag suggesting that you're untrustworthy. 
• Having a joke misfire is also a relatable and common predicament
• When assholes make a joke that misfires, they tend to double down and/or blame the audience for not getting/liking the joke. In contrast, admitting that your joke misfired - and that your sense of humour doesn't do the job as often as you'd like in general - is a sign of humility and strength of character. Wouldn't you think positively of someone who genially admits that their joke didn't land and moves on?
  

Books read in October 2021

New:

1. Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well by Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen

2. Shadows in Death by J.D. Robb 

Reread:

 1. Eternity in Death

What if we measured beauty standards in labour required to be unremarkable or credible?

When we talk about beauty standards - and, especially, when we talk about beauty standards for women (so much of the beauty standard discourse to which I've been exposed is so binary that I can't entirely get away from that in this post) - the discourse tends to get hijacked by people's personal opinions about beauty.

"But I think curvy women are hot!" "But men have to work hard to have a six-pack too!" "But beauty is frivolous anyway and you should just have good self-esteem!"

I think it would be far more useful if, instead of talking about beauty in and of itself, we talked about it in terms of labour. How much time/money/effort do people of various demographics need to spend to meet standards?

I also think it would be useful if, instead of talking about beauty standards, we talked about, for lack of a better word, "non-ugly" standards. How much labour is required to not be perceived negatively, to pass unremarked?

 

Example: 

 

Suppose you're watching the men's soccer world cup on TV, and you can see a player's leg hair.

Now, suppose you're watching the women's soccer world cup on TV, and you can see a player's leg hair.

Your immediate internal response to the men's scenario is probably "And...?" or "Only one?" Whereas, in the women's scenario, people would notice. They may well be too polite to comment, but if, in a safe and non-judgemental space, you asked friend who'd been watching the same game "Did you notice that one player had visible leg hair?" they almost certainly would have. Some people would speak positively of it ("Good for her, flouting social norms!") but it would be noticed.

In this context, the men's soccer players have to do no work whatsoever for their leg hair situation to be unremarkable, whereas the women's soccer players would have to remove any leg hair visible to the camera for their leg hair situation to be unremarkable.

I think this is a much more useful approach to this discourse.

 

It would also be useful to look at how much labour is required to be perceived as credible.

How much labour do people of various demographics need to do for their job interviewer to think they look professional? How much labour do people need to do to be taken seriously by the doctor/mortgage officer/prospective landlord? How much labour is involved in politicians of various demographics being perceived as camera-ready for their interview?

 

Being perceived as beautiful may be frivolous, but most people need to get business done at some point in their lives, and need to come across as credible to do so. For some people, that requires labour, and any demographic patterns to the amount of labour involved raise a genuine equity issue.

Money and connections

1. Conventional wisdom is that, even when abortion is illegal, rich people can always get abortions.

 

I have no doubt that money facilitates things, but it seems like this conventional wisdom disregards the fact that illegality is a barrier - not just because of the actual law, but because not everyone has the knowledge or connections to circumvent the law. 

 

As an analogy, I'm sure I can afford illegal drugs. However, I have no clue where to buy them. I have no clue how reliable the internet might be on this question. (Would I google my way to a honeypot or a scam or poisoned supply?)

I can think of no more than three people I know who might possibly have a lead on where to buy illegal drugs (and possibly zero of them actually do). I've heard that sneakers on wires might mean there's a drug dealer around, but I have no idea how to determine who they are. And if I found a drug dealer and walked up to them attempting to buy drugs, I have no idea what the script would sound like. I'm sure they'd think I'm a cop.

Now, abortion is much more important than illegal drugs, and involves much more desperation. So if it were an abortion I was after and legal means weren't available, I'd try every internet honeypot. I'd ask every promising person. I'd make it my full-time job to find the connection I need.

But that may or may not work, and it wouldn't be money that helps me find the connection. (In fact, money might even get in the way - the causes and effects of my money also make me come across as someone who'd call the cops.

And it's not just finding the connection that's a problem. If you live with controlling family members or otherwise don't have individual and private freedom of moment or freedom of communication, the people around you could be a barrier. Imagine the minor child of a reigning monarch wants to get an abortion - they'd need to have either their family or their security detail onside with, at a minimum, a private medical appointment, and (if their family isn't onside) would have to make sure the doctor and the security detail wouldn't report back to their family. 

On top of all this, think back to the olden days before the internet. How would you find an abortion then?

In Downton Abbey, Lady Edith found an abortionist from an ad in the back of a women's magazine. But what if you didn't read that particular magazine, or look at the ads on the basis that they (like many classified ads) wouldn't be relevant?

I've read (on the internet!) that, in the olden days, abortion products and services were advertised obliquely, with language about restoring menstrual regularity or something similar. But what if you didn't know the code? If abortion suddenly became illegal, my 40-year-old self would certainly have the savvy to obliquely inquire about things I should avoid so I don't inadvertently lose the pregnancy, but my 20-year-old self would never have thought of this.

In short, while money would, of course, smooth the way to an abortion - and lack of money could easily be a barrier to an abortion - it is still quite possible that, in a context where abortion is illegal, a rich person would be unable to get an abortion because they lack the ability to navigate the relevant segment of the underworld.

2. Conventional wisdom is that posh universities are for networking

 

There have been some stories in the news recently where parents have apparently donated or bribed their kids' way into big-name universities. My immediate response was "What do they expect to happen once they get admitted to the universities without being qualified?" to which people have replied that the intention is for them to network rather than to be academically successful.

Which makes me wonder how networking works among rich/fancy people.

If you aren't actually qualified to be admitted to your fancy university, and you start trying to network to people who are qualified, it seems to me that they'd see that you're unqualified. So any attempts at network, i.e. at making them aware of your existence, would only backfire - they'd become increasingly aware of your incompetence.

But, since conventional wisdom is that unqualified fancy university admission provides networking opportunities, does that mean that networking among rich/fancy people is simply a matter of being aware of each other's existence?

But, at the same time, some of the people at the rich/fancy universities must be qualified to be there. Are they not gaining the attention of the networking targets? Or are the networking targets in the market for so many networkees that the only prerequisite is "I am aware of your existence"?

Or maybe these people are particularly charming? And therefore mere proximity will be enough to build them connections? But, even then, it surprises me that bribing them into fancy universities would be the optimal approach. It seems to me that, surely, it would be more efficient to cut out the middleman and bribe them into some prestigious entry-level job or some sinecure, so they're already in a useful role rather than being dependent on their charms to get them there. And, if they are in fact so charming, surely they could do more with those charms in an established position rather than as an unqualified student in a university full of qualified students?

Thoughts on Season 3 of Star Trek: Discovery

This post is a full spoiler zone for Star Trek: Discovery, although I'm not talking very much about specific plot points.

I just finished Season 3 of Star Trek: Discovery. I generally enjoyed it, as I do most Star Trek, but there were a couple of aspects that didn't fully work for me.

1. 930 years into the future

Star Trek: Discovery ended season 2 by jumping 930 years into the future, and season 3 covers their adventures there. 

However, I had trouble suspending disbelief that the crew of the Discovery could function in a way that's even remotely useful 930 years in the future, even taking into account that their ship has a spore drive in a universe where warp travel is severely limited.

Think about 930 years. 930 years ago was 1090. Think about the world in 1090. (I'm most immediately familiar with the history of England from that era, so most of my references here are English.) William the Conqueror had died just a few years earlier. The Domesday book had just been completed. Old English was still spoken - the Norman influence in England hadn't yet been around long enough for even Middle English to have evolved. In other words, the English language was completely devoid of French or Latin influences - such as the words "language" and "completely" and "devoid" and "French" and "Latin" and "influences"!

The internet tells me clocks hadn't yet been invented 930 years ago. Imagine a person who had never co-existed with clocks! It wouldn't just be a question of how to use a clock to tell time, but all the ways society is affected by the degree of time-telling precision they afford. The train leaves at 9:13. Your speech should be between 2 and 3 minutes long. Edit this video down to 30 seconds. It would be unfathomable!

Not to mention that their technology is sufficiently compatible. The charger for my eight-year-old ipod is no longer manufactured. There's a whole side market of CRT televisions because game consoles from my childhood won't work properly with modern TVs. The external hard drives I use for my computer backups occasionally just stop working. And I'm supposed to believe that they could just . . . update Discovery's computer database after nearly a thousand years??

There are fandom rumours that the creative team originally wanted to set Star Trek: Discovery in the distant future and were forced to set it 10 years pre-TOS for marketing reasons, so IRL this is likely the creative team shifting towards doing what they actually want to do now that they have the capital to do so. But I'm finding it hard to suspend disbelief, and that's a negative.

2. Adira and Gray and representation

Season 3 of Star Trek: Discovery included a milestone for the franchise: Star Trek's first transgender and non-binary characters!

However, I think the decision to make both Adira and Gray Trill was a strategic error. (Pedants will point out that Adira is human, but what's relevant here is that they are hosting a Trill symbiont.)

One audience who could have benefited particularly from Adira and Gray are people who are ignorant about or even completely unaware of transgender and/or non-binary - especially those who are or may one day become parents of trans or non-binary children. 

People who, like me, are old enough to be parents of trans or non-binary children didn't learn much about transgender or non-binary growing up. We only know what has reached us through general cultural in adulthood. This means that some parents of trans and non-binary kids aren't going to have heard of transgender and/or non-binary. Trans and non-binary Star Trek characters can help with this - a kid who has to say "Mom, I'm non-binary" can add the useful cultural reference of "Like Adira on Star Trek."

With Adira especially, I'm concerned that people who are unfamiliar with non-binary might think Adira's perception of themself as non-binary is the result of hosting a Trill symbiont (and therefore having memories and personality traits of all the symbiont's previous hosts), rather than being an actual real-life gender identity that occurs in actual real-life people.

I myself am familiar with they/them pronouns, knew from media coverage that Adira's pronouns are they/them, and knew from media coverage that after Adira was initially misgendered as "she", they'd be coming out as "they". But, even going in with this knowledge, when I heard Adira say "They, not she", my first thought was that they were about to say credit was due to their symbiont, or their symbiont's previous hosts.

I'm further concerned that some non-binary kid might see this, identify with Adira, explain it to their parents as "Like Adira on Star Trek!" and have their parents respond with "That's not a real thing, that's just Star Trek aliens!" Ignorant parents might even think their kid is delusional, like they would if their kid insisted they're a Vulcan.

I think having Adira and Gray being a couple exacerbates this. Not the romantic aspect specifically, but rather that they are positioned as a unit that includes the two of them and does not include anyone else. I'm thinking that framing might be othering towards trans and non-binary people, rather than positioning them as a regular everyday part of the population as a whole. 

I think a better strategic decision would have been to have our first trans character and our first non-binary character both be human, and be unaffiliated with each other. (For example, if one was Aurellio and the other was Aditya Sahil.) Also, include trans and non-binary actors as part of your diverse casting for minor roles, alien and human alike. So we have our key trans and non-binary characters, and also, like, a trans ensign in Vulcan ears operating the transporter and a non-binary Bajoran seated at the conference table.

Again, I am neither trans nor non-binary myself, so I could be delighted to hear that my concerns here are unfounded. But, until I hear that, I continue to be concerned that the decision to make Adira and Gray both Trills and a couple is detrimental to the good that our first trans and non-binary characters might do.

Bra back pain braindump

 Physically helpful things:

 

- Do something right away. Last time, I tried to power through it. Bad idea. Take the bra off. Stretch. Take a muscle relaxant. Order half a dozen bras on the internet. Do something.

- Stretching my back vertically helps. Obliques, lats, whatever the muscles from my shoulders to my hips are.

- Rolling on a pilates ball helps. Last time rolling on a pilates ball on the floor was too intense but rolling a pilates ball between my back and the wall helped. This time the wall isn't effective, but the floor gloriously grinds up pockets of pain and tightness like a mortar and pestle. Just don't roll the pilates ball directly under your spine - the spine doesn't like that! Roll it just to the left of the spine, then just to the right of the spine.

- Extra sleep helps, by which I mean sleeping until I wake up naturally and then rolling over and seeing if I have more sleep in me. Conversely, insufficient sleep is disproportionately negative. This is super inconvenient.

- Leaning back in my chair helps. I'm not sure if that has something to do with the behaviour of my back muscles or the load-bearing distribution of my bra or just the fact that having my whole back pressed against the backrest eliminates my awareness of the bra elastic. 

- Make the bra straps a bit looser than makes sense. When a tight band has triggered pain, tight straps can trigger additional pain.

 

Psychologically helpful things:

 

- The worst thing is the fear of never being comfortable in a bra at all ever again in the decades of life expectancy I have left. (If you're just tuning in, I'm also not comfortable without a bra.) So it helps psychologically to find opportunities to be comfortable in a) a bra, and b) the particular bra I'm trying to break in. Sometimes this means wearing the bra I'm trying to break in while stretching or while applying a heating pad, so my muscles are physically relaxed in the presence of the triggering band. Sometimes this means wearing my old bra with the dead elastic while sitting perfectly comfortably at my desk working.

- Once I'm confident the bra I'm breaking in isn't actively inducing pain, wearing it out of the house for limited amounts of time helps. When I'm out of the house, the world provides plenty of distractions, so I'm not focusing primarily on my elastics. This also provides cumulative empirical evidence that I can go half an hour or an hour without my back freaking out from the bra. 

Unhelpful things:

- This is one of those problems that leads to a bunch of recommendations for things that I've already tried or that are irrelevant to me. Yes, I do know most women are wearing the wrong bra size! Yes, I have had professional fitting - they can tell me what fits my body but have no expertise in pain issues! Yes, I have tried a bra extender - it just moves the pain to a more sensitive part of my ribs! Yes, I have tried a sports bra - it's worse! Yes, I have tried yoga - I've been doing it for 20 fucking years, and have stretched out every muscle in my back four times already today! I would cheerfully let google stalk me if it meant the algorithm could screen out everything I've already tried!

- The worst part is the dread. This instance of bra pain and my last instance of bra pain came on completely unexpectedly. So, even after I resolve the problem, I never know when it will happen again. I wake up every morning pain-free, but I have no idea what will happen when I get out of bed, when I put on a bra - or make the decision to sit around the apartment without a bra. Even though I spent 6 straight hours perfectly comfortable in a proper bra yesterday and, as I type this, have been perfectly comfortable in a proper bra for 7 hours, I can't imagine what will happen if I go to that wedding next year or go into the office for a full day or take a train out of the city to visit someone. In a world where things can go wrong, I can't imagine them going right, and that taints the anticipation of the next time, post-pandemic, when I get to spend time with loved ones or hold a baby or see Eddie Izzard. (Eddie darling, I love you madly, but just because the rules permit live shows doesn't mean they're advisable!)

- And the thing is, I'm one of the lucky ones. I work from home! I can change my bra four times a day or sit around naked or stop to stretch as much as I want! I have the disposable income to spend on new bras and ointments and back massagers! There are people with similar or worse problems whose lives and livelihoods don't allow them this flexibility - possibly including the warehouse and delivery workers bringing me the pile of new bras I ordered to try on, or the bra fitters and massage therapists I might go to if I decide my bra difficulty outweighs my mask difficulty (which I still haven't become desensitized to), all the health care workers taking care of people who have much worse problems, our unhoused neighbours who don't have any space or privacy or leeway to make the hundreds of tiny adjustments that get me through the day . . . why is this even allowed to happen???

If your bra elastic is too tight, stretch it over the back of a chair

I'm having my bra-induced pain issues again. The resulting product reviews, philosophical ponderings and emotional braindumps are forthcoming.

 

But, for the moment, a practical tip:

 

If the band elastic of a new bra is too tight, stretch the bra band over the back of a chair. 

 

Line up the sides of the chair with the sides of the bra, slip the (closed) bra over the back of the chair like you're pulling a shirt over a person's head, and leave it there until you wear it next.

After just one round of stretching, a bra that induced pain after 10 minute became wearable for an hour. After a couple more rounds of stretching, I could get 4 hours out of it - which is long enough for 90% of times I might need to leave the house in non-pandemic conditions and 100% of times I might need to leave the house during pandemic conditions. I've even been able to get 8 hours without inducing new pain into my back, although the situation was not completely devoid of discomfort. (In other words, any unpleasantness disappeared as soon as I undid the bra, rather than sticking around for days afterwards.)

Stretching the bra does, well, stretch it out, as though accelerating the natural wear and tear that would happen over the course of months. But - especially when you're looking at a three-digit price tag - a stretched-out garment that functions is vastly superior to a like-new garment that induces pain.