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they do not respond within a given period of time, they're assumed to have declined communication, so your message is withdrawn from their inbox and the system starts showing you new matches.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.
Tuesday, December 31, 2019
Books read in December 2019
New:
1. How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi
2. Queen's Shadow by E. K. Johnston
3. That Inevitable Victorian Thing by E. K. Johnston
4. The Morning After: The 1995 Quebec Referendum and the Day that Almost Was by Chantal Hebert with Jean Lapierre
Reread:
1. Judgement in Death
1. How to be an Antiracist by Ibram X. Kendi
2. Queen's Shadow by E. K. Johnston
3. That Inevitable Victorian Thing by E. K. Johnston
4. The Morning After: The 1995 Quebec Referendum and the Day that Almost Was by Chantal Hebert with Jean Lapierre
Reread:
1. Judgement in Death
Sunday, December 22, 2019
Horoscopes
Toronto Star
Globe and Mail:
The Star one just sounds exhausting. The Globe and Mail one kind of already happened as I tried to figure out how to make a life after my head injury.
IF TODAY IS YOUR BIRTHDAY: What you can expect this year is the unexpected. Once you find your life settling down and working well, do not be surprised at the wave of excitement that falls on you. Children and loved ones could be involved. If single, you could be overwhelmed by a series of passionate love affairs; with each affair, you might believe this is the right person. Let time be the judge. If attached, you will not be able to complain about boredom. It will be as if you are newlyweds or new lovers again. SCORPIO encourages you to live life with passion.
Globe and Mail:
A Mars-Pluto link on your birthday will add a touch of iron to your nature and anyone who thinks they can bully you is going to realize you are not the pushover they thought you were. What happened to your easygoing attitude? Who knows, but it’s gone!
The Star one just sounds exhausting. The Globe and Mail one kind of already happened as I tried to figure out how to make a life after my head injury.
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Books read in November 2019
New:
1. Green Grass, Running Water by Thomas King
Reread:
1. Witness in Death
1. Green Grass, Running Water by Thomas King
Reread:
1. Witness in Death
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Another option for Captain Awkward #1237
From Captain Awkward:
In addition to Captain Awkward's idea (which are definitely worth reading - a lot of interesting food for thought about what happens when etiquette no longer serves us well), I have another script suggestion:
"Let's not do gifts any more."
You might cite reasons like "We're all adults now, we can all buy whatever we want for ourselves just as easily as we can buy things for each other. We all know what we ourselves have and need, whereas we can't see what the others have or need."
If your mother is going to be disappointed by the thought of her children not exchanging gifts, you can add something about "What's really important is being together."
(If you want to keep exchanging gifts with your mother, your initial script can be "Let's not do gifts among siblings.")
This approach will achieve several things:
Basically, the worse your siblings' intentions, the more this approach punishes them, whereas the better their intentions, the more this approach unburdens them. And all while requiring no effort whatsoever from you!
Hi!
I am 28, she/her. My sister in law (“A”) is also 28 and my brother (“D”) is 31.
I have a question about gift etiquette.
Last year on my birthday, A and D gave me a bunch of used DVDs. They got me slightly damaged copies of a couple movies and every season of a TV show my parents liked in the 90’s that I have never expressed any interest in. They wrapped each one individually so they could watch me unwrap them and giggle. I got the joke – this is a terrible gift! Hahaha – but I wasn’t included in the joke. With each one I opened, I got more confused, which seemed to make it even more funny for them.
That Christmas, they did it again, and this time they did it to my parents as well. They got me individual seasons of a TV show that is available in its entirety on Netflix and that I have had conversations about with them in the past where I said I did not like the show. They got my parents copies of DVDs they already owned. All of these were slightly beat up from being previously owned. They giggled and said things like “That’s an important one” and “Better get on watching that soon” the whole time.
My parents pretended to like them the whole time, but as A and D had already done this on my birthday, I finally got frustrated and refused to open more presents from them, because they just kept coming. We all take turns opening gifts and every time it was my turn, it was another used DVD.
Meanwhile, I work very hard on gifts. Last year I got A, a notorious anglophile, a certificate to a years subscription to a service that gets a ton of different British TV shows she had been wanting to watch but hadn’t been able to get access to. I nestled the certificate in a box of fortune cookie fortunes I had collected throughout the year (she collects these and plans to cover a table with them someday). For D I spent months searching for a sweater that had the Coca Cola logo on it. (He loves Coke. He once wrote an essay on its history for a college history class.) These were in addition to other things – games they didn’t have (they love board games) and nice teas (they enjoy tea). I spent ages trying to find thoughtful gifts and then I wrapped each one in nice paper that’s in their favorite colors.
The Christmas before last they didn’t get me a joke gift. They got me a “gummy candy maker.” It was essentially brightly colored silicone molds and unbranded Jello to put in them. It was obviously a children’s toy, and when I opened it, it was sticky from being previously owned. I pretended to be interested and thanked them, which made them smirk at each other. They also gave me a wine-scented candle. It was branded as being from a winery A’s parents had gone to a month or two prior. (Meaning I think they regifted it.)
So they have always given gifts like this, last year was just kind of a new level.
After they left last Christmas, my mom pulled me aside and was like, “Do you know what was going on with all the used DVDs?”
I said, “I think they just thought it was funny.” She seemed a bit crestfallen. She gives gifts similar to mine. She had gotten A a rare kind of tea set.
Furthermore, I don’t think A used the gift certificate and I know D got rid of the sweater because this year Mom said we should take a family photo wearing goofy sweaters and D said he didn’t have one. I said, “What about the one I gave you last Christmas?” He said “Oh, right. I might still have that.”
This is not a money thing – they both make more money than I do and buy nice, new things for themselves regularly. They’re just giving me joke gifts and doubling down when my feelings are hurt. I guess they just don’t like the gifts I give them.
I don’t mean to seem like I’m bragging about being super great at giving gifts or I’m entitled to lots of cool presents. I only meant that I try to put a lot of thought into their gifts and save up for them for a long time. They take a long time to think of and pull off. And A and D get cheap gifts at the last second. I would rather they didn’t get me anything at all.
My question is, what is the etiquette for receiving gifts that hurt my feelings? Do I have to keep pretending they don’t? What should I feel about trying really hard to get them things they like and having them openly dislike them? I want to just get them Amazon gift cards this year, but if they decide to get me non-joke presents this year I’ll just look like an asshole. I don’t know what to do or say.
Sorry this is so long. Thank you in advance.
In addition to Captain Awkward's idea (which are definitely worth reading - a lot of interesting food for thought about what happens when etiquette no longer serves us well), I have another script suggestion:
"Let's not do gifts any more."
You might cite reasons like "We're all adults now, we can all buy whatever we want for ourselves just as easily as we can buy things for each other. We all know what we ourselves have and need, whereas we can't see what the others have or need."
If your mother is going to be disappointed by the thought of her children not exchanging gifts, you can add something about "What's really important is being together."
(If you want to keep exchanging gifts with your mother, your initial script can be "Let's not do gifts among siblings.")
This approach will achieve several things:
- If your siblings dislike the gifts you give them, this will free them from that burden!
- If your siblings like your thoughtful gifts, this will deprive them of that pleasure!
- If your siblings struggle to find an appropriate gift for you, this will free them from that burden!
- If your siblings enjoy watching your discomfort as you open an unsuitable gift, this will deprive them of that pleasure!
Basically, the worse your siblings' intentions, the more this approach punishes them, whereas the better their intentions, the more this approach unburdens them. And all while requiring no effort whatsoever from you!
Saturday, November 09, 2019
Not blogathoning this year
Traditionally, I blogathon on Remembrance Day.
However, this year's goal is to eliminate things that don't serve me well, and blogathoning would not serve me well in the current context.
I do have a quite a few posts half drafted and they will come along in due course, it's just spending an entire day on it that would be unhelpful.
However, this year's goal is to eliminate things that don't serve me well, and blogathoning would not serve me well in the current context.
I do have a quite a few posts half drafted and they will come along in due course, it's just spending an entire day on it that would be unhelpful.
Tuesday, November 05, 2019
Why is there a "gender" field in Elections Canada's voter registration?
You can use Elections Canada's Voter Registration Service to see if you're registered to vote.
You enter your name, date of birth, gender and address, and it tells you if there's an entry on the voters list that matches those criteria.
My question: why is gender one of the criteria?
It's obvious why they ask for your name.
Your address is relevant because it confirms the riding you're eligible to vote in and the poll you should vote at.
Date of birth confirms that you're old enough to vote. It can also help distinguish you from other people at the same address who share the same name (given that it's not uncommon for parents and children to live together and that it's not uncommon for children to be named after their parents). Also, historically (with the existence of the phone book) it's been fairly simple to find out a person's address, but less easy (or, at least, requiring some degree of acquaintanceship) to find out their date of birth. Added to that, date of birth is a data point that doesn't change. You can change your name, you can change your address, you can change the gender marker that appears on your ID and personal records, but your date of birth stays the same.
But gender doesn't add much to proving or confirming someone's identity.
Because so many given names are most commonly associated with one gender, it's not terribly likely that the gender marker would help differentiate you from other people with the same name. It can happen that people with different genders have the exact same name, but it's not nearly as robust a factor as address or date of birth.
And, because so many given names are gendered, it's not a workable factor for authenticating your identity either. A malicious actor (or a bot programmed with data scraped from baby name sites) would probably be able to guess the gender of the majority of people on the voters list.
On top of the fact that using gender as an identity factor adds little to no value, it also creates a situation where any negative impact is felt strictly by the most marginalized demographic.
People who continue to use the gender they were assigned at birth will have no problems whatsoever with choosing the same gender as appears on the voters list, or with having their gender as it appears on the list match the gender that appears on their ID.
But people whose gender marker on their official documentation has changed may find that their previous gender marker is still on the voters list, which would mean the online system says they're not registered to vote when in fact they are. Or it could cause problem at the polling station, when the gender indicated on the list doesn't match the gender indicated on their ID, or the poll worker's perception of the voter's external appearance.
At a minimum, the presence of a "gender" field on the voters list creates the possibility of extra red tape for transgender voters, non-binary voters, and any other voters whose gender marker has changed at some point in their lives. Worst case, it could prevent these populations from being able to vote.
But it would have no possible impact on people whose gender identity and gender marker align with what they were assigned at birth.
Since we still live in a world where non-cis people are all too often marginalized, this means any negative impacts of having a "gender" field land squarely on the marginalized group.
Elections Canada does deserve credit for introducing a "Gender X" option on the voters list. But I do encourage them to look critically at whether they need to be including gender at all. Does it actually add any value? And is that value worth the burden that it places squarely on the marginalized group?
You enter your name, date of birth, gender and address, and it tells you if there's an entry on the voters list that matches those criteria.
My question: why is gender one of the criteria?
It's obvious why they ask for your name.
Your address is relevant because it confirms the riding you're eligible to vote in and the poll you should vote at.
Date of birth confirms that you're old enough to vote. It can also help distinguish you from other people at the same address who share the same name (given that it's not uncommon for parents and children to live together and that it's not uncommon for children to be named after their parents). Also, historically (with the existence of the phone book) it's been fairly simple to find out a person's address, but less easy (or, at least, requiring some degree of acquaintanceship) to find out their date of birth. Added to that, date of birth is a data point that doesn't change. You can change your name, you can change your address, you can change the gender marker that appears on your ID and personal records, but your date of birth stays the same.
But gender doesn't add much to proving or confirming someone's identity.
Because so many given names are most commonly associated with one gender, it's not terribly likely that the gender marker would help differentiate you from other people with the same name. It can happen that people with different genders have the exact same name, but it's not nearly as robust a factor as address or date of birth.
And, because so many given names are gendered, it's not a workable factor for authenticating your identity either. A malicious actor (or a bot programmed with data scraped from baby name sites) would probably be able to guess the gender of the majority of people on the voters list.
On top of the fact that using gender as an identity factor adds little to no value, it also creates a situation where any negative impact is felt strictly by the most marginalized demographic.
People who continue to use the gender they were assigned at birth will have no problems whatsoever with choosing the same gender as appears on the voters list, or with having their gender as it appears on the list match the gender that appears on their ID.
But people whose gender marker on their official documentation has changed may find that their previous gender marker is still on the voters list, which would mean the online system says they're not registered to vote when in fact they are. Or it could cause problem at the polling station, when the gender indicated on the list doesn't match the gender indicated on their ID, or the poll worker's perception of the voter's external appearance.
At a minimum, the presence of a "gender" field on the voters list creates the possibility of extra red tape for transgender voters, non-binary voters, and any other voters whose gender marker has changed at some point in their lives. Worst case, it could prevent these populations from being able to vote.
But it would have no possible impact on people whose gender identity and gender marker align with what they were assigned at birth.
Since we still live in a world where non-cis people are all too often marginalized, this means any negative impacts of having a "gender" field land squarely on the marginalized group.
Elections Canada does deserve credit for introducing a "Gender X" option on the voters list. But I do encourage them to look critically at whether they need to be including gender at all. Does it actually add any value? And is that value worth the burden that it places squarely on the marginalized group?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)