sad
that I have to delurk from MY OWN JOURNAL (sheesh) to make sure my LJ isn't deleted. I actually DO have membership in a few communities so losing my LJ would be BAAAAAD.
So here's my annual post.
So here's my annual post.
mcshep with cast (for broken bones) and writing
What's the one where John(?) has a cast, he's trying to get Rodney to sign it, and R keeps writing ON John? R is asking J how he feels and sharing how R feels about what happened to J. They are already together when the story starts.
Thanks muchly.
Thanks muchly.
SGA: Conversion
Bush, Ms., and mankind
Yesterday was a hellish workday, at least half of which was due to my boss's anxiety levels. She called me last night to check on how I was doing (don't I have a wonderful boss??!!!!). While we were talking, she was channel-surfing and came across an announcement that Arnold was going to run for governor of CA. I asked why the current one was being recalled and K said she thought it was because Californians didn't like the way he was "running things." I said in that case, can we recall Bush since I didn't appreciate the fact that he got us into war with Iraq?
And speaking of war with Iraq, I came across this quote by Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall, given at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, printed in the current issue of Ms.: "Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." Sound familiar?
Some more quotes from Ms: ( Read more...Collapse )
And I suppose, since I was reading Ms., I decided to go ahead with a planned rant. I had almost talked myself out of it (don't have time, no one will care, blah, blah) but then I became energized. This rant is on the use of words like "mankind" or "manning" that are SUPPOSEDLY all-inclusive. I find that very notion offensive. Let me give some examples to demonstrate:
"All mankind will benefit from this new cure for lung cancer." Women would (should?) be jumping up and down yelling: We're at least 50 percent of the population; how do you get "women" out of "mankind." ARE women included in this cure?
"All womenkind will benefit from this new cure for lung cancer." Men WOULD be jumping up and down and yelling: We may not make up half of the world's population, but we DO count. After all, we're guys. And I would say, well at least you can get "men" out of "womenkind."
"All humankind will benefit from this new cure for lung cancer." No questions here. EVERYone will benefit.
"The desk is being manned by John and Jane." Jane would be waving her hand, saying "Yo, what about me? I'm working at the desk, too." I'd be saying, "Yo, what about Jane. She's working the desk, too."
"The desk is being womanned by John and Jane." Not only would people think the speaker of this sentence was insane and non-inclusive, John would be waving his arms, yelling that HE was working at the desk, too, thank you very much.
"The desk is being staffed by John and Jane." No questions, no hurt feelings, no leaving anyone out.
At it's heart, "mankind" and "manning" and many other examples are sexist. They are NOT inclusive, just as "womankind" and "womanning" are not inclusive. I NEVER feel included when someone says "mankind" or "manning." Just as men wouldn't feel included when confronted with the use of "womankind" and "womanned." We have the words, we just need to use them.
It's not easy to think about everything we say, but before sexism can be erased, attitudes have to change. And these attitudes come out in what we say.
This doesn't come across nearly as eloquent as it was when I had planned it out in the shower this morning. Does anyone know of any water-resistant marker that I can use to make notes on my shower wall, but that I can get rid of easily?
And speaking of war with Iraq, I came across this quote by Hermann Goering, Hitler's Reich-Marshall, given at the Nuremberg Trials after WWII, printed in the current issue of Ms.: "Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country." Sound familiar?
Some more quotes from Ms: ( Read more...Collapse )
And I suppose, since I was reading Ms., I decided to go ahead with a planned rant. I had almost talked myself out of it (don't have time, no one will care, blah, blah) but then I became energized. This rant is on the use of words like "mankind" or "manning" that are SUPPOSEDLY all-inclusive. I find that very notion offensive. Let me give some examples to demonstrate:
"All mankind will benefit from this new cure for lung cancer." Women would (should?) be jumping up and down yelling: We're at least 50 percent of the population; how do you get "women" out of "mankind." ARE women included in this cure?
"All womenkind will benefit from this new cure for lung cancer." Men WOULD be jumping up and down and yelling: We may not make up half of the world's population, but we DO count. After all, we're guys. And I would say, well at least you can get "men" out of "womenkind."
"All humankind will benefit from this new cure for lung cancer." No questions here. EVERYone will benefit.
"The desk is being manned by John and Jane." Jane would be waving her hand, saying "Yo, what about me? I'm working at the desk, too." I'd be saying, "Yo, what about Jane. She's working the desk, too."
"The desk is being womanned by John and Jane." Not only would people think the speaker of this sentence was insane and non-inclusive, John would be waving his arms, yelling that HE was working at the desk, too, thank you very much.
"The desk is being staffed by John and Jane." No questions, no hurt feelings, no leaving anyone out.
At it's heart, "mankind" and "manning" and many other examples are sexist. They are NOT inclusive, just as "womankind" and "womanning" are not inclusive. I NEVER feel included when someone says "mankind" or "manning." Just as men wouldn't feel included when confronted with the use of "womankind" and "womanned." We have the words, we just need to use them.
It's not easy to think about everything we say, but before sexism can be erased, attitudes have to change. And these attitudes come out in what we say.
This doesn't come across nearly as eloquent as it was when I had planned it out in the shower this morning. Does anyone know of any water-resistant marker that I can use to make notes on my shower wall, but that I can get rid of easily?
death; or, deep thoughts in the shower
I stayed up until 2 am reading Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (OotP), so I'm kinda tired (shoulda just stayed up instead of trying to sleep, but then I wouldn't have had my dream; and my thinks I might have been "mad woman" instead of a sad woman.
Spoiler for OotP: ( Read more...Collapse )
Spoiler for OotP: ( Read more...Collapse )
American Justice
I was posting this really long entry about what I had seen on American Justice last night and decided to erase it, because really, what was the point? Who cares what I saw?
What I find interesting is that AJ presented one side of this case, and two of my crime books presented another side (AJ claims that the guy is innocent; the books say he's guilty). Some of the information overlapped, but some didn't. Where did these people (the writers of the show and JRN who wrote one of my books I consulted) gather their information, and why wasn't it the same? Who's right? And if AJ IS right (and the guy is innocent), that means that someone, in 1946, committed 3 really gruesome crimes and got away with it. That, my friends, is creepy.
What I find interesting is that AJ presented one side of this case, and two of my crime books presented another side (AJ claims that the guy is innocent; the books say he's guilty). Some of the information overlapped, but some didn't. Where did these people (the writers of the show and JRN who wrote one of my books I consulted) gather their information, and why wasn't it the same? Who's right? And if AJ IS right (and the guy is innocent), that means that someone, in 1946, committed 3 really gruesome crimes and got away with it. That, my friends, is creepy.
lj virgin
Lanchid has given me a user code, so I'll see what I end up doing with it. For now, I think I'd better go back to work; maybe I'll post a REAL entry later.