The More Complicated Response: Then Who Are All of Them?

Scene: A comic book shop. Enter Sheldon, Leonard, Penny, Raj, and Howard. Penny says she's uncomfortable. One of the guys responds, "You're the only woman here." Penny looks around at the other patrons of the shop skeptically. Howard (usually), "Well, the only real woman."

Sometimes, it's the only "doable" woman. In this context they mean the same thing.  The above is a paraphrase of the several scenes that bother in The Big Bang Theory.  The heroes may be nerds, but they're better than the other weirdos, who in turn are better than the female extras who aren't women anyway.

A lot of people have written about the problem with the unattainable female being the one to shoot for but here is a concise-ish look at it.  If tl;dr, basically the idea is "You're so beautiful, why won't you have sex with me?"

In my previous post, I talked about the conversation about women happening right now.  The bulk of that online conversation revolves around how men are not entitled to women's bodies.  And if you read the hashtag #YesAllWomen you see a large sample of stories of everyday (or casual) sexism.  But, in the few hours I devoted to reading the feed when it was peaking, I felt there was still more that wasn't being said.

As should be obvious from the above example, there's a split in how these men (#NotAllMen—beat you too it) see women.  There are women who are relentlessly pursued for relationships, regardless of their desires and needs and there are these other creatures who take up space.  They are the "fat" friend, the "butter face," the "fugly," and honestly I'm running out of derogatives because who even says stuff like that? I knew a guy who referred to a woman as a "swamp donkey" but slept with her anyway.  One thing these malformed creatures are not is "women."

Obviously, we are doing a terrible job at fostering healthy relationships in this society culture country world.  But it doesn't help that every Ugly Duckling in the movies becomes a beautiful swan BEFORE she is date-able.  Not only is ugly not-hot girl not a viable girlfriend, but since that's all women are good for, she is worthless.  Being worthless, however, does not preclude her from sexual harassment.  You see, since she is worthless, she should be that much more grateful for the male attention and that much more willing to receive it.

Let me let you in on a secret. 99% of humans (approximately) are what you would call normal-looking.  Not drop dead gorgeous, not hideously malformed.  100% of humans (more or less) want to have relationship bonds with other humans.

Clearly, unrealistic beauty standards are an issue, as is respect for women, all of them.  And women need realistic role models in media.  And media also gets "normal" guys wrong.

But a guy went on a killing spree, targeting a sorority, because he'd never had sex.  And I can't help but think of all the girls who would have given him a chance, if he'd tried.  Who have also never been in a relationship.  Who are made to feel worthless.  Who are actually normal. Who are just as awkward when it comes to relationships as any guy can be.  The introverts.  The modest dressers.  The makeup free.  Who are every bit as unhappy as the lonely guys.

I feel I can speak with authority on this because I was 25 before my first kiss.  I've never dated much.  I only put effort into my appearance when the situation requires it.  One of the reasons I stopped acting is that I would never be able to go into an audition and not feel deceptive for wearing pants (which hide my scars from 2nd and 3rd degree burns received when I was five).  No matter how faded, my identity includes my scars, and actors are judged on their appearance.  (I also really hate auditioning, and am much better suited to backstage work; no bitterness there.)  So I can't buy into the nonsense that my self-worth should be wrapped up in romantic attachment, because if I did, I'd be in a very dark place.  Here's another post where I go into detail about geek-guys and -girls coming from the same place, emotionally.  The difference here is that lonely, geeky guys get syndicated TV shows, and  geeky, non-glamourous girls get Mayim Bialik (who is wonderful and intelligent, but one of a kind on TV).

Yes, The Big Bang Theory added Mayim, but the single best thing they did to retain my viewership was the episode where Howard has to decide to commit to a relationship with Bernadette.  He imagines Katee Sackhoff, Starbuck from BSG, as his perfect, fantasy woman.  Ultimately, he has to accept that his fantasy is standing in the way of him having a real relationship.  That's an important message.

Simple Response to What Happened on Twitter and Why It Was Important

In case you missed it, here is the order of events in the wake of the Santa Barbara shooting:

-Shooter (also, knifer and car-rammer) identified his actions aligned with various misogynist groups.
-People got kinda upset about that.
-Other people Guys responded by saying "Not all men."

-One Twitter user rephrased the conversation: Not all men perpetrate sexual harassment, but Yes, All   Women are harassed. 

-#YesAllWomen trended on Twitter for an entire day is still trending, becoming a platform for women to speak out about their encounters with sexual harassment and sexual violence.
-People Guys complained the conversation took attention away from the tragedy. Also, that men had also been killed.
-Other people Presumably men, again, came up with #YesAllPeople to be inclusionary.
-Guys Men started tweeting support for women.  And People started reading and discussing the Twitter feed with their sons.

-Media started covering the hullaballoo, in which they basically take #YesAllWomen and Made it #YesAllFeminists.

Let's talk a minute. 

Firstly, #YesAllWomen was a response to the male backlash to talking about misogyny being a significant factor in this horrible event.  It is a blatant fallacy that the women using #YesAllWomen, particularly those who are victims of sexual assault, were trying to make this tragedy about them. They were continuing the conversation that started with #NotAllMen. (Dear Men, we already knew that, and we assume you mean Bill Cosby, Tim Allen, James Avery, Bob Saget, and  Reginald VelJohnson.) Also, if #YesAllWomen brings the attention needed to pervasive sexual violence, who are you to shout it down?

Secondly, while I am big on inclusion (although not big on labels, if you're human, you're in), I think #YesAllPeople does more harm than good, in this case.  #YesAllWomen is not downplaying the violence towards non-women.  It is an attempt to show people men who don't understand, what it's like to live in a world where you are told to be independent, provided you do so in well-lit, well trafficked areas after taking self-defense courses. #YesAllPeople, on the other hand, taken in the best light, is about getting along and setting aside our differences.  Which #YesAllWomen would be all about, if unprocessed rape kits weren't a common thing. I'm not saying get your own hashtag, but if you want to stand in solidarity with someone, at least for this week, make that someone a woman. 

Thirdly, a non-zero number of media outlets have referred to those involved with #YesAllWomen as feminists. While likely true in a dictionary-definition sort of way, feminist is a loaded term.  It carries historical and political implications.  It is used by men to dismiss the things it labels. "AllWomen" means what it says.  This is beyond politics, race, or creed. To say feminist in this context dehumanizes those involved. This isn't equal pay, or even beauty standards.  This is basic right to life.  (If you disagree with that, why do you think pepper spray was invented?)

I'm not going to address the stupider arguments, due to my policy of ignoring anything that exceeds a stupidity level of 7. 

What would be an ideal response to what happened?  

 Men's Rights groups are already getting bad press, so refocusing on stuff like male rape victims (and other legitimate victims) would be nice to see. 

How about we fix how we prosecute rapists?

While we're at it, let's destigmatize sexual assault.

I vote we stop using the word feminism altogether or limit its definition to men who are feminists only.

How about equal pay and not objectifying women, though?

Other groups/minorities, please speak out against the casual discrimination you face. 

And let's redefine masculine and raise our sons to respect all people. 

What can you do, now?  Continue the conversation.  Help those in distress. Treat everyone with respect.  Look at life from someone else's perspective. 

A Beginners Guide to Wine

If you choose to drink, I urge you to be classy.  There is a selection of classy drinks, but perhaps the most stereotypically classy drink is wine.  Sadly, many still see wine as inaccessible, coming with a how-to manual in the form of sommeliers and wine snobs.  But enjoying wine actually requires very little instruction.

1. Drink what you like, however you like it. My dad likes red wine chilled, which is not what you're supposed to do, but who cares? Carpe Vino.

2. If wine gives you headaches, drink less. If that doesn't work, switch to white wine, which doesn't contain the same compounds as reds.  Low-sulfite wine is the most headache friendly.

3. For many people, Moscato is the gateway wine. It's very sweet, cheap, and has less of a quality variation across brands.  Knowing nothing else about you, I'd start here.

4. Wine selection can be tricky if you don't have a lot of experience with wine, and there is a lot of advice out there.  I believe that the best way to know what you like is to try a variety.  The most cost effective way to accomplish that is to go to a winery, wine bar, or restaurant that offers a flight (selection) of tastes. You should know what you don't like before you buy a bottle.

5. Boxes and jugs may be good for crowded events, but should not be considered representative of all wine.

6. Price and quality have a complicated relationship, but trying a truly good bottle will permanently affect your opinion of wine…

7. …by making cheaper (bad) wine unpalatable. One way to compensate for increased quality (and price) is by drinking less.  The other is by asking for wine for Christmas.

8. Enjoying wine, like enjoying good food, is about savoring the whole experience, especially good company.

These tips boil down to 2 principles: find out what you enjoy and drink it.

Let's Get Real

This is a post where I tell you why it's not my fault and the issue is more complex than is being presented. But, really.

More and more, people are speaking up in defense of families. Not in the traditional vs. equality way, but in the "first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes a baby" kind of way. Delayed adolescence and dropping birth rates are becoming things to be feared, apparently. (How are fewer pregnancies something to be feared in our overpopulated world?)

Everyone wants to discuss why young professionals are hooking up and partying into their thirties rather than settling down like their parents did.

Except.

Except people still generally get married around the same age their parents did (although, nowadays those marriages have a higher fail rate).

Except my generation didn't invent the hook up culture. I invite you to remember the sixties, since you were there and I wasn't.

Except college graduates with overwhelming student loans and rent to pay aren't partying as much as you think they are, because they can't afford it.  Also, the older they get, the less their bodies can tolerate the excesses of their college days.

But that's not what really bothers me about the crusade for me to find a mate before I turn thirty.  What really bothers me is how implicitly and, often, explicitly sexist it is.  Because it seems that the real complaint is that women want to work rather than have a husband and kids.

ARE YOU INSANE? No one WANTS to work, that's why it's called WORK. Women enjoy the freedom to make their own choices.  One popular choice is to wait for the whole family thing until you have a mate you can love and trust. No one talks about the qualities of mates when bemoaning the state of marriage. By following the apparent advice of those worried about my singleness, I would have been married several times over, because it's just the marriage that matters, not the person you're married to, right?

But the online dating scene tells a different story.  Yes, there are a lot of people hooking up. Newsflash, premarital sex has been around as long as marriage, for good or ill.  But there are a lot of people online trying to find a mate. What makes it hard is this culture we live in. This culture we inherited. Our values are the ones we were raised to have, either by our parents or by our society in general.  So, feel free to accept your share of the blame.

It's not like I don't want to get married. I grew up watching Disney, I'm fairly indoctrinated in the happily-ever-after tradition.  I'd have been cool with begin married by now.  But I've always been missing one thing: a groom.  Is it because women are seen as more family oriented and men as more career oriented that we don't see more articles about single men settling down?  I guess it's up to the women to tame the men and lead them to the altar. Except marrying someone who doesn't really want to get married is a TERRIBLE idea.

Another thing that kills me is the FACT that being negative towards singleness is both generally and specifically unchristian.  Obviously, it's just not nice.  And plenty of Bible character were single.  But both Jesus and Paul explicitly say that staying single, while tough, is not only a valid choice, but a good and holy one. So who are you exactly to find fault with my marital status?

Should we promote healthy relationships, the dangers of excess, financial management, and all the other things we associate with stable married life and not with the partying lifestyle?  Sure. Absolutely.  I am for those things. I also think promoting positive values will bring about more change than telling me to get married.

When am I going to get married? When somebody asks me and I decide to say yes.  Until then, I am going to work to eat. Probably after the fact, too.  Let's get real.

Cooking: How to Start

There is more advice than ever out there for the home cook that it can be overwhelming for anyone just looking to transition from frozen dinners to something they could serve a friend without shame. If you are NOT a cook, I am going to break down, step by step, what you will need to start.

First, you need a recipe. Not food. Not equipment. If you have an empty fridge and kitchen, start with a recipe. Actually, find 7 recipes, so you can have dinner for a week.  When selecting a recipe, look at the ingredients list. Will you eat everything on that list? No? Then find a different recipe. Especially if you are only starting to learn to cook, you need to cook what you like and with ingredients that you know how they should taste.  That way you're more likely to know if something is wrong. Only buy ingredients you have plans for. ONLY BUY INGREDIENTS YOU HAVE PLANS FOR. This goes for everyone. Indiscriminate buying leads to food waste and is a waste of money.

But before you go shopping, finish reading the recipes. Do you know how to do every step? Google unfamiliar terms and watch videos of specific techniques on YouTube. Until you get comfortable with your skill level, look for recipes with 6 or fewer steps.

Next, buy the equipment. Hopefully, the recipes you picked out make use of standard cookware. If a recipe calls for something specific, like crepe pan, maybe rethink that choice. Using recipes to guide your purchases may keep you from buying items that, while still "standard," you may never use. Like cooling rack, or steamer. Buy equipment the way you buy food: have a plan for how to use it first.

Hint: Some things you will need, like measuring cups and mixing bowls, will only be implied by the recipe.  So think through how you will do each step.

Once you have recipes and equipment, buy food. Make your dishes. Follow the recipe exactly the first time, then tweak for your personal taste. Find more recipes to use left over ingredients you may have.

Repeat.

The Ocean at the End of the Lane -Review

If you have heard of The Ocean at the End of the Lane at all, you have probably reached the conclusion that every reviewer has reverted to Romanticism by way of describing the book's emotional pull rather than what the book is actually about. Nostalgia, myth, melancholy, memory, terror, childhood: all vague terms that don't really tell you what this book is, only that everyone has instantly declared it art.

Usually I want to know what a book is about before I read it.

I was also concerned that Neil Gaiman had finally crossed out of genre fiction into popular fiction; in other words, the book would feel magical without actually having magic.

It turns out I needn't have worried.

But having read the book, now I understand what the reviewers were up against. Ocean defies summary.

On the one hand, it's too short to give much plot summary without spoiling the entire book. On the other, the plot can't be boiled down to a single sentence.

The narrative is reminiscent of both Bridge to Terabithia by to Katherine Paterson and Dandelion Wine by Ray Bradbury.  But what it's really like is a Studio Ghibli film.  The plot is no more complex than a longish Grimm's fairy tale.  Truly, for most of the book it is the tone that elevates the story, bringing the magic of both the extraordinary and the mundane to life.

Until you realize what the book's about.

The Ocean at the End of the Lane is the story of a boy as remembered by a man, told by an author (Gaiman) to his wife in an attempt to explain where his art comes from and what drives him to create.

The setting and a few characters are autobiographical.  As is the emotional story. Myths are not labelled thus because they are untrue, but rather they are attempts at describing truths that exist beyond mere facts. And by that definition, The Ocean at the End of the Lane is far from fiction.

To the Gate-Keepers of the Kingdom of Fan

I've been increasingly puzzled by continuing news stories and articles about sexism in fandoms.  I know it's there. I know it's dumb. But we hear a lot more about it on the internet (for obvious reasons) than sexism elsewhere. Actually, we don't hear a lot of people speaking out against sexism elsewhere, so go internet, points for that.

What I've noticed, though, is the tone of the responses to sexism in the nerd world. They fall into two camps: women writing to empower women and men writing to take men to task. And neither of those stances is wrong. But I'd like to take a moment to look at the issue from a different angle and speak to the guys directly and from a place of common ground. Not we-like-the-same-stuff common ground, but  we-have-been-dealt-the-same-hand.

You see, I know how you feel. You grew up in a world where athleticism and looks trumped grades and creativity. Where being yourself meant getting bullied. Where you couldn't find others who shared your interests and your interests weren't supported in the society you were in (high school).

So, it was really great to find an outlet, a community, a guild, a con, a game shop where you could interact with people who get you. You promote the stuff that makes you happy and the makers that provide that content.  Good for you.

BUT. I am you. I walk into a con and get bombarded by female figures I can't identify with. I get excluded by the cool guys. They bully me. They resent my existence and do everything they can to make their community closed to me. But this time we share interests, experiences, social preferences, etc.  What we don't share is gender.

I understand the idea of fake geek girl and at one point, perhaps, the concept had validity. When cons had to hire booth babes for any kind of female presence, for instance.  But the fact is, geekdom is not a small community any longer. It's not weird anymore. One of the most popular show on television has dragons in it. So it's time to give up the gate-keeping because the floodgates have opened and geek is mainstream. It's not just girls you have to worry about; it's everyone. The jocks are here now. The preppy girls. Everyone you hate is here, and all they really want is to fund that thing you love and not get anonymous internet threats in the process. Did you like Avengers? It never would have been made without mass appeal.

Yes, more money isn't the only thing that changes when you go mainstream. There are a few things that  are going to change. Most reasonable people understand why (overt) racism is bad in media. Well, sexism is bad too.  Our fictional heroes should behave by an ethical code that includes respect for all human life. So should our internet posters, con attenders, comic book buyers.

So, all we females really want is no threats and fully clothed role models. Is that really too much to ask?

Besides, do you really want to go back to only seeing guys at cons?